House of Commons
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
The House will know that tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The Speaker’s Chaplain will deliver a special prayer before the start of business in the Chamber tomorrow. Members will also have an opportunity to mark this anniversary during tomorrow’s Adjournment debate. I know that colleagues across the House will join me in remembering the victims of the horrific 9/11 attacks, the families of all those who died, and the men and women involved in rescuing people.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)
I am grateful to the commission for its thorough work, which we are considering carefully. We know that more can be done on transparency around lobbying and will present our response to Parliament in due course. There is a great deal of interest in this—understandably so—and we are determined to get it right.
Joe Powell
I strongly welcome the Government’s efforts to rewire the state and create more accountability for decisions made by the Government. As part of that effort, cleaning up our politics is so important, as we have seen from the summer of scandals on the funding of the Reform party. The Ethics and Integrity Commission has laid out how lobbying can be reformed to make it more open, rational and accountable. Can the Minister outline what immediate steps might be taken, and can he assure us that he will keep an open mind to the commission’s central recommendation, which is legislation for a unified digital open lobbying register?
Mark Ferguson
We certainly recognise that the current system of transparency around lobbying does not have widespread support; it is not good enough. That is why the Ethics and Integrity Commission was asked to report on this matter. We are considering the case for legislative reform very carefully and will respond to the EIC’s report as soon as we can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
When it comes to lobbying, Northern Ireland has a peculiar circumstance where one party can be involved in politics in Northern Ireland and at the same time be involved in politics in the Republic of Ireland. When it comes to the accountability that the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) is calling for, can the Minister assure us in this House and in Northern Ireland that the rules that apply here will apply equally in Northern Ireland, including to those political parties that traverse the border between the north and the south?
Mark Ferguson
It would not be a first outing at the Dispatch Box without a contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), so I welcome his question. We will, of course, consider that in the response to the EIC.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Ethics and Integrity Commission’s report rightly argues that our transparency rules are stuck in the past. Influence is being exerted in ways that just did not exist a few years ago. There are Members of this House earning more than their salary as an MP for posts on X—a platform that actively incentivises divisive content. Indeed, the Register of Members’ Financial Interests shows that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has declared earnings of over £108,000 since his election to this place. Does the Minister agree that our current laws on what constitutes lobbying are too narrow, and that when an MP is financially rewarded by an algorithm for their political output, it crosses the line into financial influence? Will he update lobbying and ethics rules to tackle that loophole?
Mark Ferguson
We will, of course, consider that as part of the response to the EIC. I take very seriously, as I am sure Members across the House do, the issues of outside earnings by Members, and particularly potential undue influence. With regard to X, I share the hon. Lady’s concerns; personally, I do not use it.
Mr Speaker
I presume the hon. Lady let the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) know that she was going to mention him.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
This Government are strengthening our national resilience so that we are better prepared for threats like extreme weather, cyber-attacks or another pandemic. We are implementing the resilience action plan; we have published a new pandemic preparedness strategy; we are updating what we call the “war books”, with a home defence exercise planned next year; and we will run a public awareness campaign later this year on how households can prepare for emergencies like severe weather.
Martin Rhodes
In order for us to have national resilience, we must have a network of local services that have local knowledge, local experience and are based in local communities. That should include well-funded local fire and rescue services that can keep response times low and communities safe. Does the Minister agree with me and the Scottish Fire Brigades Union that the Scottish Government should reverse their cuts to fire and rescue services and stop the planned closure of Yorkhill fire station in my constituency, to avoid undermining the resilience of local communities and our preparedness for emerging risks?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those important points. I understand the concern that the closure of any fire and rescue station brings to people. We have seen in recent weeks, with widespread wildfires, just how crucial fire and rescue services have been to saving lives and keeping the public safe. Decisions on fire services in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Government, but we have given them a record level of funding, with the biggest block grant in the history of devolution.
Chris Vince
I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), to his rightful place on the Front Bench. As Ministers may be aware, in late July there was a severe wildfire off Second Avenue in Harlow; I thank the fire services and fire officers who attended and dealt with the issue so well. What is the Minister doing to increase awareness of fires starting, particularly in the dry weather, which is likely to continue next year as well?
Dan Jarvis
Let me take the opportunity to pay tribute to the tireless efforts of fire and rescue services across the country, including in my hon. Friend’s Harlow constituency over the summer. As the House will know, the Government issued an emergency alert to advise people of the steps they should take to avoid inadvertently contributing to already widespread fires. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is exploring ways to expand its “Fire Kills” campaign to deliver targeted messages and resources to the public.
Graeme Downie
As the Minister says, the UK is facing a growing range of threats for which people and businesses are not fully prepared, including climate change, cyber-attacks by hostile states and organised misinformation. Recent incidents in Germany, including attacks on energy infrastructure and the attempted airport bombing in Leipzig, which has been linked to the Russian state, highlight the seriousness of these risks. Given the breadth of these challenges, a whole-of-Government approach is required to inform and prepare the public. What steps is the Minister taking to co-ordinate that work and provide clear public guidance? Has he engaged with countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Estonia and Taiwan on how they have built their public resilience through increased and honest information?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is entirely right. I recently visited Estonia to sign a landmark defence road map, designed to deepen military co-operation and modernise allied forces. Likewise, we regularly engage with our partners to learn about not only what they have done, but crucially what has actually worked to build public resilience. We are using that insight to develop a campaign tailored to the needs and strengths of the United Kingdom, bringing us closer in line with our international partners, most of whom do this regularly.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Over the summer, I met two fire resilience experts in my constituency, who have experience of fires in California. They told me that simple measures taken locally can have a significant impact, including things like clearing vegetation around a house and making sure that there are no log piles next to a home. That can all be done through parish councils and local resilience planning, so what steps will the Minister take to support parish councils as they develop local resilience?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the point in the way that he does. The resilience action plan details how we will better integrate the voluntary, community and faith sectors into planning, and I would include parish councils within that. It will also enable us to test new structures for leadership, and provide accountability and assurance through the stronger local resilience forum trailblazers programme. I acknowledge and agree with the point that he made, and I am happy to discuss it with him further.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
Resilience is obviously the crucial question for the country, and the Government are right to be focusing on the need to strengthen the centre of Government to achieve that. My concern is about the legislation that has been trailed. According to a leak—presumably from a briefing from the Cabinet Office—reported in The Times this week, the Cabinet Secretary is proposing to take new powers to direct permanent secretaries of Government Departments. Will the Minister confirm whether legislation is planned to change the statutory basis of the civil service? Most importantly, does he think that the Cabinet Secretary should or should not have the power to direct permanent secretaries?
Dan Jarvis
I gently advise the hon. Member, as I am sure he is aware, not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. However, I hope that he and the House would approve of the fact that this Government, with a new Prime Minister and new First Secretary of State, will want to look very carefully at the structures of the civil service and ensure that they are delivering for the priorities of this Government.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
After a winter of torrential rain and a summer without any rain, residents in Mid Sussex are incredibly concerned about the impact of drought and flooding, and among those residents are our farmers. Yesterday was Back British Farming Day and I spoke to Caroline, a West Sussex farmer, who is really concerned about their capacity to grow the food that we all need to eat. Will the Government make better use of water storage capacity available on British farms, including by removing planning and funding barriers to on-farm reservoirs as part of their approach to building national resilience?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady is right to raise those important points. Food security is national security, and this Government will always back our farmers. This Government, and Government Departments, stand ready to respond to natural hazard risks such as drought, flooding, severe storms and extreme temperatures. The Cobra directorate in the Cabinet Office works in partnership with departmental policy teams and public entities to ensure that our response is proportionate to the nature of the climate threat that we face.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)
This Government are committed to deepening our ties with the European Union. It is right at the centre of everything that we are trying to do on the cost of living and energy, as well as the security of our continent. I will continue to lead discussions with my counterpart, Commissioner Šefčovič, who I met most recently on Monday, on how we can continue to strengthen the UK-EU partnership.
Caroline Voaden
British farmers and fishers, and my shellfish exporters, continue to face unnecessary trade barriers with our largest export market. A 2024 report from the Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy found that exports of British food to the EU had dropped by nearly £3 billion since Brexit. Our farmers and fishers desperately need a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement—and fast—to reduce costs and bureaucracy, and to allow them to export their produce to the EU, yet the second UK-EU summit was postponed following the resignation of the former Prime Minister, and we have had no update on when it will take place. I hear the Minister say that he met Mr Šefčovič, so can he commit to the summit taking place this year? Can he give our British farmers and fishers a date for when that will happen?
Mr Falconer
I am determined to get the SPS agreement done—it is the subject of intense discussions. I cannot provide the House with a date just yet, as that will need to be agreed between the UK and the EU, but I hope to be able to provide a further update soon.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
An extraordinary debate is going on right now inside and outside AI companies about whether the possibility of AI destroying humanity is more or less than 10%. The European Union is moving ahead with a comprehensive AI regulatory framework, but the UK continues to rely on existing regulation. What discussions is the Minister having with the European Union about aligning AI regulation, especially given that Anthropic has refused to submit its model to the AI Security Institute? How is he ensuring that we can keep European and UK citizens safe?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the shared challenges that we face with the European Union, including the very rapid developments in artificial intelligence. I am proud to sit next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), the first AI Minister to attend Cabinet—here, and indeed anywhere—and I know that he will be answering some questions during this session. This is clearly a matter of real interest and concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) says, and we are working at pace to address it.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to his post. I very much look forward to him updating the House on his negotiating mandate and his conversations with the European trade commissioner. Earlier this summer, the Prime Minister said that it would be wrong to rerun divisive arguments about rejoining the EU, but, soon after, the Minister refused to rule out rejoin being an option in the next Labour manifesto. Will he tell the House: will Labour rule out rejoin featuring in its next manifesto? [Interruption.]
Mr Falconer
I can hear that there is outrage behind me. I have many responsibilities, but writing the next Labour party manifesto is not one of them. We are committed to the red lines. We were all elected on that manifesto. We want to go further and faster—we have inherited a poor deal with the European Union, and it is my job to improve it.
Alex Burghart
It is perfectly reasonable to rule things out. The Minister has had plenty of time to talk to No. 10 since his interview on Sky. I am sure the Labour party would rule out many things at this stage—I am sure it would rule out leaving the European convention on human rights, getting rid of net-zero targets and bringing back the death penalty—so why is it so hard for the Minister and the Government to rule out rejoining the EU?
Mr Falconer
I want to be really clear with the House, as the Prime Minister has been repeatedly: despite the anxious desire of Opposition Members, we are not rerunning the arguments of 2016 once again. My constituents, and the constituents of Members right across the House, are concerned with the day-to-day impacts of the deal we have inherited; it is my job to improve it, and that is what I am focused on. Our manifesto red lines remain in place, and I will of course update the House on the proceeds of the negotiation. We have been clear in the King’s Speech that, should that negotiation result in the need for legislation in this House, it will of course face scrutiny here.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Louise Haigh)
The Office for the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and No. 10 North, are working closely with regional leaders, the Treasury, and Departments across Government to align national policy with the long-term economic priorities of different places and to remove barriers to growth. This includes fiscally devolving a share of income tax and business rates to mayors, giving local leaders greater power to attract private investment, create good jobs and deliver growth in every postcode.
Sarah Hall
Britain’s future growth depends on having the infrastructure, energy, skills and industrial capacity to support it, but too often, investment is held back because the problems—whether grid capacity, water, transport or skills—sit across different Departments. How will the Department make sure this Government deal with those problems together, so that we can reindustrialise Britain and bring growth to every postcode?
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue. For too long, in order to unlock growth for their areas, local leaders have had to navigate Whitehall Departments that have played them off against each other. No. 10 North brings those local leaders’ priorities into the heart of Government, gets the right people around the table and drives joined-up action, ensuring that the centre works as one to unlock good growth in every part of the United Kingdom.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Our long-term economic success is only going to be strengthened by our cyber-security. As Ministers are aware, right next to GCHQ in Cheltenham is the Golden Valley development, which is going to support our cyber-security capacity. It is a vital development for the nation, as well as for my local area. Will the Government go a little bit further on the matter of the designated area, so that proceeds from that development can be held locally, which I think is in line with the new agenda being set by the Cabinet Office? Will they also restart the discussions with the local authorities and the developer around the places for growth scheme, as they seem to have stalled?
Louise Haigh
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. That is exactly the kind of project that No. 10 North will gladly look at, to consider whether it should be a designated zone for further retention powers. I will ask No. 10 North to write to the hon. Gentleman and consider the proposal.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)
The Government have reviewed all 306 active arm’s length bodies, and we have commitments to reform over a third of them, but we will go further. Devolution by default means that we will transfer functions of arm’s length bodies to local leaders or return them to Departments, because all critical decisions should be taken by Ministers who are directly accountable to Parliament and the public.
Mr Bedford
There are actually over 400 quangos in existence, which spend over £390 billion a year—that is £1 in every £3 spent by the Government. Last year, Ministers promised a full review of those quangos; as an accountant, we would call that zero-based budgeting. Will the Minister tell the House how many of those bodies have been scrapped and how much has been saved?
Mark Ferguson
I am afraid that the hon. Member appears to have not fully heard my initial response, which I believe addresses a lot of the issues he has raised. His question was about arm’s length bodies, so of course I answered on arm’s length bodies—there are 306 of them, and we are reviewing over a third. I would have hoped that he would welcome that, because devolution by default means restoring powers to where they should be, with democratic accountability.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Sally Jameson)
Current service levels are completely unacceptable, and we are holding Capita accountable by withholding payments in the short term and assessing the long-term viability of bringing the scheme in-house. We will continue to use the most stringent commercial levers we have under this contract—which was signed by the last Government—to ensure we have full accountability.
Darren Paffey
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place, and thank her for her answer. In Southampton Itchen, I have constituents who have been deprived of their pension for many months. One waited over a year even for an accurate quotation, another is yet to receive a penny after 40 years of service, and one with stage 4 cancer took three months to get any money—and even then, only after I had nagged a Minister to intervene. When I was a Southampton city councillor, we ended Capita’s contract and took those services back in-house. Is it not time for the Government to consider doing the same?
Sally Jameson
I thank my hon. Friend for raising his constituents’ cases. I have had many similar cases in Doncaster. I assure him and his constituents that I am using all the levers at my disposal to ensure that Capita delivers a better performance at the earliest possible time. We have set out our intention to advance the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation, and we are now actively shaping a long-term strategy to look at what it would look like if we brought the pension scheme back in-house. He will be aware of our manifesto commitment to have the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation, and I am committed to fulfilling that.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) in warmly welcoming the Minister to her new position. In surgery after surgery, I too have examples of Capita failing to do its job. The latest example was in a surgery just the other week, where I met my constituent Craig, who has received no pension payment or calculation since July. Will the Minister please look into Craig’s case and do everything she can to give Capita the boot?
Sally Jameson
Capita’s performance has been totally abysmal, and I too have raised it a number of times in this House. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will be holding Capita to account, including withholding nearly £10 million of contractual payments, because we will not pay for services that have not been delivered. If my hon. Friend writes to me, I will ensure that his case is investigated, and I will get back to him at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Despite dedicating their lives to public service through long careers in the civil service, many of my constituents have faced severe delays with their pension payments, causing them anxiety and financial hardship. How will the Minister ensure that her Department gives my constituents the support they need, that this crisis is resolved and, just as importantly, that it does not happen again?
Sally Jameson
An independent, Capita-funded remedial adviser has been appointed to identify service delivery issues and to allow us to continue to hold Capita fully accountable. Around 147 surge staff have been deployed in this crisis. The Government remain committed to maintaining resource levels. No team members will be withdrawn from that surge team until service levels are permanently fixed. As I have said in my previous answers, we are using all commercial levers at our disposal, including withholding those payments, so that Capita is held accountable. We are looking closely at options for bringing the pension scheme in-house.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Numerous constituents of mine have had the same problems with the civil service pension scheme run by Capita. One example is Ruth, whose husband worked for the Ministry of Defence and died in service nearly a year ago. She has been waiting 11 months for a death-in-service payment and pension. Capita promised to have this resolved, with all bereavement cases done by the end of August. It broke that promise. This week, she is still waiting. This is utterly unacceptable. I welcome the Minister saying that there will be penalties for Capita, but does she not recognise that this is such a clear example that outsourcing does not work? Will she ensure that Capita is not given contracts like this ever again?
Sally Jameson
I thank the hon. Member for raising her constituent’s experience, which I am sorry to hear about. I have many similar examples in my constituency, as I know have Members across the House. I hope to provide a more substantive update in October. As I have said previously, Capita’s performance is totally unacceptable. I will not defend it, and I will continue to hold Capita to account every single day that I am in office, until the service levels are brought back up to an acceptable standard and all our constituents have received the pensions that they should already have had—in the hon. Member’s constituency case, 11 months ago—and I will continue to do that. We are looking at bringing the pension scheme in-house, and we are looking at the different viable options to do that. In our manifesto we committed to the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation, and we are all committed to doing that.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
The Minister for Artificial Intelligence (Kanishka Narayan)
I am working with colleagues right across Government to deliver good AI jobs in every part of this country. That means a focus on capabilities, the AI skills boost for individuals and BridgeAI for funds. It means a focus on compute with the AI growth zone programme and the AI research resource for British start-ups. It means a focus on capital through the British Business Bank and Sovereign AI. At the heart of it, it means a focus on culture, so that we are building AI for good in every part of the country.
Rosie Wrighting
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place—I am so pleased to see him become the first Minister for AI at the Cabinet table. In order for AI productivity gains to be felt in every postcode and in areas such as Kettering, we need to reduce the barriers to entry for small and medium-sized businesses. What is his Department doing to ensure that it is as easy as possible for SMEs to upskill their workers and access this new technology, so that its impact is not restricted to a few large companies?
Kanishka Narayan
My hon. Friend has been a champion of AI in this place and has great experience of technology, given her previous career, which is a source of insight for us all. On the question of AI support for small businesses, our AI skills boost programme has a particular focus on upskilling 2 million individuals in small and medium-sized enterprises—the biggest targeted training programme since Harold Wilson’s Open University programme. Alongside that, my focus is on ensuring that the procurement programmes in AI support small businesses in every part of this country, including through an AI research and development scheme that is supporting those businesses.
Paulette Hamilton
I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to his place. Birmingham has enormous potential to benefit from the growth of AI, but communities like mine in Erdington must not be left behind. What steps is the Minister taking with colleagues across Government to ensure that young people in constituencies like mine have access to the skills, apprenticeships and training they need to secure the new, well-paid jobs being created by AI?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank my hon. Friend for her shared commitment to the fact that, unlike in the last wave of technology, everyone across this country must feel the opportunity that AI offers. For that reason, we are focused on both the AI skills boost programme and the AI upskilling challenge fund, so that local areas across the country can benefit from those resources. I am also looking very closely at introducing boot camp pilots so that young people not in employment, education or training can learn about AI, and I am working closely with trade unions through the Early Careers Jobs Alliance. We are thinking about the future of jobs so that Britain is best prepared for every community to make the most of AI.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)
There is a well-established process for the revocation of honours. Any instance where a recipient may be deemed to have brought the honours system into disrepute can be considered by the independent Forfeiture Committee.
Ian Byrne
In December last year, the Independent Office for Police Conduct found that Sir Norman Bettison, the chief inspector for South Yorkshire police at the time of the Hillsborough disaster, would have had a case to answer for gross misconduct had he still been a serving officer today. This related to his role in the Hillsborough cover-up, his deliberate dishonesty in the aftermath of the disaster, and his lying about his involvement during his application for the post of chief constable of Merseyside police in 1998. Yesterday I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask whether the Forfeiture Committee has taken December’s finding into account. Can my hon. Friend confirm that that finding is being considered by the Committee? If not, will he make representations that it should be?
Mr Falconer
Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on this issue. This Government are absolutely clear that nothing like the Hillsborough disaster must ever happen again. That is why the Public Office (Accountability) Bill will establish a new duty of candour and assistance at inquiries and investigations, backed by criminal sanctions. That will also extend to police misconduct investigations. My hon. Friend will understand why I am not in a position to comment on an individual case from the Floor of the House, but I reassure him that I have seen his correspondence with my predecessor on this question. I am looking at it very carefully.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Louise Haigh)
The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has asked 6,321 people to start their claims. I am sorry to say that the horrible nature of this awful scandal means that there is inherent uncertainty about the number of eligible people, but we are deeply committed to ensuring that everyone eligible receives the compensation they are due. IBCA has a registration service, which supports its understanding of who intends to claim. As of 25 August, IBCA had received 20,487 registrations.
Dame Meg Hillier
I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place and thank her for that response, which demonstrates the complications of these schemes. I asked the National Audit Office to look into this, and yesterday the Public Accounts Committee published its report on compensation schemes, suggesting that a central body be established. I know that she and her Department will respond formally to that in due course, but could she give the House a hint about whether she thinks there is room for improvement? The Government set up different compensation schemes on different systems that can be very complicated, and we do not seem to be learning from better practice.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend, with her considerable experience in this area, is absolutely right. The fact of the matter is that no amount of money will make up for the impact that this terrible tragedy has had on countless victims and their families, but we are determined to deliver justice as swiftly as possible. We are very grateful for the work and time of the Committee in assessing the progress made on compensation schemes. We are also considering this as part of the Government’s response to the Williams inquiry report, in which we indicated that the Government would give further thought to how redress should be delivered in future. We will respond to the Public Accounts Committee in due course.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I recently met my constituent Stan, whose father died as a result of contaminated blood. Like many families, he is facing an endless delay through poor administration of the scheme. It feels as though a scandal within a scandal is unfolding as mistakes are made and further stress is caused to families. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the scheme is administered properly and mistakes are cut out, and would she consider meeting me to explore the issues raised by my constituent’s case?
Louise Haigh
I am incredibly sorry to hear about the experience of Stan and the death of his family member. Unfortunately, that experience has been shared by too many people, and the Government, including my predecessor as Minister for the Cabinet Office, have done considerable work to improve the scheme, setting out a number of reforms and new statutory instruments. I will ask my noble Friend the Minister in the other place to meet the hon. Member and his constituent to consider his experience and how we can improve the system.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Dan Tomlinson)
No. 10 North will drive growth in every postcode of the country, working alongside mayors, council leaders and businesses from across Britain. The costs of setting up and running No. 10 North are covered by existing Cabinet Office budgets.
John Lamont
I thank the Minister for that answer, but of course for my constituents it is not No. 10 North, but “No. 10 Midlands”. According to a freedom of information request, tens of thousands of pounds have already been spent setting up No. 10 North, including £10,500 on branding, £1,700 on crockery and nearly £1,000 moving a replica Downing Street door. Does he think that this represents good value for money, and will he commit to publish annually the full cost of running No. 10 North, including staffing, travel and security?
Dan Tomlinson
For me, as a north London MP, visiting Manchester is very much going north, but it is fantastic to go up there and meet local businesses when I do so. On the hon. Member’s specific question, the expenditure on No. 10 North will of course be published in the usual way, along with the Cabinet Office accounts.
Greg Smith
Can the Minister be really specific? How many civil servants and special advisers are due to be permanently staffed at No. 10 North, and once they are all in place and working there, will the Government publish statistics for their attendance at the office?
Dan Tomlinson
As permanent teams are formed, and they will be formed, we will ensure that those who live nearby and at a commutable distance are encouraged to apply, and we hope they will do so. There are already some 80,000 civil servants working in the north-west of England, and I think it is a fantastic change, introduced by this Government, that more civil servants and more people from more parts of the country can contribute, at the heart of Government, to building the change that this Government want.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
After 14 years of austerity and “Westminster knows best” from the previous Conservative Government, my constituents in Ealing Southall feel just as left behind and ignored as those in Manchester and Makerfield. Does the Minister agree with me that, if No. 10 North finally makes this country work for constituents such as mine, it will be worth every single penny?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is totally right that the objective of No. 10 North is to drive good growth in every postcode across the whole country. Too many places and too many communities have been left behind for too long because power and decision making was hoarded in Westminster. Members on the Labour Benches know that the route to growth everywhere is getting it out across the country. Members on the Opposition Benches, it seems, want to keep hoarding power and decision making here in Westminster.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
We have heard again what we have had in response to a number of written questions. The Minister either does not know or will not tell us how much No. 10 North will cost, how many people work there and how many of them actually turn up to work—it is almost as though this has not been properly thought through. Does the Minister understand why, with so little information and so little transparency, so many people feel that this is a gimmick rather than a strategy?
Dan Tomlinson
When it comes to the efficient use of taxpayer money, I would like to point out to the House that the hon. Member—he is, of course, welcome to submit as many questions as he likes—sent 371 questions, at a cost to the taxpayer of potentially around £80,000. Of course, we are willing to have debates in this place and on the Floor of the House, and my hon. Friends in the Cabinet Office will continue to answer questions, but in the end we need to make sure that the Government are driving good growth across the whole country. No. 10 North, bringing together businesses, leaders and senior politicians from across Government, is the right route for doing just that.
Mike Wood
We would not have had to table so many written questions if Ministers had actually answered our first question, instead of expecting us to come up with precisely the right form of words to leave them with no way of getting out. Surely it cannot be right that it requires a freedom of information request to discover how much it costs for a replica door at No. 10 North, but the Minister refuses to answer legitimate parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Minister at least—if he does have this information, which the Department surely does—finally commit to publishing the total budget for No. 10 North, the number of staff and special advisers who are going to work there, and attendance statistics?
Dan Tomlinson
I think it would be best for hon. Members, rather than getting in a flap about No. 10 North, to back what we are trying to do to drive good growth, opportunity and devolution across the whole country. It is the right thing to do. The previous Government passed on to us a country that was the most geographically unequal advanced economy in the whole world. We are setting out to turn that around for the people of this country. Of course, the details on employment and the costs of No. 10 North will be published in the usual way, along with the accounts for the Cabinet Office.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Climate change brings an increased risk of severe weather. We are learning from the summer droughts and planning for what will likely be a challenging winter. As I saw when I visited the hon. Member’s St Ives constituency back in January, extreme weather can cause disruption to the essential services that we all rely on. We are working to make public infrastructure, such as telecoms, more resilient. We will also launch a public awareness campaign this year, so that people know the small but important steps they can take to be ready for emergencies such as severe weather.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. As he said, he kindly visited my constituency shortly after the significant devastation that was caused to west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly following Storm Goretti in early January this year. In his letter to me shortly thereafter, he committed to a comprehensive review of the response to the storm, to ensure that lessons are learned and that preparedness and response plans are improved. In what way have those plans improved? Given that communities are now preparing themselves to improve their own resilience—we are bringing them together this autumn—would he be prepared to visit west Cornwall again and meet my communities?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for consistently and constructively raising those points. Having visited his constituency and seen the devastation at first hand, I am personally extremely keen to ensure that we learn the lessons from what happened during Storm Goretti. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Cobra officials have worked closely with Cornwall council on resilience planning. We are going to launch a public awareness campaign that will support people in Cornwall and beyond during future emergencies. I am also pleased to say that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is receiving over £2 million this financial year to tackle flooding. He kindly invites me to visit his constituency, so I say to him: time spent in Cornwall is time well spent.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Water privatisation and climate change have left us with the twin resilience challenges of water scarcity and flooding. To reduce demand on our drinking water supply, is the Cabinet Office looking at the Drinking Water Inspectorate’s landmark report from March, which sets out a governance framework for rainwater harvesting? Could we look at installing rainwater collection for toilet flushing in our publicly owned buildings? We could cut our costs, increase our resilience and make steps towards sustainability.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I will look closely at the report she references and ensure that we are discussing it with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Flooding during severe weather incidents is often predictable, because those same areas suffer from low-level regular flooding throughout the rest of the year. The issue affects multi-council areas, up and downstream, and covers multiple Government agencies. Bodies such as flooding boards that cover those areas are a great way of co-ordinating agencies and councils, but we do not have them across the whole UK. Would the Minister consider rolling out flood boards in every part of the UK?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I am proud to say that I think I was the first metro mayor to launch a catchment flood management plan. I recognise the importance his point, and I want to give it due consideration. I will consult with ministerial colleagues at DEFRA and come back to him.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Returning to the topic of Cornwall, the Minister mentioned the possibility that Cornwall could be a pilot area for storm resilience measures, so it would be good to hear more about that. Measures to raise awareness would be very welcome, and guidelines for how people in Cornwall should act—on an individual, a local emergency plan, a council and a unitary level—would be useful going forward. Could the Minister say more about that?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her championing of not only her own constituency, but wider issues relating to infrastructure and resilience in Cornwall. The Prime Minister has committed to meet with Cornish MPs. I will carefully consider her points, along with those made by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George)—I get a sense that I am going to be heading back to Cornwall.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Louise Haigh)
Last month I announced reforms to public procurement that will cut red tape and focus social value on delivering good jobs and skills development. In the autumn, I will publish new guidance to ensure that central Government procurement consistently supports jobs, skills and people in every postcode.
Alex McIntyre
Procurement matters because, done well, it supports local jobs in Gloucester and in communities like mine. Together Gloucestershire is a local organisation that is an excellent example of how procurement can be done differently. It works with local businesses and the public sector to showcase the talent and skill in our county and provides a procurement portal for organisations to access them. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Together Gloucestershire to discuss how that model can be better supported and developed further?
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the important work of Together Gloucestershire to the House’s attention. It is an excellent example of where social value can ensure that British taxpayer’s money is directed towards delivering British jobs and skills in our constituency. I will ask the Minister and our officials to meet with my hon. Friend and businesses in his constituency.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Artificial Intelligence (Kanishka Narayan)
It is my core belief that technology should not be the preserve of the privileged few; instead, it should be a great leveller, supporting dignity in our public services and opportunity for British businesses. That is why I am focused on redesigning the way that Government use AI and technology to support our brilliant public service professionals to achieve those ends.
Gordon McKee
I thank the Minister for his answer. The pace of innovation has never been faster, which means that the value lost by slow procurement processes has never been higher. We need the Government and Departments to be able to buy in the most advanced software and technologies without lengthy delay. Can the Minister say what work he is doing to enable Departments to do that?
Kanishka Narayan
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend; there is only one thing faster than the pace of technology, and that is the pace at which he keeps up with technology, and, in particular, online engagement. I will flag two areas of particular focus for my efforts on this question: first, ensuring that we are creating examples of swift procurement support for British businesses, not least through the sovereign AI research and development procurement scheme; secondly, a more systematic focus on bringing the best package of AI tools to support procurement professionals to move faster.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The first duty of any Government is to keep people safe. Our recent decision to issue an alert was made in direct co-operation with the National Fire Chiefs Council at a time when emergency services were facing unprecedented pressure, with 43 active fires and four major incidents. Evidence from the 72 hours following the alert indicates that this intervention was effective, with a measurable reduction in new wildfire incidents.
Helen Morgan
In North Shropshire, we are on the border with Wales and have poor to non-existent mobile phone signal. This meant that many of my constituents received the emergency alert in Welsh first and either did not receive it in English at all, or received it in English many hours later. Because there was no pre-briefing, they were concerned to receive an emergency alert that they could not understand. Would the Minister consider pre-briefing when an alert is going to happen in future so that when people get an alert in a different language, or if people are trying to keep their phones secret because they are vulnerable, they have time to prepare for that and are not unduly alarmed?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady makes an entirely reasonable point. I hope that she would acknowledge that we look very carefully when an alert has been issued and seek to learn lessons from that. I can tell her that all emergency alerts are sent in conjunction with local partners, and that in Wales the alert was sent first in Welsh, and then in English, in order to fulfil our legal responsibilities under the Welsh Language Act 1993. I will look carefully at what she has said, and I assure her that we will seek to learn lessons from the way in which the alert was issued.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)
All Departments have set ambitious small and medium-sized enterprise spends, and we have strengthened late payment policy and are now making it easier for SMEs to bid by raising the threshold for when social value should be taken into account. This Government are determined to use public procurement to back small and medium-sized enterprises. I was pleased that the Federation of Small Businesses welcomed our social value changes over the summer.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I welcome the Government’s commitment to helping SMEs to access public contracts. In Calder Valley—or valve valley, as we often call it— small manufacturing firms contribute to nationally significant projects through supply chains, but are often left out of the conversation about national procurement. How can we ensure that these smaller manufacturers have the opportunities created by Governments to create a new generation of skilled manufacturing jobs?
Mark Ferguson
My hon. Friend is a fantastic campaigner on behalf of businesses in his local community. In his community, like mine, small and medium-sized industries play an absolutely critical role, not just in our industrial past but in our industrial future. I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss how, as we develop this agenda, we can make it work for communities like ours.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Louise Haigh)
For far too long, the state has found itself reaching for the comfort blanket of consultation, review and process. To deliver change at the pace and scale the public expect, my Department is stripping out needless bureaucracy. Between 2019 and 2023, the Government asked the public three times for their views on introducing legislation to microchip cats—you couldn’t make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker. If we cannot microchip cats without tying them up in red tape, it is little wonder the public have lost faith that the Government can deliver change. I am telling ministerial colleagues that consultations are not required, and we will introduce reforms to minimise the risk of judicial review. Once the necessary legislation has passed, transport, water and other major infrastructure projects will benefit from parliamentary authorisation. Governments are elected to lead, not to hide behind process. This Government will lead and put public control at the heart of our decision making.
Tom Gordon
No sum of money can truly replace the loss of a loved one. On my summer supermarket surgery tour, I spoke to one constituent who lost his father as a result of contaminated blood products. He wanted me to ask the First Secretary of State about future scheduled payments. Will she consider index-linking compensation to inflation so that delay does not shrink the value of what families have been awarded?
Louise Haigh
I am very sorry to hear about the appalling experience of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. As was mentioned earlier in Cabinet questions, we have made considerable efforts to improve the scheme and ensure that constituents receive their compensation as quickly as possible. Reports are being laid in the House today, and we will consider the hon. Gentleman’s question as we go forward.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Sally Jameson)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that appalling case. Current service levels are completely unacceptable. We continue to use the most stringent commercial levers that we have under this contract, including withholding contractual payments. We have 147 surge staff deployed in this crisis. We will not be moving any of those team members until service levels are permanently fixed. If my hon. Friend would like to write to me, I will happily make sure that any of his future cases are looked at with urgency.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Over the summer, the Prime Minister announced that mayors will keep a proportion of income tax receipts. Why will mayors like Conservative Mayor Ben Houchen not be allowed to use that money to cut taxes or offer rebates to local residents and businesses?
Louise Haigh
The Mayor of the Tees Valley Ben Houchen already has the ability to provide grants to businesses and communities. He is very welcome to do so with the considerable funding that he already receives.
Alex Burghart
I thank the right hon. Lady for her answer, but she did not answer my question. My question was about the income tax receipts that Ben Houchen will be allowed to retain. Over the summer, she said that he would not be allowed to use that to give rebates to local individuals and businesses. At the moment, councils already have the power to levy council tax discounts and business rate discounts. Why can mayors not do the same with income tax receipts?
Louise Haigh
I will explain it to the shadow Secretary of State. There is a difference between rebates and grants. The mayor does not have the ability to provide rebates now and is unlikely to in the future, because it would involve getting data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and having the ability to set income tax thresholds, which we will of course not be devolving to a mayoral level. If the Mayor of the Tees Valley wishes to support businesses and communities, he is as welcome to now as he will be in the future.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
Giving young people opportunities to reach their potential is a key priority for this Government. That is why we have asked Alan Milburn to push forward this agenda, looking at young people not in employment, education or training. We are using specific local social value schemes that suppliers can support through public procurement, which will provide much-needed education, employment and training so that young people can progress.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Last week, Channel 4 showed senior figures from Reform UK discussing how money from an American donor could reach the party through his UK-based son. Do the Government agree that covert overseas finance represents a clear and present threat to our national security? Do they accept that measures in the Representation of the People Bill do not go far enough when it comes to stopping foreign money being funnelled into our democracy and that the best way to reduce the options for those who seek to exert undue influence through big money is to put a cap on all political donations?
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the important points that she raises and for the constructive conversations that we have had about these matters. She will note the work of the Rycroft review, and I know that she understands the important work we do through the defending democracy taskforce. As the chair of that taskforce, I have always believed that this is a shared endeavour across the House.
We will assemble a new cross-Government task-and-finish team to identify next steps for tackling the issue of megadonors in UK politics and putting politics under public control. Many hon. Members will have seen the programme to which the hon. Lady refers and will share her concerns. She will understand that there is now a live police investigation, so there is nothing more I can say about it.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)
I commend my hon. Friend for his remarkable stamina over the summer, with more than 80 visits across his constituency—the largest in England. He is certainly a passionate campaigner for farmers. He will know that our recently announced reforms to social value mean that businesses bidding for Government contracts—a market worth £90 billion—will be rightly judged on whether they create high-quality jobs, skills and apprenticeships in local communities. That includes food procurement, and our aim is for at least half of all public sector food to be produced locally. I will gladly join him and one of his local farmers to talk about that further.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Sally Jameson)
I thank the hon. Member for raising that case. As I have said, Capita’s performance is diabolical. I will not make any excuses for it from the Dispatch Box —there are no excuses for it—but we are holding Capita to account every day. As I said, we have deployed 147 surge staff to help during this crisis—they will not be removed until service levels are brought up to scratch—we are withholding contractual payments, and an independent Capita-funded remedial adviser has been appointed to identify further issues. If the hon. Lady writes to me about that case, I will ensure that it is escalated.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
It has been nearly two years since the contaminated blood inquiry report was published. People think that the matter is finished, but it is not: some 18,000 infected and affected individuals still have not begun their claims. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm to this House her commitment to the contaminated blood community, and will she meet the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood so that we can discuss the best way to press those cases home expediently?
Louise Haigh
I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend on his many years of campaigning on this terrible issue. He will know about the Prime Minister’s personal involvement in and commitment to this issue, about his personal experience of campaigning alongside the victims, and how important he and the Department consider the matter. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has now paid out over £2.2 billion in final compensation payments, but we are very aware that there is much more to do. The Minister in the other place will be happy to meet my hon. Friend’s APPG.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Sally Jameson
I am sorry to hear of the experience that the right hon. Member’s constituent has had with Capita. As I have said, its performance has been abysmal, and we will hold it to account every single day until service levels are brought back to a good standard. I would be happy to meet her to discuss the case, and I will personally ensure that it is escalated.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Prime Minister was right last week to say that too many buses are being bought from abroad. The 10% social value commitment from combined mayoral authorities following the conclusion of the bus manufacturing expert panel earlier this year will not be enough to protect British bus building as China continues to scale up its automotive dumping. Will the First Secretary of State work with devolved mayors, the Department for Transport and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to bring social value requirements in line with the 20% she has rightly set for major Government contracts?
Mark Ferguson
I thank my hon. Friend for his work through the all-party parliamentary group. He is a passionate campaigner for British buses, particularly with regard to the impact on his constituents. I am of course happy to meet him to discuss the issue further.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Louise Haigh
A number of responsibilities were removed from the Cabinet Office in order to create the new Office for the Prime Minister and Cabinet, a central new body at the heart of Government committed to delivering the priorities of the Prime Minister and the British people.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
May I say how happy I am to welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to her place? I know she will continue to be a fantastic champion for the Isle of Wight. Per capita—not the pension people but per head of population—the island tops the league for tech and advanced manufacturing, but despite our brilliant pedigree, under the previous Government, we were continually overlooked for funding and investment. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that she will use her office to secure sustained growth in our postcodes, so that the island can finally receive the recognition, investment and job opportunities that its contribution to our economy deserves?
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words and continual championing of the Isle of Wight. I will ensure that fixing his ferry is top of my to-do list. The proposal that he outlines is exactly the kind of work that No. 10 North has been designed to champion to drive good growth in every postcode, north and south.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I very much welcome the procurement changes that this Government have brought in. In the summer, the docks in my constituency lost a UK Research and Innovation contract on the RRS Sir David Attenborough to a Danish dockyard. Can the Minister assure me that the new rules will refer to agencies across government, rather than just procurements within Government?
Mark Ferguson
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on behalf of Cornwall and her constituency. I assure her of the seriousness with which we take that issue and broader procurement issues, and I would be happy to meet her to discuss the case.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Minister said that Governments are elected to lead. Most people would assume that means that Ministers are elected to lead, because they are accountable to Parliament and to the people. Why, then, are the Government giving away powers to the Cabinet Secretary to direct permanent secretaries, which should be the role of Secretaries of State? Do Ministers not want these powers to actually do their jobs?
Mark Ferguson
We are committed, and the Cabinet Secretary is committed, to conducting a full review of the civil service. It is at a relatively early stage, but I look forward to hearing what decisions are made. Of course, what powers are determined will be a matter for the Prime Minister.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I hate to take the Minister back to Capita, but unfortunately, I have a number of constituents who have been through the many stages already explained by the Minister. Capita is not working, and I accept that you are doing all these things in government, but it is not making a blind bit of difference. I have people who cannot pay their mortgages and who have been waiting for more than a year for a settlement sum. Something more needs to be done, and it is very depressing for these people when they read in the papers that Capita is getting more Government contracts, so what more can the Government do?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Minister responds, that is the first “you” of the day and hopefully the last.
Sally Jameson
I hope to be able to update the House shortly after recess with further steps that the Government are taking. As I have said, we have a Capita-funded remedial adviser in place who is identifying the delivery issues, and we have also deployed auditors to Capita to get a full understanding of the exact state of the service. We will continue to look at withholding contractual payments and, as I have said, this Government are committed to the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation. While we inherited this contract from the previous Government, we will ensure that going forward looking at in-house schemes is a priority.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Brexit has created a web of red tape preventing businesses in Wokingham from developing relationships with European partners. Will the Government start negotiations for a growth and defence partnership with the EU to boost trade and growth?
The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We are engaged in discussions with the European Union on exactly the questions that the hon. Member refers to. We have made good progress in the first two years; I wish to go further, as I set out in my answer to the question before.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Returning to the emergency alerts, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of issuing alerts on a regional or county basis for important but more local emergencies, such as bluetongue outbreaks in cattle and sheep in rural areas?
Dan Jarvis
I hope that the hon. Member heard my earlier response about how seriously we take the issuing of the alert, and how we take considerable effort to look carefully at how it has worked and whether it can be improved in future. I say to her that every emergency alert is carefully co-ordinated with the responding public bodies and agencies, and each request is evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure that it is necessary for public safety.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am sorry to return to Capita, but I may have a solution. My constituent John is retiring partly due to ill health and his salary is now at half level—he is really struggling. He explained to me that under the current system a retirement date must be selected four months in advance, and if the delay goes one day past that, rather than amending the figures, the system has to start all over again. My suggestion is that we make a slight tweak so that we save Capita a lot of work and our residents a lot of heartache. Will the Minister comment on that and pick up my constituent’s case?
Sally Jameson
I thank the hon. Member for bringing that idea to this House. I will be happy to put that to Capita when I next meet it, and if she wants to write to me with her case, I will happily ensure that it is escalated.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The next national adaptation programme, NAP4, is not due until 2028, but the wildfires and droughts we saw this summer and the impending extreme El Niño show that we cannot wait that long. Will the Minister commit to taking urgent action to tackle resilience before then and give our farmers, communities and householders the support they need to face the challenges of drought, wildfire and flood risk?
Dan Jarvis
I completely recognise the importance of the point that the hon. Lady has made; she has made it previously. The Government have established and tested response protocols in place for all severe weather events. The impact of each is often very different based on different factors, but I give her an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these issues. We are working across Government to ensure that our response is proportionate to the nature of the threat we face from climate change.
Air Traffic Control Disruption
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before we come to the urgent question, I must say how disappointing it is that the Government were not forthcoming with a proactive ministerial statement on this matter. The disruption to aviation and the impact on many constituents has been considerable. I hope the Minister and the Treasury Front Bench will pass that message on to the Secretary of State.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on the failure of the United Kingdom’s air traffic control system and the resulting disruption to flights and passengers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Good morning, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will ensure that your comments are relayed.
May I begin by again apologising to passengers across the United Kingdom who faced significant disruption as a result of the issues that impacted NATS’s operation on 8 September, resulting in delays and cancellations for hundreds of thousands of passengers, as well as the disruption that it has caused for industry? Let me be clear that disruption of this kind is absolutely unacceptable.
To provide some context to the House, at around lunch time on 8 September NATS experienced an issue with its flight processing system at its Swanwick centre affecting the data that was available to controllers. The disruption had a significant impact across the UK aviation network resulting in widespread delays, cancellations and diversions. NATS worked hard to fix the issue, but that took time as the systems needed to be tested to ensure that they had fully recovered and operations could safely return to normal. My officials were in regular contact with NATS, airlines and airports during the incident to understand the issues impacting them and to offer Government support, such as granting night flight alleviations to support recovery at regulated airports including Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
NATS has confirmed that it was a technical issue and it does not believe it to be cyber-related. The Secretary of State and I met Martin Rolfe yesterday, and we have agreed that he will send a report to us by Wednesday 16 September setting out the cause of the incident and the actions being taken to ensure that this cannot happen again. The Secretary of State has also asked the Civil Aviation Authority to conduct an independent review to establish cause and to ensure that our air traffic control systems can get passengers to where they need to be, with an update to be provided to me within six months. We will work closely with both organisations as well as airlines and airports to ensure that lessons are learned and that any necessary improvements are implemented.
This morning, I met representatives from Unite the union to hear directly about the impact of the incident on airport and airline staff and to discuss broader issues with them relating to the abuse of frontline transport workers. I express my and the Secretary of State’s gratitude to all those staff at our airports and airlines who provided support to passengers whose journeys were disrupted over the past few days. Our sympathies remain with all those passengers who have experienced delays to their travel plans or cancellations.
Greg Smith
Over 2,000 flights cancelled, with more than 150,000 passengers affected; delays, disruption and pain; embarrassment for Britain—what an absolute mess! As you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, there was no offer of a statement from the Government, hence this urgent question from the Conservative Benches.
Nothing sums up the situation facing real people this week better than Martin Brundle’s scathing post on Tuesday:
“Nine hours and counting sitting on a plane which has travelled nowhere. At a remote parking bay, no food throughout, and mother/baby and a person with a medical condition desperate to get off. As is everyone else. Toilets no longer available as blocked. No sign of steps or buses. And that’s before the wait for luggage. Pathetic and dangerous lack of corporate contingency and responsibility.”
Is the Minister not embarrassed? A report by 16 September, which takes us into recess, and six months then to fully diagnose the problem—that is not good enough. A third failure deserves immediate action, not delaying tactics.
The Government have a considerable say in how NATS operates. Ministers cannot suddenly discover the virtues of arm’s length government when something goes wrong in an organisation of which the taxpayer owns 49%. Passengers have heard before that lessons will be learned, reviews commissioned and improvements made; they do not want another sorry story of apologies and assurances while everyone waits for the next failure.
A cyber-attack has been ruled out, so exactly what did happen? Was it a software failure? Were sufficient engineers available on site? Were previous recommendations actually implemented? If they were, why on earth are we back here again? Why are airlines and airports lacking suitable contingency plans for when NATS fails—when Government fails—and there is no Government support on the ground? The Secretary of State needs to take responsibility, get a grip of this mess and ensure that this time lessons are not simply learned but acted upon.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. He asks me for more detail about what exactly happened, given that a cyber-attack has now been ruled out. The disruption was caused by a technical issue in NATS’s Swanwick flight processing system, which affected the processing of flight plans used by data controllers. NATS advises that the problem was affecting the flight processing system and the data that was being fed into controller radar displays. A fix was implemented later in the day, but recovery took time, as NATS needed to test that the system was safe.
The shadow Minister is right to raise the experience of Martin and the other hundreds of thousands of passengers across the United Kingdom who were adversely affected. That raises serious questions about contingency and resilience planning at our airports, and I am determined to have conversations about that with the CAA, NATS, airlines and airports in the coming days.
The shadow Minister criticises the fact that it will take around a week to get the report back. It is incredibly important that we take the time to figure out exactly what happened, because ultimately this is about aviation safety. It is about making sure that the UK can retain its reputation for getting passengers to where they need to go while protecting their safety. He asked about the report coming back over recess; I am happy to return after recess to answer any questions that hon. Members may have about the issue.
There is a broader question about the CAA being asked to conduct an urgent review and report back within six months, and whether that is the right timeline. I remind hon. Members that after the largest recent outage, in 2023, it took two and a half years for the CAA to fully assess the implications and all the technical improvements and requirements that were needed as a result of that incident. It provided 34 recommendations, all of which have been implemented. A six-month timeframe to get to the bottom of what is a highly technical matter and an incident of disruption is proportionate and timely, and will allow us to react quickly, with stringent ministerial oversight.
The shadow Minister asks Ministers to take control of the situation and exercise effective oversight on behalf of passengers—that is exactly what we are doing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I have noted the Minister’s proactive commitment to a ministerial statement.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. NATS used to be in my constituency and then moved down to Swanwick. Of course, with Heathrow in my constituency, I receive—as I mentioned yesterday—a large amount of correspondence from a whole range of other MPs’ constituents, who think I am responsible for Heathrow airport.
John McDonnell
It is not a laughing matter—I am sorry for interrupting the flow of the discussion.
It would be useful if the review looked at NATS’s long-term investment plans, particularly since its partial privatisation in 2001, which I opposed.
I thank the Minister for meeting Unite this morning and thanking the workers, who have worked so hard. From my experience, when things go wrong at NATS, the Public and Commercial Services Union members—the technical members—scramble and work incredibly hard to put them right. I hope that we can thank them as well. The Opposition spokesperson never made any reference to the workers themselves. They have worked incredibly hard and, as the Minister said, some of them have experienced horrendous abuse. We should congratulate them and support them in their work.
Keir Mather
I thank my right hon. Friend for his constructive question. He is right to ask whether NATS’s resourcing is exactly where it needs to be to ensure that we have the capacity and the right people in the right places to deal with these issues when they arise. I am confident that the fantastic teams of people working at NATS responded with all possible haste and diligence to the disruption that was experienced, and I thank them for doing so.
My right hon. Friend raises broader questions about NATS’s resilience. Part of that is about implementing the large-scale technological transformation programmes that are required to ensure that our air traffic control systems are fit for purpose. More often than not, the UK has a formidable reputation for aviation safety, but that does not mean that when disruption like this occurs, we should not take a cold, hard look at NATS’s processes and see where we can do better.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this urgent question. I join the Minister and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in thanking airport, airline and air traffic control staff for handling this incident and helping passengers who experienced such significant disruption.
This is the third major incident in recent years to do with our air traffic control systems. Given the poor passenger experiences, the poor management of the disruption and the poor customer service resulting from it, should the Government not commit to fixing our air traffic control systems before they commit so enthusiastically to massive aviation expansion, which our current systems and processes may not be able to accommodate?
Keir Mather
I would like to point out that more often than not, our air traffic control systems and the individuals who work in them provide a safe and effective service for UK air passengers. In a typical year, NATS handles over 2.5 million flights, and around 300 million passengers travel over the UK and across the north Atlantic. We are responsible for a large proportion of European air traffic, and NATS does a good job to ensure that UK passengers get to places safely.
However, incidents like this, and the fact that they have occurred three times within four years, bring home the fact that when disruption occurs, it is incredibly difficult for passengers and for our airlines and airports to adapt to. The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that lessons must be learned. There are technical lessons that must be learned, and that is what we will get to the bottom of through the report from NATS and then the six-month report from the CAA. He is right to raise broader questions. If we are to facilitate what this Government want to achieve, which is an ambitious programme of expansion in our airport capacity, particularly in the south-east of England, we will do so with passenger safety at its heart, and effective oversight of NATS must run to the core of that.
Mike Kane
I thank the Minister for his answers, and I am sure he will join me in thanking the management and staff of Manchester airport, who have worked overtime to minimise the disruption to passengers over the last couple of days.
The Minister will be as aware as I am that we are in danger of playing regulatory whack-a-mole here. Less than three years on from the last disruption and the 34 recommendations that followed, we have to ask questions about why those recommendations did not cover the technical issue we face today, and maybe then we will begin to see that we need wider reform of both the CAA, which I am pleased to say is under new management since 2023, and NATS. Are we making progress in vertical take-off and landing and in drone technology at pace? We have seen progress this year in the upper echelons of Scottish airspace, but Manchester airspace and northern airspace are stuck in neutral. These organisations need to show the vision that will allow our aviation sector to remain world-class.
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend and predecessor in this role for all his work in holding the CAA and NATS to account and managing some of the difficult conversations following previous disruptions. He raises the valid point that those recommendations were passed on by the CAA and have been implemented in full, and yet we have seen this disruption. Part of this is about us working with the CAA to encourage NATS to go further, faster on some of the technological innovations and transformations he describes. He is right to say that, despite the negativity of the situation, this is a useful opportunity to ask ourselves questions about where we can encourage NATS to go further and push the boundaries in terms of regulatory innovation in the areas he spoke about, such as eVTOL—electric vertical take-off and landing—and drones, and to learn the lessons from this incident and think about how we can build a greater depth of resilience across our UK aviation sector.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
NATS falls within my constituency, in Swanwick. May I place on the record my thanks and dedication to the staff of NATS, who I have seen work day in, day out to make our skies safer, and to 78 Squadron Royal Air Force, who are based at the same site?
I must ask the Minister to look seriously at the six-month timescale for the CAA review and to commit to full transparency, to ensure that the lessons learned are not held only in the Department for Transport but are shared more widely with Parliament. In the topsy-turvy world in which we live, I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in asking the Minister to look seriously with the management of NATS at ensuring that, after the third incident in as many years, the long-term investment plans are in place to make sure that this does not happen again and that the management of NATS cannot blame lack of investment for the systems failing.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for representing the staff at NATS so admirably and for his constructive questions. I believe that six months is the right timeframe in which to report back, because it allows us to learn the lessons effectively and get to the bottom of what is ultimately a highly technical matter, but he is right to say that Parliament must engage with the lessons learned. It is also important that we think about the connection between this incident and legislation that is moving through the House. The Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill will give us new powers to give the CAA the ability to set aviation safety rules, enhance air passenger rights and directly enforce consumer rights. Parliament must have its say on how the lessons that we learn from this incident can inform the Bill, so that it practically improves the travelling experience of passengers up and down the country.
Alan Gemmell
I thank the Minister for his statement and for his leadership on this incident. NATS has rightly apologised unreservedly for the incident at Swanwick, which affected, infuriatingly, hundreds of thousands of travellers. Will the Minister join me in thanking the staff of NATS in Prestwick, in my constituency, for their support in the management of this incident?
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to thank the NATS staff at Prestwick, and across the United Kingdom, for the incredible work that they do. NATS will come under a lot of scrutiny in coming days and weeks—rightly so, because we expect it to maintain a system of air traffic control that keeps the British public safe—but I am resolute in my belief that all the staff at NATS responded with all the haste and diligence that we would expect to protect passengers, and to ensure that aviation could restart safely. Ultimately, that is what we expect of NATS.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
This is clearly a very unfortunate incident, and full transparency is essential. Does the Minister have a view on what the overall cost of the incident was to the UK economy? If the Government do not have that figure at the moment, will he update the House on that separately? What plans do the Government have, working with industry, to compensate affected passengers? There will have been all manner of costs borne by those who were unable to fly, and I am sure that collectively, they run into millions of pounds.
Keir Mather
While I am not currently in a position to give the hon. Gentleman a pounds-and-pence figure for the economic impact, I am under no illusions about this; it will be incredibly significant. We need to learn the lessons from what has happened to minimise the chance of disruption of this kind ever happening again. He asks me a broader question about compensation or refunds for passengers. Passengers whose flights have been cancelled are entitled to assistance from their airlines, including either a refund within seven days or a rerouting to their destination, including through another airline, where appropriate. Passengers may also be entitled to care and assistance while waiting for a delayed or rerouted flight, but we saw lots of incidents of airport capacity not being able to deal with the number of passengers who were disrupted. That is a key lesson that we have to learn from this incident.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I echo his thanks to the staff who have been working to overcome the incident. Yesterday the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill passed its Second Reading, but as part of the review, and as the Bill progresses, will the Minister commit to looking at how our most vulnerable passengers, particularly wheelchair users and blind or partially sighted passenger, can be supported when they are caught up in incidents like this?
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for his determined advocacy for passengers with disabilities in both our aviation sector and the wider UK transport system. He is right that the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to conduct a review of how to enhance air passenger rights, particularly for those who can face the most acute forms of disruption while travelling, including people with disabilities or other protected characteristics. We need to take a cold, hard look at how some of the most vulnerable people in society are affected by disruption of this nature, and think about how we can strengthen our air passenger rights regime to respond effectively.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Do you need medical assistance, Sir Alec?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I am okay, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will struggle on, thank you very much.
The Minister has outlined that there is an investment programme for technology and upgrades, but with software upgrades, there is always the concern that the premise of the programmes will keep getting changed, and that can bring in delays or bugs to a system. Does the Minister have oversight to ensure that the plans for what needs to be done do not keep getting sidetracked by people deciding, “This is a bit more shiny—we should do that”? That would delay the whole thing, and leave us with what looks like an increasingly antiquated system.
Keir Mather
Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, that we have a system of prioritising what we feel as a Department is most important, passing that through the CAA, and down to NATS. The Secretary of State puts together a priorities letter that sets out very clearly her expectations of our air traffic control system, and chief among them, when that was last done, was technological transformation to ensure that our systems are resilient. That recommendation is more pressing than ever, given what we have seen. The Secretary of State and I will both reaffirm that in our meetings with NATS and the CAA, because this incident teaches us that that technological change should be completed with all possible haste.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and for all the work that he is doing to get this situation resolved. Unfortunately, the cancellations impacted some of my Redditch residents yesterday. Will he assure me that he is reminding airlines that they have a continued duty of care to people, and have to get them home as quickly as possible, particularly those who have been stranded far from home?
Keir Mather
We are in close dialogue with both airlines and airports, and are reminding them of what needs to be done to protect the welfare of their passengers. Both airline and airport staff and the companies themselves across the country are endeavouring to do the right thing by their passengers who face this disruption. The Department needs to ensure that it is doing its bit, and we will never be shy of fighting for passengers and their rights.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I apologise for the earlier slip, Madam Deputy Speaker.
May I echo the comments about the fantastic job done safeguarding the British public by the staff at NATS? Just recently, I visited air traffic control in our control tower at Edinburgh airport, and I saw at first hand the amount of work that goes into keeping the public safe. However, through the airport, I am acutely aware that there is dissatisfaction with the delays in the new airspace management programme. We have not made progress in Scotland; in fact, we fear that this will be put aside for yet another year. That all feeds into a lack of confidence among the British public and air passengers in our transport system. Can the Minister assure me that steps will be taken to speed up the management, and to ensure that our air passengers get the improved system that they deserve?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Lady for her challenge. She is right; both Glasgow and Edinburgh airports have ambitious programmes of airspace redesign under way. I reassure her that the Department is committed to working productively with them to ensure that they can realise those airspace change proposals as quickly as possible. That will help us to make our flights more efficient, reduce carbon burn, stop planes idling when they do not need to, and hopefully minimise noise. Scotland is well ahead of other areas in that space, and we need to give it all possible tools, so that it can deliver that important work.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Many passengers and their families across the country will still be wondering whether the disruptions caused by the incident have been fully cleared. Will the Minister confirm the current situation? When does he expect that airports will return to providing the excellent service that they generally provide?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the issue that caused the initial disruption was fixed as quickly as possible by NATS, but a number of hours then went by, because it needed to ensure that the system was stable when it was rebooted, and that flights could return to the air safely. That is the most important consideration for NATS when it faces disruption of this kind. I can confirm that the congestion we have seen has largely passed through, despite the fact that lots of planes were out of place and needed to be rerouted. It is now up to the Department for Transport, NATS and the CAA to work practically together to ensure that any subsequent congestion is minimised, and that the British public can carry on flying to where they need to go.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Against a backdrop of realism—things just go wrong, no matter how much money is invested in them, or how up to date they are—does it not seem slightly ludicrous that NATS has put all its eggs in one basket? There is no shadow, back-up or secondary scheme that can be used. If there was, it might not be as good as the main one, but it would minimise, or certainly attenuate, disruption. Is it in the Minister’s thinking to put the eggs in more baskets, rather than just relying on one particular bit of software?
Keir Mather
The Secretary of State said from the Dispatch Box yesterday that she is of the view that while this disruption was not foreseen, it was not unavoidable, and there are lessons to learn about how we can minimise the chances of this recurring. The hon. Member is right to point to the fact that resilience is clearly not where it needs to be. We need our technological systems to be more adaptive and more reactive. That is exactly why the Secretary of State has said that technological change needs to be at the forefront of the CAA and NATS’ priorities, and agility and the resilience in the system need to be among their top considerations.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, this issue has had a huge impact on my constituency of Harlow. Not only do many passengers use Stansted airport, but over 1,000 members of its staff live in my constituency. I have full faith in the Minister and his ability to lead on this issue, but can he reassure my constituents that he is doing everything he can to hold the leadership of NATS to account and to ensure that this does not happen again, and to ensure that, as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said, if something like this does happen again, there are contingency plans in place?
Keir Mather
The Transport Secretary and I met Martin Rolfe on Wednesday, and expressed our concern about the scale of disruption on behalf of passengers and the industry. The Transport Secretary has asked for the cause of the issue to be identified and addressed as quickly as possible. Scrutiny of both the leadership of NATS and the technological programmes and processes is critical, and is something that the Department will keep at the forefront of our minds in the days and weeks to come.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that this incident, and the other ones that preceded it, are a threat to national security? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) said, more than 100 RAF personnel are stationed at Swanwick, and are involved in protecting our national interest and our defence. The Minister has not yet addressed the security threat to our country posed by this incompetence.
Keir Mather
Allow me to reassure the hon. Member that the civil aviation air traffic control systems and those used by the military and the Ministry of Defence are separate. However, it is right to say that our air traffic control for civil aviation is a foundation of the resilience of our aviation sector, and an enormous amount of economic growth is dependent on that sector functioning effectively, whether that be through air freight, the movement of business travellers to where they need to go, or facilitating the UK tourism industry. That is why it is so important that lessons are learned from this incident, and that we identify how we can minimise impacts on our national resilience in future.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
NATS is a significant local employer for my constituents, and I put on record my thanks to the engineers and controllers who worked hard to restore the system and keep passengers safe. However, this is the third such collapse in three years, and all employees who work for NATS, as well as the airports, airlines and passengers who rely on it, deserve better. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that a genuinely effective back-up system is in place, so that we are not back here again in another two years?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Lady for her work representing her constituents who are employees of NATS. Let me use this opportunity to thank them again for the hard work that they do. However, she is right to say that resilience in those systems is not currently where we need it to be. We never want disruption of this kind to occur, but when it does, we need to use it as a productive lesson on how we can strengthen systems and ensure that when things do go wrong, they are restored as quickly as possible. I am confident that NATS responded to this incident in the shortest possible timeframe, while ensuring that safety was paramount for aircraft, both arriving and departing, but there are lessons to be learned about the contingency plans that need to be put in place, and we will endeavour to learn them.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Just how confident is the Minister that this was not a cyber-attack? How confident is he of the resilience of the system in the event of such an attack, and how confident is he in the willingness and ability of the Government to retaliate in the event of such an attack, as the best form of deterrence?
Keir Mather
As the right hon. Member knows, retaliation against cyber-attacks is not an appropriate matter to discuss at the Dispatch Box. However, he raises an important point about our overall resilience and ability to defend against cyber-attacks when they occur. While NATS has confirmed that this was a technical issue—it does not believe it to be cyber-related—I can reassure the right hon. Member that the CAA, NATS, DFT and transport providers work very closely together to defend against cyber-attacks from our adversaries, and any other threats that may emerge.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Any disruption to aviation has an adverse impact on travellers coming from Northern Ireland. Will the Minister give reassurance that when he speaks of contingency and resilience, he includes the Northern Ireland airports—Aldergrove airport in my constituency and Belfast City airport—within that?
Keir Mather
Aviation connectivity is perhaps nowhere more important than from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom. It is an economic and a social lifeline—I am cognisant of that. I can reassure the hon. Member that retaining resilience with the links from Northern Ireland to the UK mainland is of the utmost importance to me, and I would be glad to speak further to him to think about how we can strengthen those aviation links.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Many of my constituents work at Heathrow airport. They have had to work extra hours, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned, and they have suffered abuse, too. I put on record my appreciation for all that they have done. Even more of my constituents use Heathrow for business travel and social travel. Some will have insurance, but others will not. What advice is the Department giving to those people who have been affected on claiming compensation and alternative opportunities for travel? Has he set up a hotline, for example, whereby people can phone in and get advice immediately?
Keir Mather
Let me just say quickly to the hon. Member that if he has constituents experiencing particularly thorny issues in engaging with airlines to get the support they need, he is welcome to raise them with me. Passengers whose flights have been cancelled are entitled to assistance from their airlines, including either a refund within seven days or rerouting to their destination. The CAA has published guidance on its website stating that delays and cancellations caused by the NATS technical incident are likely to be considered extraordinary circumstances, because they are beyond airlines’ control. That being said, we will think about how we can work with a range of actors, including the airports and airlines, to get the right information to passengers in order to ensure that they can access the support they need.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
A constituent has contacted me to say that their shift at an airport was cancelled yesterday due to the problems with the air traffic control system. They were told to not come into work, but they were also told to not expect pay for that day’s shift. Will the Minister confirm that he expects all workers who were due to work at airports yesterday to get paid for that shift regardless?
Keir Mather
Let me use this opportunity to restate my thanks to workers across UK airports who have responded to this disruption. I am concerned to hear about the case that the hon. Member raises, and if he writes to me with more detail, I can ensure that the appropriate action is taken.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for those answers. This has happened three times in three years. Normally, on the third strike, you are out. Instead, the chief executive gets an £871,000 bonus. For people in Northern Ireland, a flight to Great Britain is a basic utility. When NATS crashed, my constituents were entirely cut off. What specific resilience measures is the Minister’s Department implementing to guarantee that Northern Ireland air bridges are prioritised during system recovery? Hard-working families in my constituency who suffered this week are told that they will not get a penny of compensation because the NATS failure counts as an extraordinary circumstance. If such incidents are avoidable, why on earth are passengers carrying the financial burden while NATS avoids accountability?
Keir Mather
That is a very fair challenge. Our response to ensure that his constituents get the protections they need is threefold. First, we need to learn the lessons of what has happened, the nature of the technical fault, and to fix it to minimise the chance of it ever happening again. Secondly, there is a broader resilience question about air connectivity from Northern Ireland. I would like to work with him and other Members to think about how that can be strengthened further, but I reassure him that resilience work on that matter is widespread across the Department for Transport and is at the forefront of our minds. Thirdly, there is the question of residents in Northern Ireland being able to benefit from the measures in the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill that are specifically designed to strengthen consumer protections, enhance air passenger rights and make our system of aviation safety more streamlined. I look forward to working with him and other hon. Members on those important issues.
Business of the House
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business of the House?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 14 September will include:
Monday 14 September—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Sovereign Grant Bill, followed by motions to approve recommendations by the Modernisation Committee and Committee of Privileges and changes to Standing Orders following machinery of government changes, followed by a general debate on Israel and Palestine.
Tuesday 15 September—General debate on the potential merits of a full ban on fracking, followed by a general debate on World Sepsis Awareness Month. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the conference recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 15 September and return on Monday 12 October.
The provisional business for the week commencing 12 October includes:
Monday 12 October—General debate on Baby Loss Awareness Week. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 13 October—Remaining stages of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.
Wednesday 14 October—Opposition day (third allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 15 October—Second Reading of the Highways (Financing) Bill.
Friday 16 October—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 19 October includes:
Monday 19 October—Committee of the whole House of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, day one.
Tuesday 20 October—Conclusion of Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.
Members may also want to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the November recess at the close of business on Wednesday 4 November and return on Tuesday 10 November. The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the close of business on Thursday 17 December, and will now return on Tuesday 5 January 2027. The House will rise for the February recess at the close of business on Thursday 11 February 2027 and return on Monday 22 February. The House will rise for the Easter recess at the close of business on Thursday 25 March and return on Monday 12 April. The House will rise for the May Bank holiday recess at the close of business on Thursday 29 April and return on Tuesday 4 May. The House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the close of business on Thursday 27 May and return on Monday 7 June. The House will rise for the summer recess at the close of business on Thursday 22 July.
John Lamont
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for outlining the business and, of course, the recess dates. It is always good to look forward to the next recess.
Tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of the appalling terrorist attacks on the United States. We remember the thousands of innocent people who went to work that morning, boarded aircraft or reported for duty in the emergency services, and never returned home. We remember their families and all those whose lives were changed forever. Earlier this year, I had the privilege of visiting the 9/11 Memorial in New York. Standing where the Twin Towers once stood, it is an incredibly moving experience and a powerful reminder of both the terrible events of that day and the courage and resilience that followed them. A quarter of a century on, we should never forget the victims, nor should we ever waver in our determination to confront terrorism and defend the freedoms and values that those responsible sought to attack.
I turn now to matters closer to home. The Leader of the House has announced that the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will be rushed through the House over a couple of days in October, with no separate Report stage. That is very little time to consider such a complex Bill, particularly as the Government are reported to be preparing to table over 100 amendments. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Government amendments are tabled before the House rises on Tuesday, and will he explain why the Government are not providing a separate Report stage?
There seems to be growing chatter on the Government Benches about an early general election, with some Labour Members apparently wondering whether the new Prime Minister might even go to the country before Christmas. The Leader of the House is of course a man right at the heart of Government decision making and will know better than most what is being discussed in Downing Street. So for the benefit of increasingly nervous Labour Back Benchers, can he give the House a simple assurance today: will this Parliament run its full course, or will the new Prime Minister already be running away from difficult decisions?
Turning to Scotland, last week the SNP Government published their latest programme for government. After nearly two decades in power, Scotland was promised renewal. Instead, as Russell Findlay put it, we got more “meddling” and “gimmicks”—more centralisation, more bureaucracy and yet more attempts to distract from the SNP’s dire record in office. This was on full display when the PISA school results were published recently, showing that Scotland’s once world-class education system is now considered to be just average.
Of particular concern to my constituents is the extraordinary proposal by the SNP Government to abolish Scotland’s 14 territorial health boards and replace them with just two. This means the abolition of NHS Borders as we know it. People in my constituency in the Scottish Borders have already experienced the consequences of SNP centralisation with Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. They do not want vital healthcare decisions taken further away from the communities those services exist to serve. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the hard-working staff NHS Borders, and call on an increasingly centralising SNP Government not to forget rural and remote communities in Scotland?
Finally, farming is the backbone of communities across the Borders and across rural Britain. Despite the enormous concern expressed by farmers and farming businesses, Labour’s family farm tax is now in force. Ahead of the Budget next month, will the Leader of the House convey a very simple message to the Chancellor: listen to our farmers, recognise the damage this tax is doing to confidence and succession planning, and finally do the right thing—scrap the family farm tax?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the deputy shadow Leader of the House for his remarks. Before I turn to his specific questions, may I remind the House that today is World Suicide Prevention Day? When someone takes their own life, the impact on family and friends is devastating and widespread. Today is an opportunity for all of us to unite behind one clear and unambiguous message: suicides are preventable. I want to place on record my sincere thanks to the many community groups and charities across the country that offer compassionate, lifesaving support to those affected. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for her thoughtful contribution in leading the Westminster Hall debate on this matter on Tuesday. This Government are firmly committed to tackling suicide, and the new mental health hubs and emergency centres announced over the summer represent a crucial step forward in delivering early community-based support.
As the deputy shadow Leader of the House said, tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I, too, have seen the site of the attacks, and it is a harrowing reminder. We remember the 2,977 innocent lives lost, including 67 British citizens, and the countless families whose lives were forever changed. We pay tribute to the extraordinary bravery of the first responders—the firefighters, the police officers and the medical personnel—who risked and sacrificed their lives running towards the danger in order to save others.
It has been an important week for Government announcements. On Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary set out our response to illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories. The Government have announced targeted sanctions, introducing an important ban on goods originating from illegal settlements and taking action against companies and individuals providing services, infrastructure or finance for settlement expansion. As we have made clear, these settlements are illegal and the occupation of Palestinian territories is unlawful. The Chancellor set out this week how the Government will make Great Britain “Growth Britain” again. We will drive devolution and provide more public leadership and control, and with more investment, more innovation and more jobs, there will be growth in every postcode.
Let me now turn to the remarks of the deputy shadow Leader of the House. On the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which I have just announced we will be taking shortly after the conference recess, I have announced two days on the Floor of the House for Committee stage and remaining stages. It is often the case, when matters are dealt with on the Floor of the House, that a Report stage is either unnecessary or there is not a great deal of time, but I will take away what he says. I will also take away his point about ensuring that amendments are timely. We want to go further in Committee, with a substantial package of amendments to safeguard our Operation Banner veterans. None of the protections were included in previous legislation, which instead left our veterans in legal limbo, so although I do take into account what the hon. Gentleman has said, we will take no lessons from the Conservative party.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned chatter about an early general election. If there is any such chatter, it is on the Opposition side of the House. I would just say to those on the other side of the House to be careful what they wish for. The Prime Minister, as he has made clear, has no intention of calling an early general election, because there is an important job to do and he is determined to get on with it. I think he has made a fantastic start and he intends to continue doing everything we can to make our country a better place to live and work in again.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the situation north of the border and mentioned Scottish education. I remember when Scottish education was the model for education not just in the United Kingdom, but often around the world. All I would say on the matter is that the apparent lack of ambition from the current Government north of the border stands in stark contrast with our ambition for every young person on this side of the border.
I am happy to pay tribute to NHS staff in the hon. Gentleman’s area, as I would for NHS staff everywhere, and I agree with him. This Prime Minister and this new Administration are very clear that we believe devolution is the way forward: decisions taken locally where they affect people is the way forward, rather than centralisation. Therefore, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said.
As far as farming is concerned, obviously I am not going to comment on what might or might not be in the Budget. I simply point out that we are supporting farming, not least with the £65 million extra that we have provided.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
As the Leader of the House said, today is World Suicide Prevention Day, and I thank him for his comments. In the UK, someone takes their own life every 90 minutes—the length of a football match. Partnerships such as the Premier League and the Samaritans’ “Together Against Suicide” initiative show how sport can break stigma and save lives. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming that campaign and set out how the Government are supporting community-led suicide prevention across the country, and will he allow a debate in Government time on suicide prevention?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I said in my opening remarks, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, as ever, not just for her question but for her continued contribution on these matters. It is really important that she continues to raise them. I want to place on the record my sincere thanks to the many community groups and charities across the country that offer compassionate, lifesaving support to those affected. I agree with her absolutely that organisations such as the Premier League, in playing a role, draw very welcome attention to what needs to be done, and I thank them very much for that. The Government remain committed to tackling suicide, which is why we announced new mental health hubs and emergency centres. It is important that we try to prevent as many unnecessary deaths as possible. Were she to seek a further debate on these matters, either through the Backbench Business Committee or in Westminster Hall, I expect she will find that many Members share her concerns, as she will have heard from the murmurs across the Chamber just now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I echo the comments made in relation to the anniversary of the September 11th attacks. Nearly 25 years ago, in the April after the attacks, my husband and I visited the site of the twin towers. We were both police officers at the time, and realising that we and our colleagues would have faced the same dangers that others had faced really brought home for us the scale of the sacrifice made. Having attended a debate on confidence in policing yesterday, I know how important trust in policing is.
Reform UK’s disdain for British electoral law was broadcast to the nation last week in undercover footage involving the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I have emailed him—and some of his closest advisers. The Metropolitan police were already investigating Reform UK, and they have now confirmed that they are broadening their inquiry to include foreign donations involving polling. I find it ironic that a party that stakes so much of its reputation on claims of patriotism spends far more time trying to get around British law than strengthening it. Will Reform MPs share with the country whether they and their campaigns have ever benefited from any foreign money? I also reiterate the calls I made over recess for Reform’s home affairs spokesperson to provide evidence for the damaging claims he made online against a business in my constituency. Several weeks on, that business and I are still waiting.
We are living in an unstable world, where dodgy donations are routine and corruption is common. Bad actors such as Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin and Reform pin-up boy Donald Trump are dedicated to destroying our democracy. The Government and all parliamentarians should be standing up against those threats. Again, for a party so keen to ensure relationships with our nearest neighbours, Reform UK seems happy to jeopardise our sovereignty by encouraging foreign interference. However, the Representation of the People Bill that passed through the Commons last week did not include a donation cap and therefore failed to protect our political system from the corrupting influence of foreign money. Given that the Bill was debated before MPs were aware of these concerning allegations, will the Government find time to legislate to protect British democracy?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the hon. Lady in her remarks about the bravery of those New York police officers who, 25 years ago, ran towards danger. To be clear, were something similarly terrible to happen in this country, that is what our police officers would do as well. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady in her previous role, as well as to her husband and colleagues. Our police officers are fantastic servants of our communities and, indeed, our nation.
The hon. Lady talked about political donations. We will have to see how the current crisis for Reform plays out. We have been considering the Representation of the People Bill in this place, but there will be an opportunity to look at some of those matters again in the other place. As this Government continue to get on with the job and look to make the long-term changes that are necessary to clean up our politics, there will be future opportunities for legislation.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
May I first congratulate Merv Johnson, who has been shortlisted for an award in recognition of the countless hours he gives to Outcasts cricket club, keeping its ground in fantastic condition throughout the season. Volunteers like Merv are the backbone of grassroots sport, but their dedication depends on clubs having somewhere to play. Will the Leader of the House set out how he will support clubs going forward?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Merv Johnson on his hard work at the Outcasts cricket club. This Government are committed to ensuring that everyone benefits from quality sport and physical activity opportunities in their local area. We are investing at least £400 million over the next four years to provide communities with the sports facilities they need, which includes £3 million for the England and Wales Cricket Board this financial year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Since the changes, we have been inundated with requests from Select Committees to have statements in the House, which I welcome. Next Tuesday, before the two debates that have been scheduled, there will be Select Committee statements on the Treasury and Public Accounts Committee reports.
I know that the Leader of the House will share my concern about the debate on Baby Loss Awareness Week being scheduled for the first day back after recess, following what happened last year, when the number of Government statements meant that the debate took place late at night and it was difficult for many Members to contribute. We thought long and hard before allocating the debate and approaching the sponsors, who were insistent that they wanted the debate on the first day back. I hope that the Leader of the House will again provide protected time and prevail on his colleagues not to have too many Government statements, so that we can have a reasonable debate on the subject.
In addition, there are potentially another five Select Committee statements to come forward in the next few weeks, which I once again welcome. If we are offered 22 October, we have potential debates ready to go.
In Westminster Hall, on Tuesday there will be a debate on building safety remediation of residential buildings. On Tuesday 13 October there will be a debate on the future of the UK coach industry. On Thursday 15 October there will be a Select Committee statement from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, followed by debates on support for unpaid carers and on the progress towards a smokefree UK. On Tuesday 20 October there will be a debate on manufacturing skills. On Thursday 22 October there will be a debate on compensation for Equitable Life policyholders.
I am sure that the whole House will recognise the importance of hospital radio across the country. It gives great comfort to patients, through the music, the discussions and the news, particularly when people are suffering in hospital. I am pleased to say that Radio Brockley, which operates at the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in my constituency, will be celebrating its 60th anniversary next month, before we come back from recess. It is the longest-running hospital radio station in London. Indeed, we have volunteers who have served for more than 40 years, giving their service to that hospital. I am sure that the Leader of the House will join me in congratulating Radio Brockley on this wonderful anniversary. Perhaps we could have a statement in Government time on the importance of hospital radio in the health service and the benefits it brings to patients and staff.
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has told the House today and for his ongoing work as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. He is right that the baby loss debate is scheduled for the first day back after recess. He will know that the way in which this happened last time concerned me greatly, which is why we wondered whether the debate could perhaps take place at another time. That has not turned out to be the case, so it will be on the first Monday back.
The hon. Gentleman talks about two things. The first is protected time for the debate. I have already thought about this, and I will certainly give it further thought. I hope we can get to that place. I have to say to him, though, that it might be a bit of a mixed blessing, unless we have real discipline on the day, and some of that discipline—I will be careful how I say this—is not entirely in my hands. What is to some extent in my hands, and in the Government’s hands, is the number of statements we have. We are coming back from conference recess that day, and I would expect there to be announcements over the recess, so I would therefore expect statements. However, I will do everything I can to ensure that there is an appropriate amount of time for that debate. So many parents and family members come down for the debate, and they deserve the best that we can provide.
Secondly, I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking everyone involved in hospital radio across the country. I agree about its importance and join him in congratulating Radio Brockley on its 60th anniversary, which is a remarkable achievement. Well done to Radio Brockley, and thank you to all the volunteers—not just now, but all those who have volunteered in the past.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have many colleagues to get through. I can see that some Members are holding bits of paper with far too many sentences on them—cross them out and ask a question in one sentence. I call Sharon Hodgson.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will be very brief. Next Thursday is World Patient Safety Day. As the landmark Cumberlege review confirmed, patients—particularly women—have had their concerns dismissed and denied for far too long. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group “First Do No Harm”, I ask the Leader of the House if he will grant a debate in Government time on when they will respond to the excellent Hughes report.
Sir Alan Campbell
We recognise the profound, life-changing impact that these harms have on individuals and their families. As my hon. Friend will know, we are carefully considering the Hughes report. She asks for an opportunity to debate it, but first of all I will seek an update from Ministers to see whether we need to make further progress on this really important matter.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I love to do everything I can to support our pubs and hospitality industry—and I do mean everything. I am pleased to represent an area of the country that has many fantastic pubs, many of which are participating in my current “Pub of the Year” competition, and voting is now open. Can we have a debate in Government time about the important role of our hospitality industry in our local communities? Can I invite the Leader of the House and you, Madam Deputy Speaker—in fact, everybody—to the winner of the competition, wherever it may be? I do not promise to pay for every pint, but we will see how it goes.
Sir Alan Campbell
Should the hon. Gentleman wish to seek a Westminster Hall debate on this matter, I am sure that other colleagues would join him to talk about the importance of pubs in their area. It would also allow a Minister to talk about the cut to business rates for pubs that this Prime Minister has already insisted on.
I will certainly give careful thought to the hon. Gentleman’s invitation. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the second time that we have been invited out together—
Sir Alan Campbell
Well, “couple” is not necessarily the word that I would use at this point, but it is interesting that people are reading more into this than is the case. I will certainly bear the invitation in mind. I wish all pubs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency the very best, and it is fantastic that he is having that competition.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I do not think I have ever been publicly invited and dismissed from a date in one sitting. I call Euan Stainbank.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Heavy goods vehicle drivers such as my constituent Peter Cunningham are vital to Falkirk’s local economy. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has directly risked Peter’s livelihood by requesting duplicate medical information a month after he already submitted it in full. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the relevant Minister on how DVLA and Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency delays are being addressed, and will he support my representations to help Peter get his licence back?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend highlights, these delays are having real impacts on our constituents’ livelihoods. I am not across the detail of the case that he raises, but if he shares the detail with my office, I will ensure that it is taken up with the relevant Minister.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Cruel experiments on children are the stuff of dystopian fiction or the fact of past tyrannies, yet as the shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), reminded us, such experiments are taking place here and now to establish the damage that puberty blockers do. When challenged on this in the House, the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), said in an agonised fashion that he would be requesting monthly updates on the progress of those experiments. We have heard nothing since.
I am confident that Mr Speaker and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would want this House to know first how these experiments are going. Will the Leader of the House demand from Ministers a statement on these matters, as was promised, or was that promise merely a rhetorical device to assuage the genuine fears of Members across the Chamber?
Sir Alan Campbell
Knowing the former Health Secretary, it was not the latter. It was a commitment that we will seek to uphold, so I will take that away and talk to current Ministers in the Department and see if we can get what the right hon. Gentleman seeks.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Last month I visited HMP Foston Hall to see the work it was doing giving catering and hospitality experience to women there, but when so many in our prisons are on remand, waiting for trial or temporarily back on recall, it is much harder to do the work that can break cycles of reoffending. Last year, I was able to secure a debate on work in prison, but will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the broader issue of education, training and work in prisons to prevent future offending and keep our communities safer?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a really important matter. The Government recognise that high-quality education and vocational training are central to rehabilitation and reducing offending. We are expanding vocational opportunities to help prisoners develop the skills needed to secure sustainable employment on their release. My hon. Friend talks about the previous debate that she had on related matters. I would encourage her to seek a Westminster Hall debate to pursue this particular aspect.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
This week’s debate on the Health Bill was poorly organised and not enough time was allowed. Many Back Benchers from my party, as well as others from across the House, were not called to speak despite hours of bobbing. I wished to address new clause 72, on the provision of minor injuries units in rural areas. When such measures, which can add validity to the Bill that is under discussion, are not given the time that they deserve, it results in frustration among MPs, who are trying to represent their electorates, and in a lessening of the effectiveness of our democracy. Will greater thought please be given to allowing Back-Bench MPs a more valid say in such debates?
Sir Alan Campbell
To some extent, I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. There have been a series of statements since our return from summer recess—that is not unusual. What is unusual is that we got a new Administration and Prime Minister at the beginning of that recess. A significant amount of time was allowed for that Bill, but I will bear in mind what he says about the opportunity for Members to talk about their constituency matters. The Modernisation Committee is considering the use of time in this place. It is becoming clear that, when considering time for the Government, for the Opposition and all the other things, we must think about statements, urgent questions and how the day starts, so that when there is great demand for discussion of legislation—that is not always the case, but it was in this instance—time is available.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s expansion of free school meals for children in households eligible for universal credit, which will take 500,000 children out of poverty. However, the fact that those children will not be eligible for holiday activities and food funding will lead to two-tier poverty. Will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate to consider how we can reverse that situation?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am pleased that my hon. Friend recognises the important steps that the Government have taken. I understand her point about HAF funding, which has been raised by others, too. She may wish to seek a Westminster Hall debate, not only to expand on her points but to allow others to take part and hear from a Minister about what more the Government can do.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Last weekend, I visited Cornerways in my constituency, which provides supported living for vulnerable adults. The Friends of Cornerways have spent the last year clearing the garden so that it is now a workable space for residents. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating them and other community groups that do so much for our local areas, and will he grant Government time to debate the importance of community projects for societal good?
Sir Alan Campbell
I have said on numerous occasions that community volunteers are the golden thread that run through our communities. In fact, they make our communities what they are, so I absolutely join the hon. Gentleman in acknowledging his constituency case. Should he seek a Westminster Hall debate on communities and volunteers, it would allow others from across the House to share similar positive experiences.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I recently met the Royal Society of Chemistry and, as a former teacher, spent far too much time reminiscing about my time in the classroom. We turned quickly to the contribution that chemistry makes to our economy. In 2023, chemistry contributed £60.5 billion in gross value added, including over £64 million in Wolverhampton. Given the pressures on the skills pipeline, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how we can ensure that young people have the skills needed to support growth and innovation in that vital sector?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to point out that chemistry makes a considerable contribution to our economy. As the House will know, the UK is a world leader in science, due in no small part to the quality of our teachers. On skills, we are committed to ensuring that young people are equipped for the future, including through new technical education pathways for science. If she wishes to look at the matter more broadly, she should perhaps consider applying for an Adjournment debate.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Industrial hemp is at the forefront of innovation in agriculture, and my constituent Martin Cessford is a farmer at the forefront of that in Scotland. Hemp has great promise for industrial, health, climate and building applications. However, Martin has been thwarted at every turn by the Home Office and its absurd application of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as it relates to hemp products. With my help, he has made some progress, but his shipment, which is going to Germany for quality control testing, is now stuck in the Netherlands. I asked the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for help over a month ago, but have not heard anything. Might we have a debate in Government time on the tension between the Government’s need for growth and innovation and their Departments standing in the way of that, and will the Leader of the House use his good offices to give the FCDO a shake?
Sir Alan Campbell
As a former Drugs Minister, I understand the complexity of this matter and the frustration involved, too. I will raise it with both the Home Office, which has responsibility for it, and the FCDO to see whether we can get clarity on the situation.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Residents in Gardner Way in my constituency are stuck. They are subject to an Act from 1925 and a rent charge that makes it incredibly difficult for them to sell their homes, because if they miss a payment, their home could be repossessed. Most owners with those rent charges allow a simple change in the deed. I have every faith that this one will as well, and we are planning legislation in this area. I ask the Leader of the House to encourage the owner to allow a simple change to the deeds and to confirm that we still have legislation planned to change this horrible practice.
Sir Alan Campbell
I hope the owner has heard my hon. Friend’s comments. As a Government, we are committed to banning the use of draconian and outdated remedies for non-payment of rent charges through the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which we published in draft in January and will be introducing. I will ensure that my hon. Friend has a meeting with the Minister for Housing and Planning so that he can hear more about the progress that we intend to make.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I was shocked and appalled at the vitriol and hate shown towards volunteers for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution across the entire south coast, including at RNLI Selsey in my constituency. They go out day in, day out and show us what actual patriots look like when they are saving lives at sea. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to our brave RNLI volunteers and make time to debate how we can better support them?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join the hon. Lady in sending our support and appreciation to the RNLI, not least because I have RNLI presence in my coastal constituency. It is wholly unacceptable that RNLI volunteers face abuse of any sort, including on social media. Let me put that very clearly on the record. They have to feel safe in their roles to make their lifesaving contributions, so she is right to raise this matter, and I absolutely endorse what she says.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Yesterday, we received the fantastic news that the Buy Back Brixton community campaign has been named as the preferred buyer for Brixton’s iconic markets, Brixton Village and Market Row, which are in my constituency. That means that the markets can be purchased by the community for the community, safeguarding their character and heritage and securing the long-term future for the incredible traders who make their living there. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising and celebrating the milestone reached by Buy Back Brixton and encourage everyone to support its drive to raise the remaining funds needed to complete the sale? Could we have a debate in Government time on what more can be done to safeguard community assets and independent businesses on our high streets and in our town centres and to expand community ownership?
Sir Alan Campbell
I offer my congratulations, and I am sure the congratulations of the whole House, to the traders and campaigners in the Buy Back Brixton campaign, and I am delighted to hear of their success. We have implemented new high street rental auction regulations, and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 introduces a new community right to buy. Later this year, we will be bringing introducing a high streets strategy, and I am sure my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to raise local matters in the debate on that.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
With an estimated 1.4 million approved homes unbuilt, brownfield capacity for 1.41 million homes and more than 750,000 empty homes in England, will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on unlocking that housing to meet the Government’s 1.5 million target before any more green belt is released?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Lady has raised housing matters and is right to do so on behalf of her residents. But there is that tension between the feelings often of local residents and their concern where there is green belt, and the need for additional housing. I will take into consideration what she said about the potential for a debate and see what we can do.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Since 2011, 15 years ago, my constituent John has been forced to use a bucket in his garden in lieu of a toilet because his own toilet pumps raw sewage back into his house. I have raised this on the Floor of the House before, and after my intervention, Severn Trent finally provided a Portaloo and promised a permanent solution. Unfortunately, this week it informed John that the permanent solution will not work and there is no timeline for delivery of a solution to this absolutely shocking failure on its behalf. It is a matter of dignity for John and his neighbours in Hill Ridware. Will the Leader of the House arrange for me to meet the Minister to discuss this shocking case, because it simply cannot go on any longer?
Sir Alan Campbell
The situation my hon. Friend describes is simply unacceptable. I hope that Severn Trent has heard his powerful representation, and I will certainly ask Ministers to meet him.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
This House will know that I continue to push for the issues affecting men and boys to be addressed, and we were making progress—the last Prime Minister committed to a men and boys summit. Sadly, there has been a reshuffle and that summit has not yet happened. I have written to the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office, but have not heard anything back. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to raise with No. 10 whether the summit will go ahead and if not, push it forward so that we can discuss the issues facing men and boys in this country?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous campaigner on issues affecting men and boys, and I pay real tribute to him for that. I encourage him and others to contribute to the Westminster Hall debate later today on men and boys, but I will take away his concerns about taking this forward with the Government and, indeed, a summit to find out the new Administration’s plan, as I am sure they will want to honour that.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Today marks three months since the lockdown in Azad Kashmir. Over 100 peaceful protesters have been killed, over 1,000 have been injured, and many more remain under arbitrary arrest. Over 1 million British Kashmiris quite rightly remain concerned at this escalation. The all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, along with 80 parliamentarians across this Chamber, raised serious concerns about the human rights violations. Will the Leader of the House allow Government time for a full and substantial debate so that we can put it on the record that the human rights violations of Kashmiris are in breach of international law, and that peaceful table talk must be resumed immediately?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend has been an assiduous campaigner on these matters, and I pay tribute to him for that. He is right that human rights apply and should be respected wherever they are. Should he seek an Adjournment debate or Westminster Hall debate on these matters, he would hear both from the relevant Minister on the Government’s position on Kashmir and any other concerns of colleagues across the House.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s stated intention to tackle the social care crisis and to work cross-party to that end, but I was disappointed that the talks convened in July did not involve all the parties that had previously been involved in the existing cross-party social care talks. Will the Leader of the House update the House on the timetable for the next steps in those cross-party talks? Will he also assure the House that they will be genuinely cross-party, because we on the opposition Benches are keen to work with the Government to tackle this essential issue?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is more than an intention; it is one of the things that drives the Prime Minister, as it did when he was previously a Member, and he has returned to the House with that drive, too. She is right that not all the parties took up the offer in the way the Prime Minister asked for. However, the Liberal Democrats did, and I pay tribute to that. I will take away her comments about other parties that might want to be invited in the future—we cannot guarantee that they will turn up—and see what the Government intend to do to move the situation forward. We must do so, and it will be much better done on a cross-party basis.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Fly-tipping and littering are a blight on our communities. That is why I am proud of amazing organisations like the Friends of the Welsh Harp, the Friends of Heybourne Park and the Burnt Oak Nepalese community as well as the litter pickers at St Mary’s and many more for the work they do to keep Hendon looking its best. I am working with them to hold my next big Hendon litter pick on 25 October. Over 100 people attended the last one, and this one promises to be even bigger. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking all the selfless volunteers and brilliant organisations who keep Hendon tidy and encourage people to come along on the 25th? There is a high-vis and a bin bag with his name on it if he is free that day.
Sir Alan Campbell
That is tempting, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I notice that it was only I who was invited and not you—there we are. I pay tribute to all my hon. Friend’s constituents who have selflessly volunteered to keep Hendon tidy. Community action like that is vital. I encourage his constituents to join him in his litter pick next month. The Government are playing their part by taking robust action against fly-tipping, increasing the maximum penalty to £5,000 and giving the council powers to crush the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers, but it is a whole-of-Government and communities effort that will bear down on this intolerable problem.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I was concerned to read that at the weekend RNLI lifeboats were turned away from two ports, Portsmouth and Southampton. As a result, brave RNLI volunteers had to face angry anti-migrant demonstrations—somehow, those protesters knew where the lifeboats were going to land. Will the Leader of the House please ensure that the Government make a statement on the incident, including why harbourmasters were allowed to turn away lifeboats that are there to save lives?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I said previously, we pay tribute to the RNLI across the country. It is wholly unacceptable that volunteers anywhere should face abuse—they certainly should not be turned away. The Government take these matters very seriously and will be looking at what happened. On the importance of the RNLI going forward, as that has been raised by the hon. Gentleman and others, he may want to seek a debate and pin the Minister down on what further action might be taken.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
By the time I was 18, I had already had five years’ work experience stacking shelves in the local supermarket and making Big Macs in McDonald’s. Sadly, too many young people today do not have access to work experience. On 25 September, I will hold the fourth of my hugely successful job fairs, and I am encouraging all the exhibitors to offer work experience to local young people so that we can break down that barrier. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on the importance of work experience for our young people and for our economy?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are committed to supporting young people into work and as, my hon. Friend says, work experience is an important part of providing insights into future potential career paths. As he will know, the Milburn review is looking at how we can tackle some of these issues. We want to ensure that every young person between 16 and 24 has the opportunity to earn and learn, and part-time jobs and work experience are an important part of that. I encourage young people to go along to his job fair, for which I pay tribute to him. I note that Education questions is on Monday, when he might want to raise the matter directly with Ministers.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On Monday, just as campaigners from the New Forest and Waterside were handing into Downing Street a 32,000-signature petition against the appalling and unfair outcome of local government reorganisation affecting our area, the welcome announcement was made by the Government that the local government reform proposals for Hampshire and three other counties were being withdrawn and all the rest were being paused. May I invite the Leader of the House to secure a statement either from the Prime Minister or from the Secretary of State as soon as possible, confirming that that withdrawal and those pauses will be made permanent?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Secretary of State came to the House at the earliest opportunity, and making that statement was the right thing to do. The Government are going away to have a look at these matters, because we are keen that we get the best possible local government in this country. When there are further things to say on these matters, I am sure that the Secretary of State will come back and report to the House.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Offences under the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 have skyrocketed 81% since July 2022—a stark sign that violence against women and girls in Scotland has reached crisis point. That fact was rammed home to me last week, as I listened to a woman in my constituency advice surgery describe the abuse she has been experiencing at the hands of her partner. This Labour Government are working hard to halve violence against women and girls, but to deliver that for the whole United Kingdom, we must tackle the root causes and demand urgent action from Holyrood. Will the Leader of the House outline what he thinks the Scottish Government might learn from the work of this Labour Government?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is clear that violence against women and girls is reaching a crisis point, and I am disturbed to hear my hon. Friend’s assessment of what is happening north of the border, which is in contrast to the action that we are taking in Westminster. We published our violence against women and girls strategy, detailing how we will tackle this national emergency and halve violence against women and girls in the next decade. If the SNP Government do not share that ambition, I would encourage them to get on, do more about it and align themselves with that ambition. We are about working not just cross-party but between Governments. If they wish to engage in that, I am sure it would be worth while.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Robert Steele was a beautiful four-year-old boy who died three weeks ago in Newark when he was thrown from an off-road bike that was being driven by a 24-year-old man. This is the culmination of a number of incidents in my town, and many others across the country, involving off-road bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters. Will the Government consider a debate on the policing of these bikes, what further action we can take to prevent terrible tragedies such as this one, and the posture of police forces across the country, including when they can appropriately intercept these bikes and protect members of the public?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sad to hear of what happened in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency; our thoughts are with the family. He is right to point to the scourge of off-road bikes and e-scooters, because there are simply too many incidents of the sort that he describes. If he called for a Westminster Hall debate on these matters, he could hear from the Minister about what we intend to do. We do intend to crack down on them. I absolutely agree with him that, where police forces have the powers, they need to use them. That is probably easier for me to say than it is for them to do, but they need to use the powers. Together, we need to tackle this scourge.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Awaab’s law has support from across this Chamber. Does the Leader of the House agree that we now need an assessment of the impact of Awaab’s law? What parliamentary time could be allocated to that? We need to be certain that the scourge of damp and mould will be tackled by this Government in our lifetimes.
Sir Alan Campbell
Everyone deserves to live in a home that is safe and decent. That is why we brought Awaab’s law into force, protecting millions of tenants and forcing landlords to urgently fix dangerous homes within 24 hours of reporting. The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 also tackles the blight of poor-quality privately rented homes, including by applying the decent homes standard to the private rented sector for the first time. Should my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic campaigner on these matters, seek a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate, she and others will find out from the Minister what further steps can be taken so that housing improves for the many.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Bromsgrove continues to grind to a halt because of Worcestershire county council’s disastrous delivery of a local transport scheme, BREP—the Bromsgrove route enhancement programme. The scheme is backed by tens of millions of pounds of central Government funding. I recently wrote to the Transport Secretary with 34 questions that my constituents want answers to, and I received a reply that, frankly, did not answer a single one. I have resubmitted a letter to the Transport Secretary imploring her to answer questions. I am sure that I am often an irritant to the Government—whether through my campaign to protect Bromsgrove’s green belt or on this matter—but I make a plea to the Leader of the House: will he press the Transport Secretary to support me in seeking answers in the interests of my constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is no bad thing when MPs are irritants to the Government, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for the work that he does for his constituents on this important matter. I am disappointed that he did not get a proper reply to the questions that he asked. Let me take that away, take it up with the Minister and see whether we can get him a better reply.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Following the visit this week by the victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), to Colchester’s much-respected Centre for Action on Rape and Abuse, or CARA, and the confirmation of an additional £9 million for victim support services in Essex, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the progress that the Government are making on their work on prevention, enforcement and survivor support?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming this Government’s action and support on violence against women and girls. As the Minister said yesterday, we are committed to tackling all forms of violence against women and girls, whenever it occurs and whoever commits it. This has been a bit of a theme today and my hon. Friend is right to say that it is time for the House to discuss these matters, so I encourage her to apply for a Westminster Hall debate so that others can bring their concerns and suggestions and hear directly from the Minister.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
This week I chaired a roundtable with cancer charities and leading clinicians on delivering early diagnosis. Everyone had concerns about NHS workforce shortfalls blocking the progress of the national cancer plan. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time to assess what investment is needed in the NHS workforce to deliver the national cancer plan’s ambition of earlier diagnosis?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is right that this Government’s plan for tackling cancer is ambitious. We have set out not just the investment that is needed, but our plans for the workforce. Some of the shortfalls in the workforce are being addressed but, as he points out, more can be done. We have brought in our national cancer plan, with £2.3 billion invested to deliver 9.5 million additional tests by 2029. We are making progress, but I will ensure that the Health Secretary hears the hon. Gentleman’s specific concerns.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Recent blasting at Taff’s Well quarry in my constituency caused water to be displaced, resulting in extensive flooding and damage to my constituents. This caused significant distress not just to them, but to anyone who lives near a similar site in Wales. May we have a debate on the assessment and monitoring of quarries near former mine workings in Wales? Will this Government encourage the Welsh Government to consider extending the transparent risk-rating approach that we have for coal tips to similar quarries in Wales, so that constituents can know the risks that are posed near them?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise this very serious issue, and I commend him for doing so. I understand the concerns of his constituents. I hope that the Welsh Government have heard his words and that they will take action to address his concerns. He has brought to this House not just a concern about what has happened, but some good ideas about how it can be addressed. I hope that the Welsh Government are listening.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
On 17 June 2025, my constituent’s four-month-old puppy, Teddy, sustained a serious leg injury during an introductory puppy grooming appointment. Upon complaining to the staff, they dismissed it as just a bruise, but later veterinary imaging confirmed blunt force trauma, resulting in three fractures to the dog’s leg. Instead of addressing the complaint transparently, they ultimately offered partial compensation, but only if my constituent signed a broad confidentiality clause.
I raised this matter with a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and received a response on 27 November 2025, but the response missed the nub of the issue that my constituent was raising. I also requested a meeting. I have since emailed and written to them on 12 January, 14 March, 16 April and 26 August, but have not even received a response from the DEFRA Minister. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to seek a response?
Sir Alan Campbell
Our best wishes go to Teddy and the whole family. I will take up the matter with the DEFRA Minister and do everything I can to get a meeting for the hon. Gentleman. He will know that this Government are concerned about the cost of animal welfare in respect of grooming, but also through vets’ bills. Raising his concern directly with the Minister is the right way forward, and I will see what we can do to get him a meeting.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Dr Anirban Bhattacharyya is a resident in my constituency. He has lived there for 60 years. He travelled to Kolkata only a couple of weeks ago, and it appears that he has been caught up in the horrendous flooding in Nepal. There have been numerous attempts to contact him, but they have been unsuccessful. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been less than helpful, basically pointing the family to the Indian consulate, which, again, has been less than helpful. He has lived in this country for 60 years. He is missing. Can we have a debate in Government time about how the FCDO can be more helpful to people who have lived in this country all their lives and are affected by such national tragedies? Because he does not have a British passport, we cannot help him.
Sir Alan Campbell
We are working with the authorities on the ground to support their efforts in this terrible situation, supporting survivors of all nationalities and trying to get information for families about missing loved ones. As my hon. Friend said, we are also in contact with the Indian authorities about the relief effort. I am disappointed that that has not led to the outcome that my hon. Friend seeks. I will see whether the relevant FCDO Minister will meet him to discuss not just this case but the wider issue about what Governments can do in what are often terrible circumstances.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Brierley Homes, a company owned by Conservative-run North Yorkshire council, is forecast to lose £5 million this year, on top of the £7 million it lost last year and an original £25 million loan from the council and repeated bail-outs. Multiple people have raised with me serious concerns about how this business is run, including allegations of bullying, corruption, fraud and potentially even money laundering. The council appointed an independent auditor earlier this year, but it turned out that that, too, was owned by the local authority. Can the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the transparency and accountability of council-owned companies?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises a very concerning situation. I do not know what the answer is off the top of my head, but if he gives me the details, I will take it up with the relevant Department and see what powers and influence it has to get a better outcome.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
Both towns in my constituency have lost a number of banks and building societies, making access to cash really difficult. The other villages and communities across the constituency have lost a number of post office branches for a variety of reasons, and in some cases the Post Office has been reluctant to reopen them. Can we have a debate on what more the Government can do to ensure that communities—particularly geographically isolated ones—maintain access to cash, which a large number of constituents rely on?
Sir Alan Campbell
Access to cash is an issue that is often most acutely felt by those in rural areas of the country that rely on cash. We are accelerating the roll-out of banking hubs, with over 240 already open, but we have also launched an independent review of access to banking services. The Financial Services and Markets Bill will allow us to take further action in future to protect access to banking services if needed. This has been a common theme in these sessions over weeks and months. If my hon. Friend seeks an Adjournment or Westminster Hall debate, I am sure it will be well attended.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Leaseholders in Maidenhead and across the country are stuck with sky-high service charges, and many constituents have raised them with me. I have seen many of these service charge bills, and some of the costs are astronomical. Can we have a debate in Government time to discuss these massive service charges, which often prevent leaseholders from selling their properties?
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman raises. We are committed to making changes, as he knows, and to implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. We have published the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. The Prime Minister is absolutely determined that we get on with this, and when that happens, the hon. Gentleman will be able to raise his specific constituency concerns.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Professor Jason Arday, aged 41 and the youngest black professor in Cambridge’s history, was found dead at his home in my constituency on 13 August, days after resigning his chair and after sustained press intrusion and harassment. An inquest has opened, but there are serious questions for the Government on press regulation and widespread calls for a public inquiry. Tens of thousands attended a vigil in Trafalgar Square, and vigils have been held from Bradford to Bristol. Constituents have sent emails. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education have both commented, but there has been no statement in this House. The Government cannot comment on their own terms, in a way that Members cannot scrutinise, and then resist a debate that the whole House can join.
Is the Leader of the House aware that this House regularly debates policy arising from deaths while proceedings are live, but leaving those proceedings alone—for example, we debated press regulation in July 2011 after the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone, fire safety after Grenfell, and policing and the safety of women in March 2021 after the death of Sarah Everard, also my constituent—or during court proceedings, such with as the death of Molly Russell during the passage of the Online Safety Bill, and the deaths of Lucy Meadows and Caroline Flack, which were both connected to press conduct? But the press pursue a black man to the end of his life, and this House says nothing about their conduct. I do not have to tell the Leader of the House why that is wrong, so all I will ask him is when the Government will rectify it.
Sir Alan Campbell
Jason Arday’s death is an utter tragedy, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s tireless work on behalf of Professor Arday and his family and friends. I hear what she says about what may have happened in past instances, but there is currently a coroner’s inquest into Professor Arday’s death, which the Government want to be particularly careful not to cut across. There will be an opportunity to respond to that, and I know that the Culture Secretary is very keen to work with her on this matter.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Every time I raise child maintenance failures in this House, my inbox and social media feeds are flooded with parents sharing harrowing cases of domestic abuse being perpetuated, income being undeclared and children being used as weapons in their parents’ relationship breakdown. A report from the other place made sweeping recommendations for change. The long delays and poor processes are really harming children, who should be at the heart of these decisions. We have already had several debates on this issue, as the Leader of the House will know, in which there have been commitments to change. Will he ask the relevant Minister to bring an update to this House, so that we can see what the Government are actually going to do?
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand the way in which the hon. Lady raises that point, because there is incredible frustration—and more, often—across constituencies about the workings of the Child Maintenance Service. Let me take that away and ask the relevant Department if it will consider an update to the House when it is appropriate.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
In Wigan today, the funeral service is taking place for Sir Billy Boston. He was rugby league’s first knight, a trailblazer on and off the pitch, a leader, an inspiration to millions and a gentleman above all else. On what will be a sad day for his family, will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Sir Billy one last time and sending condolences to his loved ones?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I did last week, I pay tribute to Sir Billy Boston, and I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with his loved ones at this time. He was one of the greatest and most popular rugby league players of all time, and his legacy will no doubt continue to inspire future generations of rugby league players.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has produced a report on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill that contains a number of significant recommendations. Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the Government will respond to those recommendations before the next stage of the Bill? Can he give us an update on where the remedial order currently is? It passed through this House and went to the other place, but it has not completed its full passage.
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises these issues and highlights some of their complexities in a very reasonable way. The Government are determined to get this right. If he will allow me, I will take away both his requests to the Department, and I will get him the assurance that he seeks on his first question, and an update on his second question.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
I recently visited the Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboat station at Girvan. It was great to meet the fantastic volunteers who work all year round, in all weathers, to keep us safe along the coast. The RNLI receives funding from SP Energy Networks’ community benefit fund to support high-quality training for the volunteers who carry out these lifesaving duties. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is money well spent, and will he find time for a debate on the role of community benefit funds in local communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all the volunteers for their exceptional and lifesaving work. I agree with her that money spent on the RNLI service is indeed money well spent, with volunteers providing lifesaving services to coastal communities, like mine and hers, across the country. This has been a theme today, so if we had a debate on the RNLI, covering both the unfortunate things that have been happening as well as the positive things that it does day in and day out, I am sure it would be well attended.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
On the honours system, when are the next triennial reports and quinquennial review due, and will the public be able to contribute their views to them?
Sir Alan Campbell
Although I have been part of the honours process, in short, I do not know the answer to the hon. Lady’s question. If she does not mind, I will take her questions away and get answers for her.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a number of occasions, I have raised the case of Lee Cheuk-yan, who many Labour Members will remember was the general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions and founder of the Labour party in Hong Kong. He was detained during the democracy movement five years ago. In the last 48 hours, we have heard that he will be before the courts again on Friday. Having served a five-year sentence, he is now being tried for subversion, and faces the threat of a 30-year sentence. Will the Leader of the House liaise with the Foreign Secretary to see whether we can get a statement on behalf of Lee, urging clemency, and hopefully secure his release?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has had to give the House such a distressing update. As he asks, I will take this away and raise it with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I am sure that the Department will not wait for a statement before making its representations to the Chinese authorities.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
As the Leader of the House knows, it is World Suicide Prevention Day. Suicide is the leading cause of death among under-35s. After nearly 30 years, Papyrus, the national youth suicide prevention charity, went into administration two days ago. Its HopeLine, a 24/7 crisis service, ceased with immediate effect. One of my constituents is absolutely terrified about their young adult child returning to university without Papyrus’s support, on which they were entirely reliant. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that this charity’s collapse is catastrophic for younger people? Will he speak to his colleagues about crisis support for young people and young adults immediately?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am obviously concerned about the collapse of Papyrus, and I will raise the hon. Lady’s concerns with colleagues. In previous responses, I have outlined our strategy and what we intend to do going forward, but I understand the urgency of what she is saying, so I will take it up with colleagues.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Many hon. Members, from all parties, remain incredibly frustrated by Capita’s performance and the ongoing failures relating to its administration of the civil service pension scheme. My office is dealing with many cases on behalf of constituents in Mansfield who are struggling to access their pensions in a timely manner, and I am sure other Members are dealing with similar cases. The delays are now simply beyond acceptable. Will the Leader of the House ask ministerial colleagues to provide the House with an urgent update?
Sir Alan Campbell
Following the move to Capita, the service levels have been completely unacceptable. Our immediate priority was to stabilise the service and give current and former civil servants the service they deserve. I urge my hon. Friend, and all hon. Members who are concerned about the issue of Capita, to contribute to the Westminster Hall debate on this topic next Tuesday, so that they can hear directly from Ministers. Before that, I would point them towards the written ministerial statement that was published very recently. It not only sets out what the Government are doing about the issue, but gives a commitment from the Minister to provide the House with a substantive update in October, following the conclusion of the technical audit and report from the remedial adviser, so the update that he seeks is on its way.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
When I met constituents who are family members of people living with dementia in Thame, their overwhelming response and emotion was anger at the lack of support for them, and concern about what would happen to their family members if they themselves became ill. Will the Leader of the House outline what the Government are doing to support carers of people living with dementia, and will he support a debate on the subject in Government time?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are doing a great deal in what we recognise is often a very distressing situation. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Casey review came up with a series of recommendations on dementia and other conditions, such as motor neurone disease. We have launched the big conversation on care to ensure that people can feed back their views. Appointing a dementia tsar to help drive forward much needed improvements will be important. We are also investing more in services, but I recognise that there is a great deal more to be done. I will get a further update for him from the relevant Minister.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
As we have already heard, today is World Suicide Prevention Day and this week Papyrus, which is based in my Warrington South constituency, went into administration after almost 30 years. Its 24/7 HopeLine allowed young people experiencing suicidal thoughts, and anyone worried about them, to speak to trained advisers, day and night. I have written to all MPs and peers, asking them to sign a cross-party letter to the Health Secretary calling for emergency funding to protect Papyrus’s services. Will the Leader of the House make time for an oral statement from a health Minister on the closure of Papyrus, and the steps the Government are taking to restore HopeLine’s 24/7 service to support the young people who relied on it?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I have said in earlier responses, the news regarding Papyrus is deeply concerning. We are entirely committed to suicide prevention, and to ensuring that high-quality mental health support is available, particularly for young people. I will reach out to the relevant Minister, as I have offered to, including on behalf of my hon. Friend. Ministers may want to give an update to all Members on this, because it is an issue of such importance.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Families across Torbay are struggling to receive adequate special educational needs and disabilities provision. I know that other MPs are able to engage meaningfully with their local authorities to support those families, but sadly, the leader of Conservative-led Torbay council has written to me saying that it will not deal with me on a case-by-case basis. The ombudsman has refused to engage. Will the Leader of the House ask the appropriate Minister to give me some guidance about how I can best support those families in need in Torbay?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will indeed do as the hon. Gentleman asks, but I find it outrageous that leaders of councils refuse to engage with Members of Parliament who are raising legitimate matters in a reasonable way, as I know the hon. Gentleman will be, on behalf of their constituents. I hope that the leader of the council has heard that, but I will get the hon. Gentleman the information that he seeks from the relevant Minister.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Despite being asked to pay more by Severn Trent, residents in Redditch and Wychbold continuously face water outages, as crumbling infrastructure takes days to repair. Despite being on the priority list, many vulnerable residents, including new mums, have been left without bottled water. The benefits of privatisation are seemingly non-existent for my residents in Redditch and Wychbold. Does the Leader of the House share their frustrations, and their sympathy towards a change in ownership model?
Sir Alan Campbell
The fact is that the water industry has not been working for people for far too long, and the incident that my hon. Friend raises demonstrates that. That is why the Government are looking at ways to give the public more control and keep bills as low as possible. That is a priority for the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the new Prime Minister. On Monday, there will be a petitions debate on a referendum on public ownership of the water sector, which my hon. Friend and others may wish to attend.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
On Tuesday, Salt of the Earth—a family-run business in my constituency—was formally awarded the 2026 King’s award for enterprise and sustainable development. From kitchen chemists to natural deodorant pioneers, this fabulous little business is now manufacturing from a 16,000 square foot facility. Does the Leader of the House agree that small and medium-sized enterprises such as Salt of the Earth are crucial to growth across the country, and that their success should be celebrated and supported?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I do—and, more importantly, so do the Government. Small and medium-sized enterprises are so important to our economy, and I praise Salt of the Earth for its work. I can assure the hon. Lady that it is no mean achievement to get a King’s award, so the business and the wider community should be very proud.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Boulby underground laboratory near Whitby is leading the race to host a massive international experiment to search for dark matter. However, the 40% cut to the lab’s operating budget proposed by the Science and Technology Facilities Council has created uncertainty about the Government’s continued support for the project. Will the Leader of the House facilitate a meeting with the responsible Minister to discuss these drastic cuts, and help to secure Boulby’s future as a world-leading centre for physics research?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this important matter on behalf of her constituents and the sector. The Government are investing £86 billion to drive scientific breakthroughs across the UK. We have a proud record of science in this country, and we intend to keep that lead. There will be science questions next week, but I am happy to facilitate a meeting with the relevant Minister to allow my hon. Friend to discuss her concerns in greater detail.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
My constituents and I welcomed the Prime Minister’s commitment in this House, on Tuesday 1 September, that he would familiarise himself with all the detail of the proposed asylum centre at MOD Bicester. The Prime Minister further gave a commitment that he would “happily report back” to the House from the Dispatch Box. On 4 September, the Government announced that the short deadline for my constituents to respond to the application is Thursday 17 September. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available for a statement from the Prime Minister before the consultation deadline, so that my constituents can hear his conclusions from the Dispatch Box? If not, will the Leader of the House advise how the Prime Minister can fulfil his commitment?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is important that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents get an opportunity to give their views—that is why the consultation is valuable—and that there is time for those views to be considered, so that the Government can act on them. The Prime Minister is a man of his word, so I am sure that he will want to respond on this issue, perhaps once the consultation has closed.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
The Government’s new restrictions on fire and rehire are due to come into effect from January next year, yet some organisations are rushing to make use of this unfair and abhorrent practice in the time that remains. They include East End Homes in my constituency, which is deploying this practice against its long-standing housing workers, who are members of Unison, to force through the acceptance of diminished pension terms. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is unacceptable, and that fire and rehire practices should have no place in our society?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I do. I hope that the firms concerned have heard my hon. Friend, and that they think again.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Trains are running at half the normal frequency on the west of England line, because of dry embankments. This has been happening for months at a time, and for the second year in a row. New Civil Engineer has written that
“the London-Devon rail route needs investment”.
May we have a debate on adapting our rail infrastructure to the effects of climate change?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are very keen to learn the lessons of what is happening as a result of climate change, because that will be at least as grave a problem going forward—maybe even worse. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman seeks an Adjournment debate on these matters, so that he can hear from the relevant Minister what the Government plan to do to address what I know will be a serious concern for his constituents.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Rick Rescorla, a son of Hayle in my constituency, was the head of security at Morgan Stanley in the south tower on 9/11. He was widely credited with helping to evacuate more than 2,500 people, and singing Cornish songs as he did so. He sacrificed his own life while attempting to save the last few employees. Having served in both the Parachute Regiment and the US Air Cavalry, Rick is truly a national hero. Does the Leader of the House agree that Rick’s life, as well as the thousands who died that fateful day, should never be forgotten?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do indeed. Rick’s life should be recognised and remembered. It is important that we continue to remember the innocent lives lost and the extraordinary bravery of service personnel like Rick. My hon. Friend may wish to attend tomorrow’s Adjournment debate on the anniversary of 9/11 so that he can tell Rick’s story in full, because it is a story that deserves to be told.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Leader of the House, as always, for his answers to our questions. Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on forced marriage and freedom of religion or belief in India, following reports of women being subjected to violence for refusing marriages chosen for them and continuing concerns over pressure and interference in interfaith marriage? Will the Government raise with the Indian authorities the protection of women’s freedom to choose both their spouse and their religion?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue, and the reports that he raises are concerning. The UK Government condemn any instances of discrimination because of religion or belief, regardless of the country or the faith involved. The British high commission in New Delhi and our deputy high commissions across India regularly meet with religious representatives from different faith communities. I will ensure that I raise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns directly with Ministers and that he gets a response.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The mental health charity Stepping Stones in my constituency celebrates its 35th anniversary tomorrow. It is a member-led organisation, founded in 1991 by local people, that provides mental health services, and it supports around 1,000 referrals each year. It does so at a time when uncertainty looms over future funding. Will the House have an opportunity to debate a mental health strategy for all parts of our nation? Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Stepping Stones and congratulating it on its invaluable work across West Dunbartonshire?
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me join my hon. Friend in thanking Stepping Stones for the vital services it provides and celebrating its 35th anniversary. As he suggests, we are developing a new mental health strategy for England. We have announced up to 159 new NHS mental health centres, backed by £343 million over the next four years. I will ensure that he gets a response from the Health Secretary so that he can hear more exactly about what we intend to do.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I am proud of the high streets in my constituency, as every other Member is proud of the high streets in theirs, and I want to see them continue to flourish. We should be doing everything we can to encourage more people to travel to their high street to support local businesses. It is therefore important that shoppers and other visitors do not have additional costs such as unnecessary car parking charges, especially due to unregulated private parking companies and their ticket machines, which often do not work. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the importance of high streets and what steps can be taken to keep them vibrant?
Sir Alan Campbell
Small businesses are at the heart of our economy, and we are committed to supporting them. We will bring forward our high streets strategy later this year, which will build on our work to regenerate high streets across the country. I hear and share my hon. Friend’s concerns about car parking charges and rogue companies. If he applied for a Westminster Hall debate, I am sure that it would be well attended by Members across the House.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I am working with a cross-party group of colleagues on a proposal for a parliamentary Committee for the future. The Committee would focus on medium and long-term challenges, from the impacts of climate change to the future of work, to ensure that strategic foresight is better integrated into policy making and legislation, and that young people and future generations are better represented in this place. From Finland to Kenya and South Korea, we are seeing this approach being taken up and starting to work. Does the Leader of the House agree that such a Committee could strengthen the work of this House, and can he give me any guidance on how to move this proposal forward?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend will recall, I have met her and other right hon. and hon. Members to discuss this idea. It is an interesting proposal, and I encourage her to put it to the Modernisation Committee as part of our “pitch your ideas” session. As the deputy shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), can confirm, our first “pitch your ideas” session—which we had earlier this week—was a resounding success, so I encourage my hon. Friend to consider that as a way forward.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
This year, 16 September marks the 89th anniversary of the Eastside bothy fire in Kirkintilloch, in which 10 young men from Achill in County Mayo lost their lives in what is widely considered to have been a deliberate fire in their accommodation. Like many thousands of Irish migrants before them, those young men came to Kirkintilloch to work as tattie howkers on the potato harvest. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the committed local volunteers who have done so much to ensure that those young men are not forgotten, whether in Kirkintilloch or in Achill, and are doing what they can to have a permanent memorial in place in time for the 90th anniversary next year?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the volunteers in her constituency who ensure that we remember the Eastside bothy fire—it is important that we continue to do so. I am pleased to hear that funding is being raised for a permanent memorial, and I hope that work with East Dunbartonshire council can progress swiftly so that it is built in time for the 90th anniversary.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Concerns raised by the Francis inquiry into Mid Staffordshire NHS foundation trust led to section 92 of the Care Act 2014, which makes it a criminal offence for health and social care providers such as NHS bodies to supply, publish or make available false or misleading information where they are under a legal duty to provide information. However, despite multiple reports in recent years of NHS trusts failing to disclose relevant information that might be damaging to their reputation, the previous Solicitor General confirmed on 10 June that there had been no finalised prosecutions under that provision. Will the Leader of the House please arrange for me to meet the current Solicitor General to help me understand why that is the case?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which goes to the heart of the transparency and patient safety lessons that we have learned from the events at Mid Staffordshire. This Government take such matters extremely seriously, which is why we are progressing the Public Office (Accountability) Bill to place a legally binding duty of candour on all public servants, but of course I will reach out to the Solicitor General and facilitate a meeting for my hon. Friend.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
A year ago, my constituent John McNab was stabbed in Leith in the early hours of 2 September 2025, and was tragically pronounced dead near the scene shortly afterwards. John’s mum Lisa has gone to heroic efforts to see bleed kits rolled out across key places, and has campaigned tirelessly, including by bringing the knife angel—a 27-foot structure made of 100,000 knives and blades seized by police officers across the UK—to Leith as part of raising awareness. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Lisa’s bravery and campaigning efforts, and will he facilitate a debate in Government time on the work being done across the UK to reduce knife crime?
Sir Alan Campbell
I know that the whole House will join me in offering our condolences to Lisa and all of John McNab’s loved ones. I also want to recognise Lisa for taking such a tragic event and seeking to turn it into a force for good. In June 2024 we set out our ambition to halve knife crime in the decade following the election. Overall, knife crime has fallen by 11% and we have taken 63,000 knives off our streets, but I recognise how important this work is and how much more needs to be done. I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a Westminster Hall debate, to hear from Ministers what further action they intend to take. Unfortunately, this problem continues, which is why we need to stay focused on it.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
My constituent Mrs McNeally moved from England to Glenboig in my constituency in January. However, a lack of compatibility between the medical records systems of Scotland and England means that all of her records have to be compiled and transferred by courier. As a result, nine months on, Mrs McNeally’s records are still not with the NHS in Scotland or with her GP practice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when it comes to the NHS, both in England and in Scotland—where there has been a lack of digital records, which presents a major problem—we must work constructively to ensure these types of issues are avoided in future?
Sir Alan Campbell
I agree with my hon. Friend that waiting eight months for records to be moved across the border is simply unacceptable. Healthcare on the border has been raised with me on a number of occasions, not least by the deputy shadow Leader of the House, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to work constructively on these matters. I will ensure that the Health Secretary hears the representations he has made today.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
Worcestershire Royal hospital has pioneered a project to ensure that every patient it treats is addressed by the name by which they are known—surprisingly, one in four patients are known by a different name from the one that is on their hospital records. It is a simple step that has improved accessibility, treatment, safety and dignity, and rolling it out across the NHS requires no change to the law, but it does demand leadership from the Government. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on how we can modernise the NHS’s culture and practice, to better put patients as people at the heart of its processes?
Sir Alan Campbell
I think everyone in the House will join me in praising Worcestershire Royal hospital and its staff for that initiative. Simple gestures such as these help build trust and bring comfort to patients, and I strongly encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate on how we can modernise the NHS further and improve care.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier this summer, I met brilliant scouts and volunteers at the 1st Shelton Lock scout group. Across Derby South, five of our young scouts are currently fundraising to represent Derby at the World Scout Jamboree next summer in Poland. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating them on their fantastic achievement in being selected for this opportunity, and wish them the best with their fundraising efforts?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly congratulate those scouts on their efforts, and indeed scouts and volunteers across our country. They do a fantastic job, and I wish them well in everything they do in the future in what is a remarkable opportunity for young people.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
This weekend, Stirling will welcome thousands of music fans for Radio 2 in the Park. It seems a fitting moment to celebrate radio more widely, particularly in my constituency, which has such a strong radio tradition, from Central FM—where I spent many happy years behind the microphone—to Stirling Community Radio, Air3, Trossachs Radio and Radio Royal. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming Radio 2 to Stirling and make time for a debate celebrating BBC, commercial, community and hospital radio, and the rather special relationship we all have with it? If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, “It is 12.57. On your smart speaker and on your radio, this is the House of Commons, the voice of democracy, and now it’s time to hear from the Leader of the House.” [Laughter.]
Sir Alan Campbell
Once a radio expert, always a radio expert. I certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming Radio 2 in the Park to Stirling. Radio continues to be a highly valued medium across our country and contributes significant public value through its trusted news and diverse entertainment, and I thank it for that. Should my hon. Friend seek a Westminster Hall debate, I am sure that colleagues across the House will want to spend some time praising the efforts of local radio in their own areas.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Office’s revocation of health and social care visas linked to single employers has disproportionately increased recently. That is concerning, because it leaves 40,000 social care workers displaced, and only a small number are getting alternative employment. I am worried that people are slipping into the grey market. Can the Leader of the House ascertain with Home Office colleagues what steps the Home Office takes to track outcomes for those workers?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is an important matter. We want to give people who come here in good faith every opportunity to contribute to our country. The Home Office has therefore paused routine visa cancellations for care workers where sponsor revocation is the sole ground for cancellation, so as to give displaced care workers longer to find alternative employment. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I will make sure that she gets an update from the relevant Minister on where we are.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Sixty constituents from all across my constituency of Rugby have contacted me to complain about what is often a totally unsatisfactory service from Royal Mail, with no, slow or bulk deliveries. That has a real human impact. If I may, I draw attention to Rugby Talking Newspaper, whose customers are not receiving this vital service that they rely on. I believe that Royal Mail may well be in breach of its statutory obligation to deliver articles to blind people free of charge. Will the Leader of the House consider granting a debate in Government time on how we can exert more public control over this vital public service?
Sir Alan Campbell
We have been very clear as a Government that Royal Mail’s service is unacceptable, and the example that my hon. Friend gives simply underlines the unacceptability of its performance. The public expects a well-run postal service. I know that Royal Mail listens closely to these sessions. I hope that it has heard his concerns, because not just has it been the subject of inquiry by the relevant Select Committee, but it is a priority for the relevant Department.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Next week, on 18 September, it will be National Playlist Day, which celebrates the positive impact that personally meaningful music can have in reconnecting people living with dementia with their memories. The initiative was established by Playlist for Life, a charity based in my constituency. Does the Leader of the House agree that personalised music could benefit how the NHS approaches caring for those with dementia? Can time be made available to look at the issues raised by National Playlist Day?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to praise the good work of Playlist for Life, and I pay tribute to everyone involved in making its work possible. We are looking at how we can better support those with dementia, including through appointing a dementia tsar to help the drive towards much-needed improvements. His point on personalised music is an interesting one, and I will make sure that the Health Secretary is made aware of it and gets back to my hon. Friend.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Wildfire after wildfire throughout this incredibly dry summer have been devastating for Cannock Chase and elsewhere in Staffordshire. Crops were destroyed, animals perished, heathland rarer than rainforest was scorched, and six firefighters were taken to hospital. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to hold a wildfire summit, but will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on wildfire resilience and preparedness, so that Members from affected parts of the country can discuss prevention, equipment, staffing and funding to ensure that we are in a much stronger position for next summer?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is not the first time that wildfires have been raised with me in these sessions, and my hon. Friend is right to do so. We have announced £97 million to upgrade the national resilience assets, including specialised firefighters and equipment. As he says, there will be a wildfire summit in the autumn to see how we can further strengthen our national response capabilities. I place on record again our thanks to all the emergency services, including firefighters. I also want to thank farmers for the fantastic job they did in combating this problem over the extraordinarily dry summer we have just had. I will make sure that the House is updated on the Government’s work going forward, because we are keen to learn lessons and make sure that we have resilience going forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Danny Beales to ask the last question.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I would say you have saved the best to last, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you can be the judge of that.
My predecessor, when he was in this place, famously campaigned for a new fish and chip shop in Uxbridge. Now that he is the leader of the Conservative council, he seems to be closing the fish and chip shop that does exist in Hillingdon, along with the florist, the pharmacy, the hairdresser and the local convenience store. Local shops, whose landlord is the council, are facing a 100% rent increase, backdated for several years, all while repairs have not been done, sometimes for up to nine years. Does the Leader of the House agree that local businesses are the lifeblood of our communities and should be supported by councils? Can we have time for a debate in this place on the importance of local high streets?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that small businesses are at the heart of our local economy, and our small business plan provides wide-ranging support for SMEs, including action on late payments and access to finance, business support and skills. It is disappointing, but not altogether surprising, to hear that Conservative-led Hillingdon council is letting businesses down in this way. I hope that it has heard his words today.
Ukraine and Russia
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Wes Streeting)
With permission, I will make my first statement to the House as Secretary of State for Defence on Ukraine, the ongoing threat from Russia and the Government’s approach. It is not yet clear whether freedom or tyranny will define the 21st century. What is clear is that the United Kingdom will not be a bystander in that struggle. The frontline is Ukraine. In Kyiv, on my first overseas trip, I saw for myself what modern tyranny looks like. President Putin’s illegal and unprovoked invasion is a challenge to the collective security of all of us in Europe. History—especially the history of our continent—teaches us that when imperialist ambitions go unchallenged, leaders like President Putin come back for more. That is why Ukraine’s security is our security and why we will not waver for one second in our support for Ukraine.
This week, I co-chaired my first meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group with my German counterpart Boris Pistorius, alongside Ukraine’s new Defence Minister Evgeniy Khmara and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. We know that President Putin, facing the reality that Russian casualties surpassed 1.5 million this week, is preparing to intensify his barbaric attacks against civilian and energy targets over the coming months. When I met President Zelensky, I heard loud and clear the vital importance of supporting Ukraine through this winter, as did the Prime Minister. We promised to mobilise allies and provide more support wherever we can.
We are delivering on that commitment, strengthening Ukraine’s defences and, alongside more than 50 nations, converting commitment into capability. This week I announced that the UK is pledging £100 million to support the rapid delivery of air defence interceptors in response to a direct request from Ukraine. We also reaffirmed our commitment to provide more than 120,000 drones to Ukraine over the course of this year. In total, the United Kingdom has committed £25 billion for Ukraine. That includes nearly 20 million rounds of small arms ammunition, more than 1 million artillery shells, more than 100,000 drones and thousands of air defence missiles and armoured vehicles.
Winter in Ukraine is no longer a season; it is a weapon. In Kyiv, the Prime Minister and I saw at first hand the destructive consequences of this war, but we also experienced the spirit and the strength of the Ukrainian people. The message we delivered on behalf of this Government, and on behalf of the British people, was unequivocal: we will be with Ukraine for as long as it takes. That commitment is built on the rock-solid foundations laid by our Labour and Conservative predecessors, who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Ukraine from day one. Boris Johnson pledged anti-armour missiles before Russia’s invasion. In one of his first acts in office, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister handed over blueprints for British-made missile components so that Ukraine can produce long-range weapons on its own assembly lines.
It has been a striking feature, during an especially divisive period in British politics, that support for Ukraine unites this House. One of the things I feel most strongly about in this role is showing our allies, but particularly our adversaries, that there is an enormous amount of consensus and national unity when it comes to defence. That unity is itself a projection of strength and deterrence, so I say to colleagues from across the House: it is your job, and the job of Parliament, to hold us to account. It is right that you do so, but let us not manufacture difference where it does not exist. On this issue, more than any other, there is far more that unites us than divides us, and we have a collective responsibility to level with the British people. If the first duty of Government is to keep our country safe, that is now a greater and more urgent responsibility than it has been for generations.
The threats we face are not only evolving; they are getting closer to home. Every day, the UK and our allies encounter espionage, cyber-attacks and military posturing by hostile states. Just yesterday, a 31-year-old British man was charged under the National Security Act 2023 over alleged contact with Russia’s military intelligence agency. Alongside these threats comes the bellicose rhetoric that we hear from the Kremlin. Russia is constantly probing us and testing us, and the tragic irony of where we find ourselves is that Russia sees the UK and NATO as a threat that, in reality, simply does not exist.
The UK is not at war with Russia, nor do we seek confrontation with Russia, and nor do we have any quarrel with the Russian people. All we seek to do is to defend freedom, democracy, our interests, our allies and our values. Contrary to the propaganda, NATO has always been a defensive alliance, and if there is one thing that President Putin has achieved through the war in Ukraine, it has been to strengthen NATO and our commitment to our collective defence and security. Moscow should be in no doubt that we are ready to defend every inch of NATO, should Russia attack.
Knowing the gravity of the threats our country faces, this Government have overseen the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. We are already investing £15 billion more in defence than we were at the last spending review, and over the next four years we will be investing £298 billion. As a percentage of GDP, we have gone from 2.3% when Labour came to office two years ago to reaching 2.7% next year. We know that this Prime Minister and this Chancellor are both fully committed to funding our nation’s defence, including meeting our NATO commitment of 3.5% by 2035 and setting out an earlier 3% commitment at the next spending review. No one disputes that there is more to do to get there, but it is important to emphasise how much new money is already going into defence.
That money is what allows us to do the things we need to do to strengthen our deterrence so that our adversaries think twice about attacking us, and to strengthen our capabilities so that we have the resources to fight and win if deterrence fails. That means making sure that every penny—both new money and money from existing budgets—is spent wisely, so that our military has the equipment, the training and the kit that it needs to keep us safe. It means making sure that we are constantly pushing the frontier of defence innovation, so that we have an advantage over our enemies. And it means making sure that we are creating more skilled jobs, more training, and more opportunities for people and businesses in our own country—unashamedly backing British to reindustrialise places where defence runs in the blood. That is how we will keep our country safe in today’s more dangerous and volatile world.
As I take on this role, I feel the considerable weight of responsibility on my shoulders to proudly and robustly defend our country, our people, our values and our allies. I am lucky that in this endeavour I am supported by our exceptional armed forces, some of the smartest brains on the planet, and the extraordinary service of those working around the clock and around the globe to protect us. I have seen the capabilities that this country has, and they are considerable. We should have enormous pride in what our country does, let alone what we can do in the future. We will build a Britain worth fighting for, and a Britain capable of fighting for it. That is our mission, and that is what we will do. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On behalf of the shadow Defence team, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new Defence Secretary—Labour’s third in three months—to his place and to thank him for advance sight of this important statement. On a personal note, we have a mutual friend in Labour councillor Gareth Barrett, who I know would be very proud to see his long-time friend standing at the Dispatch Box and representing the Ministry of Defence.
It is over four years since Russia’s brutal and illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but as the Ukrainians reminded me when I visited Kyiv in February, the Russo-Ukrainian war has actually been raging for 12 years, because Putin’s Russia illegally annexed Crimea and parts of the Donbas in 2014. That is longer than both the first and second world wars combined. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in paying tribute to the Ukrainians for their fierce and determined resistance. They are fighting for the values of freedom and democracy, which this House has represented for centuries, so when we say, “Slava Ukraini!”, we mean it.
On my trip to Ukraine, the Speaker of the Rada said something that I will never forget: “When you go back to London, tell them we know the Russians better than anybody, and if we fall, you’re next.” My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who is joining our shadow Defence team, has just returned from Kyiv overnight. He reports how the Russians cynically suspended missile strikes on the capital while those on the American delegation were present, but resumed the strikes almost immediately after their departure. Tragically, a number of innocent civilians were murdered in Kyiv last night.
On supporting Ukraine and brave President Zelensky, there has been absolute solidarity between ourselves and the Labour party. When I served in the Ministry of Defence following the 2014 invasion, we began training Ukrainian troops on Salisbury Plain via what was then known as Operation Orbital, and that continues today via Operation Interflex. Between them, they have trained over 50,000 Ukrainian troops on British soil. The House will no doubt recall the very powerful footage of columns of Russian tanks being destroyed in 60 seconds in highly co-ordinated anti-tank ambushes north of Kyiv in February 2022, which were carried out by Ukrainian troops using UK-manufactured NLAW anti-tank weapons. Had it not been for that kit and the training that accompanied it, the Russians would likely be having lunch in Kyiv today.
We all want to see a ceasefire in Ukraine but, as the Ukrainians themselves would tell us, not at any price. The Government’s policy is to participate in a “coalition of the willing” in order to help maintain a ceasefire—I hope the Secretary of State can confirm that again. However, were we to deploy the British Army into Ukraine, our troops would need to be adequately trained and equipped. A few moments ago, the Defence Secretary invited the House to hold him to account. Taking him at his word, I must press him on some extremely worrying reports—first published in The Times on 3 September, and amplified in the Defence Eye journal on Tuesday—that British Army training is being seriously curtailed in order to provide in-year efficiency savings— “cuts”, in pub English— at the Treasury’s behest. For the financial year 2026-27, the MOD has been given a ridiculous efficiency savings target of over £3 billion, with much of it to come from operational spending such as training exercises. The Army’s share of that is reportedly £1.2 billion.
Given the seriousness of this situation, I wish to ask the Defence Secretary three very important questions. First, is it true that training in both the regular and the reserves is being materially constricted to save this money at the Treasury’s behest? Secondly, what actions is he as Defence Secretary, no doubt in consultation with the Chief of the General Staff, taking to push back against these pernicious in-year funding cuts imposed by the Treasury? What discussions has he had with the new Chancellor, who, ironically, resigned as Defence Secretary in June because Labour would not commit to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030? The Government cannot keep kicking this can down the road. Thirdly, in which year specifically will Labour now commit to spend 3% of GDP on defence, as the Conservatives are now pledged to do by 2030 at the latest? We will not deter the likes of Vladimir Putin by capping bus fares.
In summary, we are four-square with the Ukrainians. We support the Government in supporting them, but they must support our troops, so what are they doing to train them?
Wes Streeting
First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive spirit with which he responded to my statement, and I very much hope we can maintain that on both sides of the House. I have certainly enjoyed my early conversations with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), so we will continue to work in that spirit, and maximise and project unity globally wherever we possibly can.
The right hon. Gentleman referenced that I am the third Defence Secretary in recent months, for reasons that are evident, and I give him an undertaking to add this to the retention priorities for the workforce. I made that point very firmly to the Prime Minister, and I am very much in favour of retention in this post. On that note, however, I place on record my enormous respect for and thanks to both of my Labour predecessors —the Chancellor and the Security Minister. I particularly want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), who did an outstanding job during his time in this office, doing some considerable heavy lifting to get the defence investment plan over the line. Not only do I thank him for it, but I think the country will thank him for it in the longer term, too. I am enjoying working with him in his post.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned support for Ukraine, particularly the support we have given for a number of years on training. I should reflect back to the House, from my visit to Kyiv, that what is fascinating about the evolution of this terrible war is that, whereas we have spent a considerable amount of time training Ukrainians, we are increasingly finding that it is the other way around. We are seeing the rapid evolution of modern warfare, and the Ukrainians are at the forefront of defence innovation. We are actively learning from our Ukrainian friends, and their ingenuity and expertise. Yes, we have to provide them with the resources they need to fight and to win, but it is also important that we recognise their extraordinary capability under the most unimaginably difficult circumstances.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the multinational force for Ukraine. We hope for the best and plan for the worst in terms of the continuation of this war, but we are also actively working to prepare for conditions in which a ceasefire has been agreed by Ukraine, with Ukraine and, from our perspective, for Ukraine. I am proud of the work we are doing, particularly with our French allies, on the multinational force for Ukraine. I enjoyed seeing the MNFU in Paris during a visit to meet my French counterpart, Madame Vautrin, earlier this summer, and I am looking forward to hosting the MNFU here in the UK later this year. The objective of the MNFU is, in the event that a ceasefire is achieved, to increase Ukraine’s deterrence against war breaking out again, and that is the focus of the mission.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to reports in the media about training, and I just want to unpack a few points. First, we are investing more in training, and it is certainly not true to say that training has ceased. [Interruption.] To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, he did not make that claim, but I have seen people draw that conclusion from some of the reports. Of course training continues, although there has been some reprioritisation to make sure we are prioritising the activities that will provide most impact at this point in time.
I acknowledge, however, that one of our responsibilities as a Department is to live within our means. One discipline I have to bring to the Ministry of Defence, drawing on my experience at the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS, is to ensure there is no culture of routine overspending, that we are improving productivity, that we deliver value for money and that we recognise that the money we are investing in defence comes with choices and trade-offs that apply across Government and ultimately rest with the taxpayer. Yes, we must make the case for more defence investment and spending, and we will—we will see that across the House—but we should not in the process distract from ensuring that we live within our means, that we deliver capability, effect and impact, and that we treat every penny of taxpayers’ money wisely. [Interruption.] I hear from the Opposition Front Benchers that they agree with that point.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman tempted me to announce the date at which we will hit 3% spending. He will know that getting ahead of a Chancellor and a spending review is a breach of the ministerial code, and having resigned from the Government once already, I have no intention of doing so again today.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
It was great to welcome my right hon. Friend to the Farnborough airshow, and it is great to have him at the Dispatch Box today. Our adversaries in China and Russia are mobilising their financial markets to sustain military aggression. We have seen the industrial ramp-up that has been needed for Ukraine to fight. The Prime Minister confirmed to me last week that the Government are looking at the multilateral Defence, Security and Resilience Bank, which our allies have brought together to mobilise the finance to rearm. The Secretary of State and I have talked about this a lot previously, but does he agree that we need to build the financial resilience to deter, and taking the opportunity to join the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank would send a powerful signal to our adversaries that we have the financial firepower to outbuild and outlast them?
Wes Streeting
I find myself having rapidly gone from asking questions about the DSRB to now answering questions about the DSRB, so my hon. Friend will know I have been tracking developments on this Canadian-led initiative very closely. I can certainly see the enormous benefits of the DSRB and Prime Minister Carney’s objectives. We are tracking that progress, talking to our Canadian allies and considering how that could work alongside the multilateral defence mechanism, an initiative led by our former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). As those discussions continue, I will keep the House informed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I, too, welcome the new Secretary of State to his role, and I thank him for advance sight of his statement. I say to him that the Liberal Democrats continue to stand ready to work constructively with the Government in the interests of our national security. Indeed, Ukraine is a great example of where we have common ground. He is of course quite right to say that Ukraine’s security is our security.
As another winter approaches, Russia will once again seek to weaponise the freezing cold weather to attack Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and harm the civilian population, so the additional £100 million for air defence interceptors is a really welcome move. What discussions is the Secretary of State holding with NATO allies to secure more air defence systems and interceptors for Ukraine before the winter sets in, and is the UK prepared to provide further assistance should such a request be made?
We welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to increase defence investment. However, the defence investment plan is still not fully funded, and given the threats we face, progress on the Government’s commitment to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP remains slow. In response to our supplying technology for deep strike capability, Russia has stated that UK military installations and equipment, both inside Ukraine and beyond its borders, are now considered legitimate targets, and that only adds to the urgent need for investment in our national defence. That is why the Liberal Democrats propose issuing defence bonds, with a plan to raise £20 billion over two years to meet the urgency of the situation head-on. Will the Secretary of State urge the Chancellor to consider defence bonds, and could he perhaps share his own view with the House on this idea?
Finally, we must do more to cut off the funding that fuels Putin’s war machine. Supported by western-linked shipping, insurance and financial services, Russian fossil fuels continue to flow into global markets. Will the Secretary of State push within the Government for tougher action to crack down on activities facilitating Russian fossil fuel exports and work with allies to impose a comprehensive ban on supporting Russian oil, gas and coal? Ukraine is fighting for its survival and for the security of our entire continent, and the UK must continue to stand with it.
Wes Streeting
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his constructive support and scrutiny. Through our work with my German counterpart Boris Pistorius and our coalition, we are regularly mobilising more support for Ukraine, through both direct contributions and active defence diplomacy. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the support of his Department in those efforts.
Every country involved in supporting Ukraine faces the same choices and trade-offs that we are debating here at home. We approach those conversations in that spirit, but we also ask people to think about the consequences were Putin to prevail and take that as an incentive to further threaten Russia’s neighbours and our NATO allies. That is why I make the case that supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do morally, but that it is also the right thing to do in our national interest and in the interests of the collective security of our continent.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the defence investment plan and raises the issue of defence spending. I want to be clear about two things. We are already delivering the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. That is a significant improvement on the previous position. He mentions the DIP not being fully funded. It is absolutely true to say that the negotiations on the DIP reached a position where there is a shortfall just shy of £5 billion which we need to deal with in the immediate term. The House should take reassurance from the instincts of the Chancellor and the Government, and from the fact that without any need whatsoever for persuasion from me or my Department, the Chancellor has already confirmed that he will close that gap at the Budget. I am reassured by that. It gives me even greater confidence as the Chancellor looks ahead to the spending review, but that does not mean that we, as a Department and as a Defence team, should be complacent about the need to make the strongest possible case, recognising the trade-offs across Government. We will continue to approach the spending review process in that spirit.
The hon. Gentleman raises defence financing. It is true to say that defence bonds are borrowing. None the less, we continue to work closely with our colleagues at the Treasury and our industry partners to look at what more we can do to leverage finance for defence and to do so in a way that creates jobs, skills, opportunities and reindustrialisation here in Britain.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State please outline what assessment the Government have made of recent statements from Moscow regarding the United Kingdom?
Wes Streeting
There is a distinction to be drawn between what the Kremlin says and what it does: the performative displays we have seen from Russia in recent months—I think particularly about some of its actions in the channel—and the actual threats we deal with, deter and repel on a daily basis. The British people should be in no doubt about the threat and intent of Russia, but they should also draw confidence from our capability. We have been debating actively in this House, and we ought to debate it more widely as a country, how we maintain our ability to deter and how we build our capability to respond to evolving threats, given the way in which modern warfare is changing, as we are seeing in Europe. The overall posture of the country ought to be to be alert to the Russian threat, but certainly not alarmed. I am proud of the capability we have, even as we seek to fund and build more.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is good to hear that the Government plan to replenish the dwindling stocks of Patriot missiles in Ukraine, which I suspect it will need this winter. However, Patriot is low volume and high cost. What the Ukrainians need is high volume and low cost. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the Fire Point consortium’s Freya missile system, which stands every chance of providing the solution to that conundrum not just for Ukraine, but for the UK and its allies in NATO as we try to face down the threat from Russia?
Wes Streeting
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I put on record my respect for the expertise and experience he brings to debates on defence in this House. He is absolutely right about what the objective needs to be: lower cost, higher impact. We are actively working to drive innovation in this space, particularly through initiatives such as Project Brakestop. We are tracking our allies, who are also actively seeking to push the frontier of defence innovation in this space. I will, of course, keep the House updated as those initiatives progress.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. I am very pleased that he has now seen for himself, as I have, the reality of Russia’s illegal war on the ground in Ukraine. I know he will share my concerns about the deeply troubling reports in The Daily Telegraph yesterday that SAS veterans are training Russians to fight Ukraine. It states:
“An assessment compiled for Five Eyes intelligence agencies found, with ‘strong confidence’, that Western military veterans had been recruited to train Russian citizens as well as ‘active duty military’ personnel.”
Will he investigate, as a matter of urgency, those reports and report back to the House?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that very serious and important issue. She will understand that, as a matter of policy, I will not comment on intelligence, but I will address the reports she has raised.
One of the great privileges of being in this post in the last seven weeks has been meeting the people in our special forces and seeing the capability that they have. It is truly remarkable and my only regret is that we are not able to show, for obvious reasons, the country more publicly just how exceptional these people and their capabilities are. It is in that spirit that I find it utterly unthinkable and shameful that anyone who has served this country, in whatever capacity, would think it in any way acceptable to support the Russian state as it wages war in Ukraine. The Ukrainians’ fight is our fight. Their frontline is the frontline for freedom and democracy. Those actions are an affront not only to this country and our values, but to the values that underpin the uniform that those who serve in our armed forces wear. I know I speak for the entire armed forces community in saying that.
Let me reassure the House and send a very clear message that we have robust legislation in place to tackle foreign hostile activity. The National Security Act 2023 gives our intelligence agencies and the police the tools they need to detect and disrupt threats, but the Act specifies under its interpretations that
“‘information’ includes information about tactics, techniques and procedures”.
It is applicable to any individual and extends beyond the period in which personnel are employed by the UK armed forces. Let that be a warning to anyone who has supported, or considers supporting, the Russians as they wage war in Ukraine.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I warmly endorse almost everything the Secretary of State has said today, and I genuinely congratulate him on his appointment. In my first speech in this House almost 30 years ago, I promised to support Labour Governments as long as they supported the nuclear deterrent, the conventional armed forces and NATO. I would like to think that I have kept that promise.
The one area where I have to dissent, however, is the section where he comes on to the proportion of GDP spent on defence. As I have said to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s predecessors, it is no good banging on about something being the largest increase since the end of the cold war. We are now in a situation that is worse than that at the height of the cold war, so the comparison we have to make is between what we are spending now and what we spent during the cold war, which was, in modern calculating methods, between 4.5% and 5.1% on defence. So let us not talk about increases to 2.7%. We really must remember that even when the Berlin wall came down, we were spending over 4% of GDP on defence at that stage. Those are the sorts of efforts that we have to make, because if Putin fails in Ukraine, the threat to this country will recede for a generation.
Wes Streeting
I give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking on those three things to make it as easy as possible for him to support this Government: supporting the nuclear deterrent, building capacity in our armed forces and supporting NATO are things I believe in very strongly. In the spirit on these exchanges, I will take at face value the point he makes about the comparison with the cold war and resist the temptation to discuss the starting point we were faced with on defence spending and the condition of our armed forces when this Government arrived.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw historical comparisons and provoke all of us to think more widely about the context we are operating in domestically, across Europe and internationally. I have not heard a suggestion from the official Opposition that the Government should be making a 4% or 5% commitment, nor any proposals to that effect, but let this discussion help the public understand why, at a time of constrained resources for households, businesses and Government, we are making an active political choice to invest more in our defence. I respectfully say, as someone who has been responsible for hospitals and the NHS, that schools, hospitals and homes are important things, but they are valueless if reduced to rubble. That is the experience of the Ukrainians; that is the kind of threat that we are operating under; and that is why we must commit, and continue to commit, to increasing defence spending.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I warmly congratulate the Defence Secretary on his appointment. I want to make him aware of a range of fantastic organisations and charities around the country that regularly send convoys from the UK to Ukraine, giving not just humanitarian aid but some military equipment, including pick-up trucks repurposed for soldiers to use. I have had the honour of going out on and driving one of those vehicles. Unfortunately, there are a number of issues that could be solved to make those journeys smoother, from making it easier for public bodies in the UK, such as hospitals, to get rid of old vehicles that are coming to the end of their life and place them in the hands of those organisations, to issues, frankly, on the Polish side of the border, where the approach is less than consistent—sometimes the convoys can be held up for hours unnecessarily. Would it be possible for an MOD official to meet me and some of those organisations to thrash out some of the issues and help increase the impact of their brilliant work?
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he does in this space and the considerable experience and expertise he brings to debates on these issues. I am proud of the fact that, in addition to the support we provide as a Government and the £577 million in humanitarian assistance, the British people have gone above and beyond, digging deep through financial contributions and gifts in kind to actively support our friends in Ukraine, as well as welcoming Ukrainian families into their homes. That is why, when the Prime Minister and I were in Kyiv, we were able to say with confidence and credibility that our support was on behalf of not just the Government but people up and down our country. I am up for supporting the initiatives described by my hon. Friend and would be happy to facilitate the meeting he asked for.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome everything that the Defence Secretary has said. I was particularly taken by what he said about learning from Ukraine. It is not just about learning how warfare has developed; we also have to learn from Ukrainian society. I organised an event here with a Ukrainian organisation called Still We Love, and I am holding another in Edinburgh next month. That organisation is made up of the loved ones and partners of those who are at the front—people who have been left at home and are trying to build resilience in society. Does the Defence Secretary agree that we have to look at building our social resilience as well as our defences? We need to ensure that our fire service, police service and NHS are ready in case of Russian aggression.
Wes Streeting
I strongly agree with the hon. Member and thank her for her support. Under the Labour Government, we have had a resilience committee within the National Security Council to plug other Government Departments into the conversation about national defence and resilience. That is something that I benefited from as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as I was able to respond to that and plan. We need a wider national conversation. The Government are very happy to lead that, and we will, but it needs to involve everyone: Government, business, civil society and all of us as citizens. That is not just in the context of the warfare and security threats the country faces; as I reflected recently, it is in the context of wildfires, flooding and a wide range of disruptions the country could face. We are not as prepared as we ought to be, and as a result we need to work collectively to improve our national resilience, because it is everyone’s responsibility and duty as a citizen.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I was shocked to hear evidence from Amnesty International of Russia’s criminal trafficking of people from around the world. They are promised a job, but their passport is taken away, and they are given a gun and sent off to the frontline to fight. That is the enemy that we are talking about. I am proud to hear all the things that the Defence Secretary has talked about, especially the Patriot missiles; I know from talking to Ukrainian parliamentarians and politicians that those are what they have been asking for. With another winter coming, can the Defence Secretary outline how UK support matches what Ukraine needs to win this war?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend nails the character of the regime we face. Through our leadership of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, we are mobilising support for Ukraine and ensuring that the support we provide matches what the Ukrainians need. I engage closely with my Ukrainian counterpart, Minister Khmara, and will continue to do so.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I welcome the Defence Secretary to his place. Romanian, Polish and Latvian airspace have all been violated by the Putin regime in the last year, and Russian drones are regularly shot down over NATO territory, yet the threshold for a NATO response is far too high. That only encourages Russia’s recklessness and probing of us, and it means that the risk of miscalculation by Russia, or of an attack on us, becomes much higher. Will the Defence Secretary commit to working with us to increase the number of article 4 referrals put forward, so that we crack down on this? If we do not pay any attention to those violations or dismiss them, we only increase the risk and the consequences to us, and we do not deter future threats.
Wes Streeting
I welcome the hon. Member’s support and value her expertise in these matters. She is right to flag the issue of miscalculation; the need to avoid that risk gives us all the more reason to have a number of lines into Moscow. She is also right to challenge all of us across the NATO alliance to think about how we provide the right level of deterrence. I will reflect on what she has said.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I welcome the Defence Secretary to his place, his absolute commitment to our national security, and the mature tone of his statement, in which he talked about working cross-party on what is in our national interest. We have seen the critical importance of integrated missile and air defence, as evidenced by the war in Ukraine, and the need for low-cost options that tackle everything from cheap Shahed-style drones through to ballistic missiles. We have also seen that we need not only the asset, but the ability to replenish stocks rapidly. Many countries in Europe—Spain, Germany, France and so on—have Patriot or SAMP/T systems, but the UK lacks a ground-based missile interceptor. What progress have the Government made on procuring the right range of air defences for our national defence, and on building our industrial capacity?
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for his support and the work that he does, particularly with NATO. I reassure him that through the defence investment plan, we are investing £790 million in new homeland integrated air and missile defence, and are building on our broader air defence investments, including through directed energy weapons, Sea Viper upgrades and a new integrated air, space and missile defence operations centre. He is right to bring scrutiny to that issue, and it is right that the House maintains its focus on improving our air defences, not least given what we see in Ukraine.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation of our continuing support for Ukraine. He has set out the sustained threat from Russia facing not just Ukraine, but this country and the whole of Europe, yet for too many people, it is still business as usual. First, will he consider a public awareness campaign to raise awareness of the threat, like those in Finland and the Baltic states? Secondly, what message does he have for the companies that continue to trade in Russia and, in doing so, both undermine sanctions and provide funds for Russia’s war machine?
Wes Streeting
I will have to think of some parliamentary words, in response to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. It is an extremely serious issue, and I think the companies concerned, and those with executive decision-making responsibility, ought to think about the risk involved to this country and this continent, and to the values that we are trying to uphold by supporting our friends in Ukraine. Let me reassure him that the national conversation that we need to have is very high on my list of priorities, because we do need to raise awareness—but not alarm—in both a conventional defence and security content and a wider national resilience context. I will report back to the House on plans for a national conversation.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Ukrainians living in my constituency of Rugby contacted me ahead of this statement to inform me of the devastating attacks in the Sumy region overnight, including on a shopping centre and on trains. I asked one of them what they thought was missing from the debate here, and, if you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to read out what they said:
“The constant psychological pressure. When you live inside it, everything feels incredibly urgent. If drones are flying towards your city, every minute matters and then you look at the outside world, where decisions naturally take weeks or months, and it can feel painfully slow and very far away. Sometimes you feel almost alone in it.
There is also the information war. After years of this, people are exhausted, and of course there is anger. Why was this not stopped? Why is there not more protection? Russia tries to use exactly that exhaustion, fear and frustration to deepen mistrust. At the same time, it pushes another message outside Ukraine: that Ukrainians are tired of fighting, that Ukraine cannot win, and that continued support is pointless. But that is not what I hear from the people I know. They are exhausted, yes. They are frightened and angry. But they do not want to surrender. They want the opposite—the chance to live their normal lives again without Russia deciding whether they can sleep, travel, work, keep warm or see their family.”
Will my right hon. Friend just reiterate once again that this House is united with Ukraine, and will help it militarily, diplomatically, economically and in the psychological battle?
Wes Streeting
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for that powerful contribution; I am glad that he shared it with us, and that those first-hand words from Ukraine are on the record. I want to reassure him on two points. First, we recognise the challenge on pace, and I am determined to keep up momentum through the UDCG, which will meet again in November. Secondly, I pay tribute to the Ukrainian people and the leadership of Ukraine—President Zelensky and his team—who operate in the most extraordinarily difficult circumstances. The Ukrainian people can be proud of his leadership, and they can be proud of their resilience, too.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I want to welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and to say how pleased I am that the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) remains a member of the Defence team. On 19 March last year, I asked the former Prime Minister about seizing Russian assets. There is reportedly £185 billion-worth of Russian assets in Europe, £30 billion of it in the UK. The Prime Minister responded,
“it is complicated—it is not straightforward—but we are working with others to see what is possible.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 347.]
Will the new Administration now act, as they have done on Gaza, which the Government previously said was too complicated? [Interruption.]
Wes Streeting
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry—whom the hon. Gentleman praised—has just remarked, it is difficult and it is complicated, but I take up the challenge. We want to do everything we can in this space. The hon. Gentleman is right to keep pressing us on this, and to keep it in our line of sight. We will continue to do as much as we can, as fast as we can.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his place, and thank him for characterising this conflict as one between freedom and tyranny. I was very privileged to go to Kyiv in July in my role as UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, and while I was there, I heard from our Ukrainian partners how the Putin regime is weaponising the Russian Orthodox Church, particularly in the occupied territories; no one there has freedom of religion or belief, unless they are in the Russian Orthodox Church. That includes other Christians and the Tatars in Crimea. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key dividing line in this conflict is freedom of religion or belief and wider human rights—the line between a free, open Ukrainian democracy, and an increasingly authoritarian Russia?
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and wholeheartedly agree with him. I would just make the point that the weaponisation of Christianity is not something we see only in Russia; we see it here in Britain, too. If people are going to wear the cross, they should at least bother to read the Gospels before preaching a message contrary to them.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome him to his place. I also welcome the ongoing commitment to defend Ukraine. In his statement, he reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to providing more than 120,000 drones to Ukraine this year, which I very much welcome. He also mentioned the recent plot to sabotage a UK drone factory. What action is being taken to ensure that UK manufacturing facilities are safe and secure, and if any action is required, who is funding that?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support on Ukraine. He is right to raise this issue. He will understand that I am not going to comment on operational details. Suffice it to say that we take threats to this country and our assets seriously, and we work closely across society to ensure that people are prepared for any challenges they may encounter.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
If Russia succeeds in weaponising the freezing winter by destroying civilian power grids, the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe will face a vastly superior threat. Will the Defence Secretary confirm that helping Ukraine stop these attacks is not only the right thing to do for our Ukrainian allies, but a strategic necessity to directly safeguard the long-term security interests of the British people?
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we continue to make the case that supporting Ukraine is not only the right thing to do morally, but an act of national self-interest, in the interests of national security in Britain.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. The Wokingham area is a home to many Ukrainians who are concerned that international support for their fight against the Russian invasion is weakening. Like me, they will welcome his assurances that this Government will continue supporting Ukraine against Russian expansion, and the same strong commitment from the Prime Minister. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this support will continue even if the USA, under President Trump, backs away even more from supporting Ukraine?
Wes Streeting
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have to say, it is my experience that international support for Ukraine is galvanising and remains extremely strong and resilient, and I have seen no sign of that commitment weakening. In fact, only this week, we have seen significant commitments made, right across Europe and beyond, to supporting our friends in Ukraine. I have to say, I found the United States actively engaged on this issue, too, in our bilateral conversations. The diplomatic track on which the Americans are driving is also important; we should not understate the engagement and commitment we see from our friends in Washington.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows how drone technology has transformed activities in Ukraine, and he will appreciate the importance of innovative companies like Skycutter to my regional economy in the east midlands. After winning a major contract with the US Government, Skycutter has been encouraged to move there, but I would like to see it investing here in the UK. Could the Secretary of State confirm the specific measures that he will take to ensure that UK-based drone companies stay and manufacture here in our country?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for once again raising this issue with me. It is now on the record, but his constituents should know that he has been actively campaigning around the corridors of this place too. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), will be very pleased to meet him to discuss his constituency issue.
I say to the whole House that there is a big opportunity through defence investment to reindustrialise this country and create jobs, growth and opportunities. Members will see the commitment of this Government, Prime Minister, Chancellor and Defence Secretary reflected not just in words, but in deeds in the coming weeks and months.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place; I knew it would not be long before we saw him back on the Front Bench. I have urged the Government before to use the frozen Russian Central Bank assets. It may be difficult, as he has just said to another hon. Member, but that does not mean it is impossible. Given the leadership that the United Kingdom has shown, can I urge the Secretary of State to lead the way in turning the difficult into the possible?
Wes Streeting
To retain the tone of these exchanges, I will resist making the point that the shadow Minister makes. Let me say simply to the hon. Gentleman that that is absolutely the challenge I will take up.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and thank him for his statement. The New York Times published an article today saying that Ukraine has a defence budget shortfall of around £20 billion. He will know that more than £145 billion of frozen Russian assets are currently held in the Euroclear system in Belgium. Will he work with European partners and press Belgium to release that funding so that we can fill those shortfalls and secure Ukrainian and European defence?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is right to link those two issues, which we have heard about from Members across the House. I can assure him that, particularly through the UDCG, and through our bilateral conversations, we will continue to do whatever we can to liberate frozen Russian assets and put them in Ukrainian hands to fight for Ukrainian freedom.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place and support the statement he has made. I would like to press him a bit further on the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) about turning off the taps on the Russian war machine when it comes to funding. Earlier in this Parliament, I raised the issue of cultural exports such as the likes of “Masha and the Bear” and how that was directly contributing to the Russian war machine. Ukraine has now sanctioned “Masha and the Bear”, but it is still on ITVX and Netflix in the UK. Will he work with Cabinet colleagues to look at how we can tackle the ways in which Russia finances its war?
Wes Streeting
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that example. I know that my colleagues across Cabinet are willing for people to do more through their Departments to support Ukraine. I will certainly pick that issue up.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. We know that Putin will be preparing to use winter as a weapon by continuing barbaric attacks against civilian and energy targets in Ukraine. Will the Secretary of State outline the steps that this Government are taking to mobilise allies and provide more support wherever we can?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and I am proud of the role that the UK is showing through the UDCG. With our friends and allies, we will continue to mobilise international support in that way to raise the resources and capability that Ukraine needs to win its freedom.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I agree with the Secretary of State that differences on defence should not be manufactured for party political advantage, and it is sad to see that happen elsewhere in Europe. The EU still gets 12% of its gas imports from Russia. While this is down from 45%—the level before the full-scale invasion—the proceeds are still fuelling the Russian war machine. What is the Secretary of State doing to maintain unity across Europe, as well as across the House? Will he encourage our friends in the European Union to cease all Russian gas imports?
Wes Streeting
I certainly welcome the support we have seen from member states of the European Union through the UDCG. I also pay tribute to the European Union’s work to mobilise support and financing for Ukraine, including some considerable announcements made only recently. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of Russian imports. These are the sorts of conversations that we have with our friends and allies.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The threat from Russia is clearly changing the way that we think about the defence of our country. In my constituency, the Civil Defence Social Club still exists, but civil defence itself does not. What discussions is the Defence Secretary having with Cabinet colleagues and, crucially, the devolved nations, including the Scottish Government, about what modern civil defence should look like? As is demonstrated by many countries, the closer a country is to the Russian border, the more military and civil society converge in a system of mutual deterrence and, if ever required, national defence. What more should Britain learn from that whole-of-society approach?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue and the importance of learning from those who lead by example. We do need to raise our game in this respect. We absolutely will, and we are drawing on our international counterparts as we prepare for our own national conversation. We are also thinking through the capability that we need in terms of national resilience. I am very happy to involve him in those conversations and to underscore the importance of the UK Government—this is our responsibility—working closely with the devolved Governments as well. I want to have a constructive relationship in this post with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I welcome the Defence Secretary to his place. This morning, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe proposed a mechanism that could allow Ukraine to receive frozen Russian assets based on rulings by the European Court of Human Rights. The document states that directing Russian assets towards compensating Ukraine could be a legitimate countermeasure and is consistent with the norms of international law. Will the Secretary of State consider this mechanism in relation to the UK’s seized Russian assets as well as in discussions with European allies?
Wes Streeting
I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will look very carefully at this development. I am keen to do all we can to liberate Russian assets to invest in Ukraine’s defence. I am grateful to him for invoking the ECHR in a positive context, which is not always a feature of debates in this House.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Through their Representation of the People Bill, this Government are already doing a lot to protect our democracy from dodgy foreign donations, but my right hon. Friend knows that I am also concerned about foreign misinformation and disinformation undermining our democracy, support for Ukraine and community cohesion. What conversations is he having with Cabinet colleagues about what more we can do to target foreign misinformation and disinformation, particularly from Russia, and to protect our democracy?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. As well as land, air, sea and cyber, we should absolutely see information and communication as a front in modern warfare and a risk to our own national security. We actively rebut misinformation and disinformation from Russia as well as from other states and non-state actors that pose a threat to our democracy and way of life. There is more to do on this, and it certainly needs to form part of the national conversation, because we can each play a part, particularly when trust in politics and mainstream media is low. In the context of the threats we face, we need to completely change the dial on the public’s level of trust and confidence in us.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For the final question, I call Chris Vince.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the new Defence Secretary to his place and thank him for his statement, particularly his ongoing commitment to support our Ukrainian allies. Going last is very difficult, particularly when my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) has asked exactly the question that I was going to, so I am desperately trying to think of something else to ask. I absolutely echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell about disinformation online, normally from Russian sources. Whether it is extreme right-wing views or extreme left-wing views, this AI-generated nonsense is designed to disrupt and undermine our democracy. As this is the last question, can I ask the Secretary of State to reflect on that and to once again give this Labour Government’s commitment to support our Ukrainian allies?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend should know by now that repetition is not a crime in the House of Commons; it is a regular feature of our exchanges. I very much look forward to working with him in this capacity—he managed to leverage an enormous amount of money out of me when I was Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I look forward to those high-security containment labs being up and running in his Harlow constituency before too long. I also give to him the commitment not only to support Ukraine and press on investing more in our national defence and security, but to ensure that the good people of Harlow benefit from the jobs that defence provides in his constituency, not least through Raytheon.
Bills Presented
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Social Housing Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 77 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition has been selected.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Good housing is the foundation of a flourishing life. Decent, safe, secure and affordable homes provide a platform for families to live, grow and build a better life. They make for stronger, healthier and happier communities. Everyone—and I mean everyone—deserves to have one. Yet, as we all know, far too many families in need across the country are languishing on social housing waiting lists, struggling in the private rented sector or in expensive temporary accommodation as a result, and driving up rents and the housing benefit bill in the process. At the same time, the ability and willingness of councils to invest in the building of new social rented homes has been undermined by the steady and significant loss of existing stock through the right to buy scheme.
It was for those reasons that the Government committed in our manifesto to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, prioritising the building of new social rented homes, enhancing protections for existing and new build social housing, and supporting councils and housing associations to make a greater contribution to affordable housing supply. In the 26 months we have been in office, we have faithfully sought to honour those commitments, making the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent memory, vigorously prioritising social rented housing, rebuilding the capacity of councils and housing associations to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, reinvigorating council house building, and taking initial steps to better protect existing stock.
The Bill supplements those efforts. It builds on the funding and regulatory certainty that we have already given the sector, and it supports the five-step plan we published last summer to deliver a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Minister starts strongly by highlighting the real reason behind the Bill. He is absolutely right: for many families, social housing is the only option to achieve dignity, security and stability. In my community, 25,000 adults are waiting for social housing, so I welcome the Government’s ambition for £39 billion to be spent on social and affordable housing over the next 10 years. The Minister alluded to this in his earlier submissions, but will he make it clear that all resources and flexibility will be available to local councils to deliver on that pledge?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right: we absolutely need to give local councils flexibility. We have already helped councils to build their capacity. We have, as I will mention later, allowed them to keep 100% of right to buy receipts. We are considering everything we need to do to move the dial when it comes to house building, to build on the steps that we have already taken.
The Bill has three core objectives: first, to protect much-needed housing stock and thereby incentivise the building of more social rented homes; secondly, to create a fairer tenancy system with greater protections for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse; and thirdly, to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and give providers greater regulatory certainty so that they can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence. Let me provide further detail on each objective in turn, starting with the measures designed to better protect existing social housing stock and incentivise the building of more social homes.
At the heart of the Bill are comprehensive reforms to the right to buy scheme. In addressing them, I emphasise that we are not abolishing the right to buy—I know and respect the fact that some right hon. and hon. Members object to that decision on principle—but the Government remain firmly of the view that social housing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years should retain the opportunity to purchase them at a reasonable discount. However, we need to radically reform the right to buy in order to reduce the significant outflow of stock that has taken place since discounts were drastically increased by the coalition Government in 2012, to incentivise councils to build, and to attract broader investment in council housing.
As hon. Members will know, we have already acted to reduce maximum right to buy cash discounts, to increase the cost floor protection period, to ensure—as I just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain)—that councils keep 100% of right to buy receipts, and to allow council to combine those receipts with developer contributions and grant funding. The Bill delivers the broader set of reforms necessary to put in place a fair and sustainable right to buy scheme for the future, informed by the feedback we received in the public consultation that ran from November 2024 to January 2025.
Key measures in the Bill include increasing the right to buy eligibility requirement from three to 10 years, amending percentage discounts to better align with new maximum cash discounts so that long-standing tenants benefit from the largest reductions, and exempting newly built social homes from sale under right to buy for 30 years. The Bill also exempts homes from sale under right to buy in areas designated as rural, given that homes in those areas are extremely difficult and expensive to replace. In the other place, peers sought to persuade the Government to set criteria for rural designation in regulations, and we have committed to amending the Bill to enable that.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Minister will know that clause 12 includes provision restricting housing associations from disposing of stock, including, for example, housing for which it is expensive to achieve an energy performance certificate rating of C. My area is haemorrhaging larger numbers of social homes because of that rather than because of right to buy. Will he ensure that rural communities, where there is a scarcity of social housing, are protected and supported in retaining those properties?
Matthew Pennycook
I am sure that we will have ongoing discussions about that and other issues. The hon. Gentleman may wish to hone his private Member’s Bill—the Homes and Planning Bill—so that it focuses on this issue among others. As I said at oral questions on Monday, I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on disposals. I want to ensure that every opportunity is taken to retain homes in the social housing sector.
The new disposal notification requirements in the Bill, which I will address later, will maximise opportunities for social housing providers to buy and retain social homes, but housing associations remain independent organisations, responsible for their own asset management decisions. Yes, we are looking at what more we can do to protect much-needed social housing stock, but there are limits to the extent to which we can go. Further to that point, we are also taking equally important steps to ensure that councils are in a better position to buy any disposals—by raising the gap on grant funding for acquisitions, for example.
Taken together, those measures will fundamentally alter the trajectory of social housing supply. Between April 2012 and March 2024, there were over 124,000 council right to buy sales, with fewer than 48,000 homes replaced in the same period. Under the previous, pre-reform baseline, we could have expected to see an approximate net loss of another 26,000 council homes between 2026 and 2036. Following the implementation of this Government’s right to buy reform package, including the measures in the Bill, we instead expect to realise a net gain of around 18,000 homes in the same 10-year period. To put it more simply, instead of vainly watching the loss of precious social homes massively outpace their building, we will, for the first time in decades, build considerably more than we are losing thanks to this Labour Government and this Bill.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
The Bill rightly prioritises the building of social rented homes. Back in 2003, however, Rushcliffe borough council transferred all its council housing stock away and has built none since, yet it has praised itself repeatedly for being debt free, despite being much poorer asset wise as a result of that decision. Does the Minister agree that, if the Bill is to succeed, we cannot treat stock transfer as virtuous and that we have to get to the point where housing revenue accounts are not treated and talked about as being traditional debt for local authorities?
Matthew Pennycook
There is lots I agree with in what my hon. Friend said. We want to see councils once again directly delivering homes at scale. We also want councils working in far closer partnership with housing associations to increase the number of homes that are built and managed by local authorities. The point my hon. Friend made about his local authority is on the record for people in his area to see.
In addition to introducing comprehensive reforms to the right to buy, the Bill will require private providers of social housing to notify the relevant local authority and other social housing providers in their area before they sell a social home, which is relevant to the point the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made. There can be good reasons why private registered providers sometimes choose to dispose of social rented homes, and we do not propose to prevent them from doing so, but when a social home is to be sold, councils and other social housing providers should have the opportunity to consider whether they are interested in purchasing it. Legislation to provide them with that opportunity will prevent homes from being lost to the private market when they do not need to be.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Some 27 years ago, my local authority, the London Borough of Bexley, sold all its council housing stock to Orbit and L&Q. L&Q now routinely sells those former council homes at auction. Will the Minister commit to looking further at how we can ensure homes remain social housing, because the council has no intention of buying those homes back?
Matthew Pennycook
It is disappointing to hear that my hon. Friend’s local authority is not interested in any way in trying to bring those homes back under local authority control. As I said, there are limits to what we can do. Housing associations remain independent organisations. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of the risks concerned with the steps the Government might take on reclassification, but we are exploring what more can be done to protect much needed social housing stock. As I said, it is just as important that we ensure that those councils and other providers that do want to buy—there are plenty of them—are in a position to do so.
On the issue of disposals, having listened carefully to the debate in the other place on this matter, we have committed to introducing an amendment to extend the window of time that must pass between notification and the sale of a property to give councils and other providers more time to consider whether homes can be purchased and retained in the social housing sector, which we want to see.
Andrew George
Will the Minister also consider extending the option to consult community groups, community land trusts and housing co-ops? They could take on these properties, rather than their leaking out into the private sector. In areas like mine, if properties leak into the private sector, they will most likely become second homes.
Matthew Pennycook
Indeed. That is precisely why we are introducing the notification window: we want to give local authorities and other providers the maximum opportunity to bring those homes back under their control. It is just as important that they are able to do so in practice. There are other issues affecting local authorities. A number of my hon. Friends in oral questions at the start of the week spoke about pressures on housing revenue accounts. All those issues are bearing down on the ability of councils to buy homes. We are looking at reforms to this area, not least the cap on acquisitions.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make a bit of progress, because there are a lot of Members who want to speak, but I will come back to my hon. Friend later.
I now turn to the Bill’s second core objective: increasing protections for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. No one should be forced to remain in an unsafe situation because they fear becoming homeless, yet last year about 15,000 households in England had to find a new social home as a result of domestic abuse. Existing legislation provides scant protection for social housing tenants who are victims of domestic abuse and who wish to remain in their current home without their abuser. Landlords can evict perpetrators, but only in cases where the victim has already left. That means that all too often victims are forced to choose between staying in danger or losing their home. This is an utterly unacceptable state of affairs, and through the Bill, we will end it, as part of our Department’s ongoing efforts to deliver the Government’s unprecedented commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been very generous with his time. I strongly support the provisions in the Bill to support victims of violence, who far too often have to be evicted or leave while the perpetrator stays with the tenancy, as the Minister said. Rent arrears also prevent victims from gaining a tenancy or moving out of temporary accommodation into settled accommodation. Requirements that prevent those with rent arrears from getting a new tenancy do not take into account whether someone has been a victim of domestic violence. I know that the Department is looking at consulting and guidance on that. Could the Bill be a key mechanism for changing that across the country?
Matthew Pennycook
I know that there is interest in this issue in the Chamber. There is certainly interest in the other place about it. I assure my hon. Friend that we appreciate fully that survivors of domestic abuse with debt can face barriers when applying for social housing. We continue to believe that guidance is the best route to resolving this issue, but we have been clear in the other place, and I am happy to reiterate it in this Chamber, that if that guidance proves insufficient, we do have the option of making regulations to amend the relevant legislation.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham Yardley) (Lab)
It is very good to hear the Minister commit to checking whether guidance is enough. Many of us who have tried to rehouse victims of domestic abuse, even after great laws have been written into legislation in this place, will know that getting them the priority need status under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 still takes a huge amount of advocacy. I therefore really welcome the commitment that, if guidance alone does not work, the Government will look at legislation. I offer to work with the Department to ensure that we assess whether the policy is working not from Whitehall but from the frontline.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend knows that I have the utmost respect for her and all that she has done to make women and girls safe. In response to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), the Government have committed in our national plan to end homelessness to address this issue. There is consensus on that point. I am more than happy to make it clear that, if the guidance is not effective and does not have the intended effects that we all want to see, we will not hesitate to pursue changes through regulations. My hon. Friend has my commitment on that.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Matthew Pennycook
I am not going to give way. Madam Deputy Speaker is glaring at me because I am taking too much time. I know that many Members want to speak. I will try to come back to colleagues as I progress through my remarks.
To ensure that victims of domestic abuse can access safe and secure housing, the Bill provides for stronger legal mechanisms to remove a perpetrator from a social housing tenancy and enable victims to stay in their home or move to alternative accommodation as a sole tenant. In response to constructive debate on the subject in the other place, we intend to bolster the discretionary possession ground so that the existence of a relevant protective order can provide the basis for proceedings, rather than evidence that the order has already been breached being required. The new powers will apply where the victim is personally connected to the perpetrator tenant and is a current or former occupant of the property. By aligning the approach with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the Bill will cover a broader range of relationships, including partners, former partners and family members.
The Bill’s third core objective is reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and providing regulatory clarity so that providers can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence. The Housing and Planning Act 2016—incidentally, the Bill Committee of which I happened to serve on as a young Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then shadow Housing Secretary, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey)—contains a series of social housing provisions that have never been brought into force. The Bill will repeal the following measures to clarify the statute book and provide the sector with certainty that they will never be implemented. First, this Government have no intention of implementing provisions that would have required councils to charge higher rents to higher-income social tenants, also known as mandatory pay to stay. The policy could have incentivised tenants to reduce work hours to avoid higher rent, so we are removing it from the statute book.
Secondly, the Bill will repeal provisions that would have required councils to grant fixed-term tenancies of between two years and 10 years generally to all new tenants. This Government will continue to encourage landlords to make the best and most effective use of their homes to meet housing need, but we have no intention of prohibiting lifetime secure tenancies, which provide much-needed security for many households and support social mobility, and so we are removing that policy from the statute book.
Thirdly, the Bill will repeal provisions that would have required councils to sell off higher-value vacant housing stock and make annual payments in respect of expected sales to the Treasury. This Government have no intention of implementing this policy and want to see these assets remain for councils to manage and use as they see fit, so we are removing it from the statute book.
As well as repealing provisions from the 2016 Act, the Bill reforms the outdated housing consents regime, which can be time consuming and resource intensive for councils and often leads to delays in delivering new social and affordable housing. The Bill will streamline the consents process to empower councils and remove bureaucratic impediments that restrict councils’ flexibility in managing their housing stock, while retaining checks and protections where appropriate.
Did my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) want to intervene?
Matthew Pennycook
Or have I caught him unprepared? I was going to give him a chance there.
To conclude, after years of marginalisation, this Government have emphatically and unashamedly asserted the necessity and value of social rented homes. They are a crucial national asset to be proud of, to invest in, to protect and to maintain. This Bill will protect precious social homes for future generations and incentivise the building of many more of them. It will give social housing providers the confidence they need to invest in new social and affordable homes, and it will support social tenants who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
There is part of the Bill that the Minister has not referred to: part 2 on a review of shared ownership. Shared ownership is a tenure that provides a great opportunity to get into home ownership for many people, yet far too many people find themselves indebted and in a difficult position because of the service charges imposed on them and the quality of shared ownership. I am particularly interested in the different models of shared ownership that come forward. I am interested to know what this review will cover and how its outcomes might be reflected in any future investment in genuinely affordable homes.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her passionate advocacy on behalf of her constituents and others around the country on housing issues generally. On shared ownership, I know the pressures that shared owners face; I see them in my own constituency postbag on a daily basis. We have already taken positive steps to improve the shared ownership model such as introducing new expectations for landlords who bid for shared ownership grant funding to improve fairness and transparency. We are supporting shared owners affected by specific challenges, such as building safety issues. Clause 13, which hon. Members might be aware was added to the Bill in the other place, requires a review of the shared ownership model to be carried out within 12 months of the Bill passing. We do not believe a review is necessary as we are already actively considering specific issues that have been raised in debates, including data and long-term affordability for customers, and we will of course consider what more we can do to act on those issues within our wider programme to improve shared ownership.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make some progress.
I am immensely grateful to my noble Friend, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, for the customary skill with which she oversaw the passage of the Bill through the other place and for the extensive engagement she undertook with peers throughout the initial Lords stages. A number of important issues were raised during the debates in the other place and, as a result, my Department is undertaking rapid policy work to determine whether there is a case for strengthening the Bill further in a series of areas.
For example, in response to concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and the noble Lord Best, we are giving serious consideration to what more might be done to provide greater security of tenure for social tenants who are fleeing violence, including serious youth violence. We are also considering what more can be done to bolster public control of social housing to ensure that it serves and supports those who need it most.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not; I am just about to conclude—apologies to my hon. Friend.
I look forward to engaging with hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber in relation to these and other matters as we look to improve the Bill further, and I commend it to the House.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Social Housing Bill [Lords], despite supporting the measures in the Bill to protect victims of domestic abuse, because the Bill will effectively abolish Right to Buy, destroying the aspirations of social tenants who wish to one day purchase their own home; because the Government is failing to build the homes required, as in 2024-25 there were 12,810 fewer net additional dwellings delivered in England compared to the previous year, and the Bill does nothing to promote much-needed housebuilding; and because the Bill does not ensure that social housing is used effectively and is reserved for British citizens.”
We come to the House, as we have done many times, to find that the Government are still failing to build more homes and still failing to support home ownership. This Bill is no different; indeed, it is a failure par excellence because for a Bill supposedly concerned with housing, it does nothing to build any new homes. The Bill does nothing to support the aspiration of home ownership; in fact, it goes out of its way to diminish it. It does not even free up any social homes for the 1.34 million people on the waiting list. It is a dud Bill and an ideological red herring.
Most egregiously, however, the Government have taken a much-needed reform—the need for a new and effective framework to enable landlords to take possession action against perpetrators of domestic abuse—and surrounded it with unnecessary, damaging and punitive reforms to right to buy. We agree with the Government that it is vital that anyone stuck in an abusive household receives the urgent care, support and access to legal pathways they need, so His Majesty’s Opposition support this aspect of the Bill, but it is a shame to find the Government wedging it uncomfortably alongside the ideological and anti-aspirational measures that make up the majority of this counterproductive Bill.
Jess Phillips
As somebody who, I would wager, has rehoused more victims of domestic abuse than almost anybody in this House, I just want to say on behalf of victims of domestic abuse that building more council housing and ensuring that more council housing is in the system is literally the thing that almost every victim in the country would ask us to do. With that, I commend the ideology of the Bill and suggest on the hon. Gentleman’s point about “wedging it together” that they are the same issue.
Gareth Bacon
Sorry—I missed that comment from a sedentary position. This Bill does not contribute to building a single extra social home. I agree that people who are victims of domestic abuse should be rehoused—I said that in my remarks. We do not agree, however, that this Bill is the way to do it.
Let us come to the main thrust of the Government’s policy: the effective end of right to buy as we know it. In 1980, Margaret Thatcher’s Government offered millions of people a hand up on to the property ladder by extending the opportunity to own property to hard-working, aspirational people living in social housing.
Gareth Bacon
I will make some progress.
Ever since and right up to the present day, Labour MPs have called for restrictions on the scheme. They have essentially called for an end to the opportunity to exercise the right to own one’s own home for around 5 million households. When owning one’s own home can bring such pride and such a sense of community, and can offer security and safety, one might wonder why on earth anyone would seek to lock millions of social housing tenants out of doing so. Aside from ideology, which of course is a major part of the problem for Labour Members, the Government seek to do this because they have misdiagnosed the problem. In their mind, it is somehow acceptable to lay the blame at the door of right to buy, as 1.34 million households—children, families, the elderly, the disabled and others—wait for a social home, while every year approximately 33,000 new social tenancies, funded by British taxpayers, go to households where the lead tenant is not a British national.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I speak as the granddaughter of Jamaican immigrants who came to this country and had a council house, and then bought that council house and profited from right to buy. The conversation we had around our dinner table was, “Isn’t right to buy great? The problem is they are not rebuilding the houses.” The idea of changing the policy is to stop the leakage out of the system. We cannot continue to pour more into the top while it comes out of the bottom. I hope we can agree that building more social homes is everyone’s objective, but keeping them in the system will also alleviate the pressure on social housing.
Gareth Bacon
I agree with the hon. Lady that building more social homes is part of the answer, but I will address the central point of her question a bit later in my speech.
Right to buy is not the reason for the diminishing available social housing, nor the reason for our current shortage of social housing. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson pointed out in the other place, the Government’s own impact assessment shows that in 2026-27, the pre-November 2024 baseline was 8,050 right-to-buy sales leading to 5,450 replacement homes. The document goes on to show that if this Bill were to pass and the legacy impacts wind down in the period 2031 to 2035, annual right-to-buy sales would fall to around 1,100 a year, with around 1,450 replacement homes. That means that by their own analysis and admission, the Government would oversee a housing system in which there would be 4,000 fewer new social homes funded every year.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
While we are talking about statistics, between April 2012 and March 2024 there were over 124,000 right-to-buy sales and fewer than 48,000 homes built to replace them. Which party was in charge during that period? [Interruption.]
Gareth Bacon
The point I am making, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) says from a sedentary position behind me, is that there will be even fewer new social homes under this Bill. It is not the answer to the problem.
The Government’s own data is not the only data available that disproves the justification for restricting right to buy. The Government have argued that the Bill will mean that around 3,000 additional homes are retained a year, but research conducted by the House of Lords Library shows that only a net 3% of social homes become available each year to new tenancies. That means that about 90 additional homes will be available for a new tenant every year, instead of 5,000.
The very premise that right to buy is taking homes away is a fallacy. The only people who qualify for right to buy are long-term tenants, and Government data has shown that 78% of new lettings remain lifetime tenancies. That means that in three quarters of cases, we are looking at social homes that are unlikely ever to be available to a prospective tenant when they need it. All of that clearly demonstrates that right to buy is not the issue—it is part of the solution.
That is not the only available avenue that the Government could take to support those on the waiting list and get more people into the housing they need. I hope that you will not mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I offer two key areas in which progress could be made. First and foremost, it could be made through house building. The Government put forward clear and definite promises to voters in 2024. We were told that by the end of this Parliament, the Government will have built 1.5 million new homes, including
“the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation.”
The new Prime Minister—a self-proclaimed opponent of 1980s policies—has similarly committed to a social housing revolution, albeit without a defined target or an idea of what that looks like. But now, halfway through this Parliament, after the slog of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, multiple updates to the national planning policy framework and the publication of this Bill, we are left without a clear route to building more homes, and projections from the Government themselves show that they have managed to build just 26% of their target in nearly 50% of the time.
The Bill does nothing to prioritise building. It will not add a single social home to the housing stock.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Is it not slightly misleading to suggest that the delivery rate for those homes pledged in the manifesto will be constant throughout the term of this Government? In fact, we have to do the enabling work in terms of legislation and then we will see more of those homes built towards the end. Is it not also right and good that we have a target that stretches us? I would hope that the Opposition would join us in helping to deliver that target.
Gareth Bacon
The Opposition will be very happy if the Government hit that target, but the point is they will not. The target was not nuanced in the way the hon. Gentleman sets out in the manifesto, nor was it nuanced straight after the election. We were told that 1.5 million homes were to be built by the end of this Parliament. There is no chance that the Government will hit that target.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that while under the current right-to-buy rules only 20% to 25% of the receipts go back to the local council, under the Government’s proposals it will be 100%, which will make it much easier to build those homes? Richard Parker, the West Midlands Mayor, has already delivered nearly 2,000 new homes and is on target to deliver 5,000. Would he therefore agree that it is possible to deliver the target?
Gareth Bacon
On the contrary, it was the last Conservative Government who in 2023 introduced 100% receipts going to councils to rebuild the homes that had gone. Although Government Members like to pretend that history only began in 2010, I point out to them that successive Governments since the 1980s could have changed that and did not; it was the last Conservative Government who did so.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On housing numbers, there is no Reform MP present this afternoon, but Reform-led Rochford district council has just published its regulation 19 local plan. During the May elections, Reform made a great thing of defending the green belt, and in the intervening period its councillors intimated to lots of local campaign groups that, when the plan came out, they would be all right. Yet we now find that nearly every single one of those green-belt sites has been recommended for development. Does my hon. Friend agree that if they do not really mean to defend the green belt—clearly they do not—they should never have said that?
Gareth Bacon
I share my right hon. Friend’s shock that no Reform MP is present in the Chamber. I am similarly totally taken aback that Reform would say one thing and do another. Of course, Reform councillors should not have said that if they did not mean it.
Gareth Bacon
That is very well put by my right hon. Friend.
The Government do nothing to prioritise building. The Bill will not add a single social home to the housing stock. The Government are seeking to heal an illness before they have properly diagnosed it, and are offering a solution to a problem to which there is already an answer. If they were serious about reforming the right to buy and building more homes at the same time, perhaps they would look at how proper management and effective reinvestment of receipts could lead to an increase in housing supply, especially on brownfield sites. As my colleagues in the other place noted, it is better for everyone and for the economy if we make two homes out of one. Through efficient, productive and successful management of right-to-buy receipts, we can both sell a family home and support a family on the waiting list into another one. As homelessness peaks at record levels and the number of children in temporary accommodation reaches a dizzying summit of 178,000, it beggars belief that the Government are not looking at that more closely.
However, I recognise that house building is not an overnight fix; it takes time, but for many families on the waiting list, that is something they simply do not have. We must therefore consider how best to free up existing stock to support those most in need.
Luke Murphy
The shadow Minister is giving his view eloquently on social housing, but in 2010, the then coalition Government cut the affordable housing budget by 60%. Five years later, there was a 97% fall in the building of social rent homes. Would he like to apologise to the House for that record?
Gareth Bacon
I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said. Of course, one of the things we do not get from Government Members is any commentary at all about the state of the economy in 2010, after 13 years of their party being in power. The public finances had to be right-sized—the country was heading towards bankruptcy. They are happy to disown their record and criticise everybody who followed, but perhaps it would be slightly more honest if they prefaced their arguments with an acknowledgement of that.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Mayor of London has been in power for over 10 years, and that London’s housing starts have fallen through the floor. Over 300,000 Londoners are estimated to be on housing waiting lists, the majority of them in Labour boroughs. Does he find the rhetoric today somewhat confusing, given that even though the Government have cut Sadiq Khan’s affordable housing target by 22%, he continues to miss it?
Gareth Bacon
My hon. Friend knows of what he speaks. The Mayor of London’s record on housing is, of course, execrable. It is totally mystifying that at a time when London’s population and housing need is the highest it has ever been, the Government have simultaneously reduced the housing target for London and massively ramped up the target in outer London, where most of the green belt is. That tells us everything we need to know about their intentions, both for housing and for the green belt.
To the Opposition, two answers seem too obvious to miss, yet the Government wilfully ignore this part of the puzzle. The first answer is efficiency of stock management. Many councils and housing associations are well-run and proactive organisations, but too many remain plagued by poor stock utilisation, improper management and under-occupation. A proper understanding of national stock will go some way towards creating a fairer and more efficient system, in contrast to the failures we witness now. For example, up-to-date figures from the English housing survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above £50,000, while approximately 389,000 households are under-occupying social housing. That is clearly an inefficiency worth fixing, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility for many suppliers and managers to fix it, yet that does not feature in the Bill. Again, the Government look at the breadth of the issue and give a narrow and ideological legislative response.
The second answer is this. Too many struggling families are understandably frustrated to find foreign nationals in homes paid for by the British taxpayer. To be clear, we are not talking about just anyone—after all, until recently, British taxpayers were funding the First Lady of Sierra Leone’s central London pad, which was a British social housing flat. There are other egregious cases—more precisely, another 127,000 cases. Official figures show that 72% of those who identify as Somali in England and Wales live in social housing.
Natasha Irons
I want to clarify the point about people born in other countries and living here. If a person is born somewhere else, it does not mean that they are not a British citizen, or that their children were not born in this country. Being in social housing does not mean not being in work. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, if someone becomes a British citizen after moving to this country, they should have a different tier of support in the system, even if they have paid into it?
Gareth Bacon
No. If the hon. Lady will listen to the remainder of my speech, she will hear what I have to say.
It is understandable that as more and more people watch more and more of their salary slip away from their pockets and into the hands of the taxman, they begin to ask why they bother, and to question the fairness of the system. If the Government are not going to build enough social homes, they could follow our example, as laid out in our alternative King’s Speech: end all new social housing tenancies for all foreign nationals, as well as current tenancies for couples in which neither person is a UK, Irish or EU citizen, and free up those homes for British families. To be clear about the scale of what we are talking about, this would add 228,144 homes to the social housing sector—more homes than the Government built in the whole of 2024-25.
Finally, I turn to the problems around shared ownership that could be fixed—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), who is no longer in her place. My noble Friends in the other place worked hard and successfully to bring this issue to the attention of the Government and see it added to the Bill. For far too long, and for far too many people, what should have been their first and proudest step on to the housing ladder instead became a logistical, legal and financial nightmare. I am proud of the Opposition’s work in the House of Lords to force the Government to finally realise that this has become a national issue, and to obtain a welcome commitment from the Government to reviewing shared ownership practices. I call on the Minister to reiterate that promise, and not to seek to remove any such commitment or obligation from the Bill in Committee.
It is clear that this Bill fails the British people. By effectively destroying the right to buy, it does nothing to increase available social housing stock. It merely keeps people trapped in the system and not in control of their own life. It fails to provide more homes, to support aspirations of home ownership or to free up existing stock. Most crucially, it undermines the very essence of what makes for a successful and viable housing system. In such a system, people are supported to get into housing when they need it, and to own housing when they aspire to do so. This Bill, this Government and the Secretary of State—who is absent for reasons I think we all probably understand—not only fail but refuse to create such a system. That is why the Opposition tabled our reasoned amendment. We believe that the Bill is so lacking in ambition, so ideological in its motivation and so punitive in its measures that it should not proceed beyond this stage, or get anywhere near the statute book.
I say that with great sorrow for the helpless victims of domestic abuse and violence, who deserve everything that the Bill promises on those issues. It is a shame that the Government have wedded such necessary support to such punitory legislation. I hope that the Secretary of State will reassure the House that if the Bill makes it to Committee and beyond, it will be amended to make it fit for purpose for those in need of housing, in need of escape from abuse, and in need of shelter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. There is an immediate four-minute time limit for Back-Bench contributions.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Safe and secure housing is the foundation of a good life, and the availability of social and affordable housing plays an important part in the provision of housing in this country, in what should be a mixed housing picture.
I would like to begin by talking about the right to buy. Between 2012 and 2024, 124,000 right-to-buy sales took place, but fewer than 50,000 of those properties were replaced in the same period. The maths alone demonstrate what is happening to social housing. I therefore particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to reforming right to buy, including measures to exempt newly built affordable and social housing from sale under the right-to-buy scheme for 35 years. I also welcome 100% of right-to-buy receipts being left to local authorities. As an ex-council leader, I recall the frustration I felt about being unable to plough that money back into affordable homes. Councils will now be able to combine that money with developer contributions and grant funding; it will mean that councils that are committed to affordable and social housing can build more.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and it is good to see her in the Chamber. She mentioned her frustration, when she was council leader, at not being able to use 100% of right-to-buy receipts. Seeing as the last Conservative Government gave her the power to do that, why did she not?
Nesil Caliskan
There were a number of reasons hindering us from delivering affordable homes. The Conservatives’ measure did not go as far as the proposals that the Government are setting out today. The other reasons included record interest rates, which completely decimated housing revenue accounts for councils up and down the country.
In my constituency of Barking, rising rents and bills take a bigger piece of people’s household spending each month. That is the result of a housing crisis in this country that has got progressively worse because building simply is not keeping up with demand. Every week, I speak to constituents who tell me about their experience of the housing crisis, which leaves them with anxiety that they may be left without a roof over their head at any moment—and that is in a local authority that is building at a record rate.
I would also like to speak about the new powers to support domestic violence victims. Like many Members in this place, I speak to constituents who tell me about their fear of being left homeless, should they speak out and leave their secure home. I very much welcome the changes in the Bill, which will mean that women and children can sleep safer.
Katrina Murray
One of the issues that we discussed at my constituency women’s safety summit back in January was the gender debt gap and economic abuse, and particularly how it affects rent arrears. As a result of that, North Lanarkshire council, Aberlour Children’s Charity, the violence against women and girls sector and registered social landlords in North Lanarkshire are adopting an authority-wide common approach to supporting women. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an excellent example of voluntary action for the Minister to take forward?
Nesil Caliskan
There are excellent examples up and down the country of local authorities doing very good work. With the backing of a Labour Government, we can see real progress in supporting women who are the victims of domestic violence, and their children.
Part 2 of the Bill requires the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review of the operation and effectiveness of shared ownership. Barking has a significant number of shared ownership properties, and I speak to constituents who tell me that a move that was full of hope is quickly turning into a nightmare. Many constituents have told me about the increase in their charges, in some cases from £2,000 to £4,000, and some are paying up to £6,000 in charges for a three-bedroom property. Simply put, a shared ownership property that is categorised as affordable has become unaffordable for many of my constituents. I welcome the Government’s commitment to reviewing this, to ensure that affordable means affordable. Where charges mean that properties become unaffordable, my constituents should not feel as though they are trapped in them.
Housing and the provision of decent homes, including social and affordable housing, were the reason why I ran for public office. I am delighted to support the Government’s Bill. We need to build more social and affordable homes, we need to protect them, and we need to invest in them, so that they are fit for the future. I welcome the Bill and look forward to it being rolled out, so that my constituents in Barking can benefit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my experience as a social landlord.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for a major programme of social housing—150,000 homes per year—so there are elements of the Bill that we welcome and we will support it today. Extending the qualifying period to 10 years and cutting discounts will slow the loss of social homes, as we have been hearing. Protecting a newly built social home from sale for 35 years should give councils more confidence to build again, as will the improved right of first refusal. The protections for tenants fleeing domestic abuse are welcome and overdue, and we support them. So there are important steps in the right direction, but the Bill as a whole is nowhere near the scale of what is needed.
As other hon. Members have pointed out, right to buy was not on its own the biggest issue; it was the complete failure to replace properties, home for home. Thanks to the Conservatives, in Taunton and Wellington, as in the rest of the country, there are thousands fewer council homes than there used to be, all while the need for social housing has grown and grown. There are 4 million fewer council houses in this country than there were in 1980. Even taking into account replacements, social housing and registered social landlords, the number of social homes in this country has dropped by 1.5 million homes.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the majority of what the hon. Gentleman has said so far; he may come on to things that I do not agree with later in his speech, but we will have to wait and see. Will he reflect on the fact that the impact of councils losing their council housing stock has been that they have had to spend more and more money on temporary accommodation? It is a zero-sum game for local councils and the impact on families and young people has been particularly difficult, including in my constituency of Harlow.
Gideon Amos
I thank the hon. Member for I forget where—he does not mention it very often, but maybe it is Harlow. He is right and I will come to exactly that point about temporary accommodation.
The Resolution Foundation found that only one home was replaced for every five sold. That is a direct failure of Governments of all persuasions to build enough social housing. The Conservatives reversed their policy of allowing councils to spend 100% of receipts soon after they introduced it. In comparison, in 2004, a Labour Government required three quarters of receipts to be sent straight to the Treasury. Homes were sold at around half their value, and what money there was from receipts went elsewhere, not into building new social homes, and building rates plummeted.
I am glad that the new Prime Minister talks a good game on devolution, but even under the measures in this Bill, councils will remain unable to stop the loss of council homes from right to buy. The Liberal Democrats would give councils that power to end right to buy in their areas, if that is right for them and their communities. The Government should trust councils to understand their communities and their own housing markets.
When it comes to the Conservatives, who seem to be chasing their ideological bedfellows in the Reform party, apparently the priority is not building housing; it is finding a minority to blame for the problem—a group to alienate as “the other” when we should be focusing on building for the whole of the UK and everyone who lives here. Their amendment banning people who are not full British citizens from social housing overlooks the fact that people subject to immigration control are already ineligible for social housing—that is the law—but they want to go further.
The nurse on the ward at Musgrove Park hospital, in my constituency, would not be welcome under this Conservative amendment and would not be allowed to have a social home or a council house. The care worker who looked after people during the pandemic would not be welcome under this Conservative amendment. Under a Conservative Government, they would have nowhere to live when it comes to council and social housing. That is ironic for a party that has produced two Prime Ministers born outside Britain. As the Member of Parliament for Taunton and Wellington, I do not know whether I should inform his grace the Duke of Wellington that the first Duke of Wellington would not fully be a British citizen under the Conservative amendment tabled today because he was born outside Britain.
Gideon Amos
I suggest the hon. Gentleman reads the Conservative amendment that refers to reserving social housing for British citizens.
Gideon Amos
No, the Duke of Wellington was not born in Britain—the hon. Gentleman needs to have a look at his history books—[Interruption.] Regardless of the history of the Duke of Wellington, attempts to use the Bill to pump up divisive culture-war claptrap does not deserve our attention. Rather than pointing the finger of blame at minorities, we should be talking about how to build more social homes, and that is exactly what I will go on to do.
The failure to replace social homes, among other factors, means that more and more people are in temporary accommodation. There are 132,000 households in temporary accommodation, and councils spent £2.8 billion on it last year. The scourge of poor-quality temporary accommodation exists for far too many children, and that is why we need a big public housing programme to match the scale of the challenge. If for no other reason, we must do that because it is incumbent on all of us in this House, across parties, to end the tragic loss of children’s lives. The Shared Health Foundation has highlighted that temporary accommodation was found by a coroner to be a contributing factor in the deaths of 104 children in the last five years.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I have almost 180 families in Woking in temporary accommodation, and it is tragic for them. Some 20 of them are located outside the borough. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure councils can locate people in temporary accommodation locally so that it does not devastate their lives as much as it does at the moment?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend is entirely right. People should be able to stay in their communities, and we need local, affordable housing and social housing at scale to deal with that issue.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Tory idea of capping the local housing allowance would mean that families who cannot afford to stay in their area will have to move out of the area, tear their children out of school and turn their lives upside down?
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the local housing allowance and the huge effect that it has on local families and housing markets. It needs to be uprated. I must return to my speech, or you will start giving me looks, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Among other things, we must free up councils to build. My Lib Dem colleagues on Somerset council would build 600 council houses; they are already building council housing in parts of the county for the first time in a generation. The council has sites for another 600 houses and wants to build them, but it does not have the headroom in its housing revenue account. The Government promised to confirm their approach to a discounted borrowing rate for housing revenue accounts in the autumn, so we and councils eagerly await that news. If Ministers will not raise the £3.9 billion per year to the £6 billion per year that we have put in our manifesto for social housing, will they use some additional funds to write off some or all of that housing revenue account debt so that councils such as Somerset can get building again, as Shelter and others have called for?
On the scale of the need, the Government have reannounced that 60% of their programme for 300,000 homes will be social housing, which is 18,000 a year. That is welcome, but when that was first announced in July 2025, we said that it was not enough, and reannouncing it this summer does not make it enough. Will the Government raise the target for social homes—if not to our target of 150,000, then to a number higher than 18,000 a year?
In addition, the Bill does very little to address the unique issues of affordable housing in rural areas. In Taunton and Wellington, all that people are seeing is unprecedented plans for private housing, which many cannot afford. The council has been instructed to consent homes for 180,000 people in the next 15 years. The population of Somerset has never grown by 25% in any 15-year period in its history, and it will not do so in the next 15 years, but acres of beautiful countryside will be gobbled up for private housing permissions that many people in my constituency cannot afford.
Proposals to eat up the green belt have a consequence for social housing. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has brought to my attention an inspector’s decision in Gweek in Cornwall, following the Minister’s own policies, in which all social housing was removed from a previous consent on appeal, because, under new, mandatory Government housing targets, the new five-year supply could not be met. All private housing must now be allowed, and all social housing must be removed from the scheme. That needs to be addressed.
However, this is not just an issue in Cornwall. Most of England—at least, most of southern England—is covered by councils that, thanks to the new standard method, can no longer achieve the new five-year land supply. With the majority of those councils, we have a planning free-for-all in which social homes are not being safeguarded. The standard method has to go. We should replace it with a return to properly researched household projections that take into account movements between regions and safeguard exception sites for social housing, which are being lost. Fortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives has thought about this issue, and he has a Bill that would do exactly that. Permission in principle capped at nine dwellings sits below the affordable housing threshold, so that, too, means that sites are being lost.
The Government’s Bill does protect rural social homes from being sold, which I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues welcome. However, as long as the planning system that runs alongside it closes down the supply of new ones, it will simply not be enough. Overall, this Bill does not go far enough. In contrast, our Liberal Democrat Housing Bill—I had the privilege of presenting it to Madam Deputy Speaker not so long ago—would establish a target of 150,000 new social homes a year, including a new wave of rent to own, allowing young people to get on the housing ladder. It would require the Secretary of State to report on progress on meeting that target and would give local authorities the proper powers over social housing they will need to achieve it, including the right to end the right to buy in their area if it is right for them and their community. That is the Liberal Democrat vision for a revolution in the delivery of social homes, and I commend it to the House.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The housing crisis in Kensington and Bayswater is one of the biggest drivers of inequality in our community, with overcrowding, damp and mould, families stuck in temporary accommodation, and a lack of options for people with accessibility issues. It is a huge drag on life chances and opportunity, including for children.
The issue is not helped by Conservative-run Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea receiving a C3 rating from the Regulator of Social Housing—a staggering failure nearly 10 years after the Grenfell Tower tragedy, in which the inquiry found major failings at the council. It certainly would not be helped either by an entirely arbitrary £4 billion cut in housing benefit, which would dramatically increase homelessness, require the local authority to spend more on temporary accommodation and dramatically change the socioeconomic make-up of communities such as mine. It is a truly shameful policy. I will happily take an intervention from Conservative Front Benchers if they want to defend it, but it certainly would not address any of the issues we are talking about today.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
My area is probably like my hon. Friend’s, in that local housing allowance does not nearly meet market rates. Market rates are well above the national average, and wages in my area are below it, so does he agree that the Conservative policy of capping local housing allowance and the lack of social housing building over the past decade have exacerbated the issues we are now seeing in our constituencies?
Joe Powell
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, that policy would increase homelessness and would be entirely self-defeating, because it would just shift the bill to local authorities that would then have to deal with the problem, rather than tackling the problem, as we are doing today through this Bill. What we actually need is more social and genuinely affordable housing, and I welcome the steps this Bill takes to address the issue, because there is no doubt that unchecked right to buy has contributed to the problem.
The measures in the Bill are sensible and will make a difference. They build on policy changes that the Government have already made, including making permanent the retention of 100% of right-to-buy receipts. However, the implementation of these measures in communities such as mine will obviously be vital. In many of our council estates and buildings, the current owners of right-to-buy properties are actually open to selling. That is partly because of estate regeneration costs and concerns about service charges and quality, and because unlike other private leaseholders, those leaseholders may not necessarily benefit to the full extent from the easier path to commonhold and resident-run buildings that the Government will be bringing in for leaseholders in general. I would welcome further information about how local authorities can be supported to buy back properties in blocks where the council is already the freeholder.
I fully understand that this is an admission of the failure of the historical right-to-buy policy, and the situation certainly would not be helped by retaining the three-year eligibility requirement that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), supported in his speech. Changing the requirement to 10 years makes much more strategic sense for councils, because it incentivises both those buy-backs and investment in new council housing.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
My constituency is in the borough of Ealing, where 3,000 families are in temporary accommodation and 7,500 are on the housing list. Some 9,000 homes were sold off under the right to buy since the 1980s. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill strikes the right balance between continuing social mobility for long-standing tenants while protecting homes for those most in need?
Joe Powell
I do agree. We have to increase supply in any way we can, and my point about buy-backs is that they demonstrate the false economics of the system. Councils are buying back at a premium, and often they have to buy back only for temporary accommodation—because that is where the costs are so high—rather than for lifetime secure tenancies, which is what we need.
We also have a real challenge on housing association disposals, which I know other Members will speak to. The classic examples are Victorian-era street properties in North Kensington and Notting Hill. I am hearing of accelerated sell-offs as housing associations raise revenue to deal with their recent challenging financial situation, given remediation costs and the requirements to improve standards. Given that the Government have now backed the sector with access to the building safety fund, a 10-year rent settlement, low cost loans and more, I hope that those disposal numbers will drop. I know from experience that those homes in my constituency are unlikely to be replaced in the same community.
The new four-week period for housing associations to notify the council is therefore extremely welcome, but it must lead to more purchases by local authorities of these properties. I would therefore welcome further information from the Minister on what impact he expects these notification periods to have. What guidance can be provided to housing providers, given their independence, to make it clear that private sector sales should be a plan B? What support will local authorities have to purchase these properties?
Moving briefly on to shared ownership, I welcome the Minister’s close attention to the operation and effectiveness of shared ownership. Ministers will know about the case of Shaftesbury Place, because I have raised that building near Earls Court before. It has approximately 30 shared ownership flats that have experienced a twenty-onefold increase in building insurance due to a disputed fire risk assessment. The shared ownership leaseholders have consistently raised issues—broken security gates, cleaning, unauthorised access requests and late accounts—with the management of the building by Notting Hill Genesis,. In many ways, these residents are experiencing the same challenges that many leaseholders have with managing agents in the private sector, for which I hope the Government will introduce a new independent regulator. Can the Minister assure me that how housing associations manage shared ownership properties will be considered not only under forthcoming leasehold reforms, but in the Department’s work to review the challenges of shared ownership?
I welcome the new measures in this Bill to keep victims of domestic abuse safer, and I look forward to seeing those powers used by landlords.
Clearly, there is no one solution to the housing crisis in a community like mine in Kensington and Bayswater, but today’s Bill is an important step forward, and I strongly welcome it.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I put it on record that I am a passionate advocate for social housing. I have lived in it and I have worked in it. For the 14 years before I entered this House, I worked for a social housing provider in customer service, community development and housing management—my wife still does. I have seen the passion of staff who deliver those services every day, and I saw the frustration of customers who relied on them. I know how good the sector can be, and I know where it can sometimes fall short. As MPs, we see casework where tenants demand and deserve more, whether on housing allocation, repair issues or antisocial behaviour.
I am happy to put it on record that this Government have helped, not hindered social housing since coming to power. We have had rent convergence and long-term rent settlements, and they have listened to the sector about phasing in additional safety checks. Those things are real, and I welcome them, and they deserve recognition from those on the Opposition Benches.
I welcome the Government bringing forward more necessary changes, but I have to be honest that I am disappointed that the Bill is limited in scope, and I genuinely ask the Government to reflect on that. In particular, will they reflect on the report from the Regulatory Policy Committee on the Bill? On 24 July, the RPC rated the Bill’s impact assessment as “not fit for purpose”, based on its scrutiny of the evidence and the analysis put forward to justify the case for regulation. That is not a technicality; it is a warning that the case for what this Bill does and does not do has not been properly made. If we are to legislate on something as important as the future of social housing, the evidence base should be beyond question.
I will briefly address the four main areas of the Bill. On right to buy, I support increasing the minimum tenancy requirements and reforming discounts so that they start at 5% of property value and go up to a maximum of 15%. Exempting newly built social and affordable homes for 35 years will have a real impact, despite what the official Opposition say about house building.
I will move on to disposals, where I feel the protections are not adequate to empower local communities. I note that the National Housing Federation believes that the new requirement strikes the appropriate balance, but I have to disagree. In constituencies like mine, large-scale voluntary transfers of stock were the reason that providers got the stock that they did. In west Berkshire, the main registered provider has been created from an LSVT, and that stock must be protected. It is not enough for the local council to be notified; we must be told the reason for the sale and how, when and where the council will replace the stock within the local authority area. If that is not possible, a financial contribution must be made to a section 106 pot, following the practice of local authorities keeping right-to-buy receipts.
As my constituency has many rural areas, I welcome exempting rural properties from the scheme, but I also think that we should consider exemptions for much-needed larger homes, such as those with four or five bedrooms, so that they are not lost forever from the social housing stock. Of course, I support the protections for victims of domestic abuse. I have live casework on this very issue, so my constituents will be relieved that the Government have acted. The housing sector will be supportive of greater powers to help those who need it.
I have no major concerns about the repealing of unused legislation, but there are other areas where the Bill is completely silent, from protecting existing stock and empowering existing tenants and young people to have a stronger voice, to helping make homes safer by supporting housing associations to gain access for safety work.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
In Salford, around 3,500 applicants are on the housing waiting list, with 1,335 children living in temporary accommodation. Across England, more than 1.3 million households are waiting for a social home, but at the current rate of delivery, Shelter estimates that it would take 119 years to clear the waiting lists.
The crisis did not happen overnight, and it was not inevitable. We did not suddenly discover that council housing did not work; previous Governments sold it off. They stopped building it, cut the funding and hollowed out the housing departments that had given local government the skills, capacity and ability to build at scale. In their place, we became increasingly dependent on a private housing market whose primary purpose has always been to generate returns, so it is no surprise that the market did not deliver the social homes that we needed—it was never going to do that.
That is why I really welcome the measures in the Bill to protect existing social housing, particularly the reforms to right to buy, but it is only the first part of the story. We now need to build council houses at scale and to give councils the powers, funding and confidence to do it. We know it can be done, because in the greatest city on earth, Salford, we have already shown how to do it. In 2017, Paul Dennett and Salford city council established Dérive, a council-owned housing company that was created to develop land and increase the supply of council and genuinely affordable homes. The first homes were delivered in 2019, and 513 had been built by April this year, with another 700 in construction or development.
That is public ownership in practice, and it is particularly significant because much of this happened during austerity, when councils were on their knees. We used our land, our democratic mandate and our own housing company to rebuild the capacity that successive Governments had allowed to disappear, and we did it on a shoestring. Imagine what could be achieved with Government support! That is the lesson that I want the House to take from Salford: councils can acquire land, develop it and build high-quality, energy-efficient homes, but crucially, they can retain those homes as public assets for generations to come.
I very much welcome the Government’s ambition to put councils back at the heart of house building, including the £39 billion affordable housing programme and the commitment to a major expansion in council house building, but if we are serious about delivering that ambition, we need to see the detail that will make it real—not in 10 years’ time, but now. How many of those homes will actually be owned by councils? How much funding will go directly to local authorities? Will councils have the borrowing capacity that they need to deliver, and will grant rates make genuinely social rent homes financially viable?
Finally, we have to be honest about what we mean by affordable. A home does not become affordable simply because we put the word “affordable” in front of it. For a family on a low wage, 80% of an inflated market rent can still be completely unaffordable. Social rent has to be different, because it is designed for what people can genuinely afford. We have to invest in council house building and make that a central pillar of our industrial strategy. There has been lots of talk this week about crowding in private investment, but that will happen only if the Government set the strategic direction and put the funding on the table for councils to deliver.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
As someone who grew up in rented accommodation, with all the uncertainty that goes with it, I fully understand the pressures faced by so many families who just want a permanent home of their own. So I welcome many of the provisions in this Bill, notably the reforms to right to buy and the strengthened protections for tenants who are victims of domestic violence.
Right to buy transformed the lives of millions of social housing tenants, letting them own a home when that seemed a distant dream. However, its implementation ravaged the social housing stock in this country, with over 2 million homes sold, but only 500,000 new social rent homes built since 1980. That is why I welcome the provisions protecting what remains of that stock by extending the minimum tenancy requirement, curtailing discounts and the number of times a tenant can exercise the right to buy, and giving local authorities first refusal when a social home is resold. These are positive steps towards redressing the balance between social and private rented housing.
The Liberal Democrat-run council in Eastleigh has invested heavily in housing across the borough through partnerships with house builders and housing associations, and by commissioning homes directly. The recent announcement that Eastleigh will be one of three strategic partners in Homes England’s social and affordable homes programme for 2026 to 2036 is testament to its success.
For too long, the victims of domestic abuse have been forced to escape their homes. Clause 14 and schedule 1 begin to correct that, giving survivors a simplified legal mechanism to remove an abuser from a joint social tenancy, so it is the perpetrator who loses the home they use as a weapon of control. Crucially, this Bill closes a loophole that has too often been exploited. Currently, an abuser can end a joint tenancy on a technicality through a notice to quit while possession proceedings against them are ongoing, leaving the survivor with nothing. This Bill stops that, giving housing associations the clear, workable powers they have lacked to help survivors remain safely in their own home or move to suitable alternative social housing without losing tenancy rights.
My constituent Karen and her two children fled domestic abuse. She was refused social housing because she jointly owns a property that her ex-partner deliberately keeps off the market as a form of control. After a year spent living in a single room in a refuge, Karen and her children were served a notice to leave with nowhere secure to go. They have since found a home, but she should never have had to fight this hard to get one. Her case shows that a joint tie to a property can trap a domestic abuse survivor just as surely as a joint tenancy can, and the same is true of housing-related debt caused by an abuser.
Clause 17 removes uncommenced provisions from the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that would have phased out lifetime secure tenancies. I strongly support this. It gives tenants housing security and lets a family build a life within a community, not just occupy a home.
The Bill would simplify what never needed complicating, and protect what matters to tenants. I support it, and trust that Members will ask in Committee how it could go further to ensure everyone has a home to call their own.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on bringing the Bill forward. It is a manifesto commitment, and one that will matter enormously to communities such as mine in Southampton by prioritising the building of social homes and better protecting the stocks we already have. Although we are talking a lot about bricks and mortar, these measures speak directly to whether children have a stable place to grow up, whether survivors of abuse can live their lives in safety, and whether places such as Southampton can offer residents decent, affordable housing as a reality, not a pipe dream.
Our city council manages about 18,000 homes, and there are another 2,500 leasehold and shared ownership properties. It is a huge and valuable asset, but it is an asset under strain, with more than 8,000 people on the waiting list. In that time, families live in overcrowded flats and temporary accommodation, and workers who come and contribute enormously to our city cannot afford a home that is genuinely affordable or secure. Those are the kinds of situations that come up in my surgeries and, I am sure, in those of other Members.
Sarah Russell
Does my hon. Friend find, as I do in my patch, that those who are on the social housing waiting list for the longest are often those with a disability who need a fully adaptable home? Does he agree that it is vital, when we spend public money on building new homes, that they should be built to an accessible and adaptable standard from the off?
Darren Paffey
I thank my hon. Friend for making that very salient point. That is true in my patch as well, where tenants need homes with adaptations either for themselves or for disabled children, so I hope the Minister is able to speak to that.
Those are all reasons why one of the most important and welcome aspects of the Bill is its central measure to protect existing social housing stock by reforming the right to buy. Since 1980, this country has sold more than 2 million social homes through right to buy and replaced only a fraction of them. I remember growing up in three council homes as a child with my family. I have great memories of the secure home that we had, but I often wonder whether they have been lost to the system.
Southampton has felt that loss directly, and at the same time it is facing rising costs for emergency accommodation for homeless families. The measures in the Bill on extending the qualifying period, on tapering the discount and on exempting new social homes are sensible and proportionate changes. They preserve a genuine route into home ownership for long-standing tenants, while removing the perverse incentive that has, for decades, discouraged councils like mine from building. I welcome the new requirement for private registered providers to give notice before selling a home, so that the council or another provider has a chance to keep it in the social sector. That is a small but practical protection, and one that I will strongly encourage Southampton city council to use.
I particularly welcome the provisions in part 3 relating to survivors of domestic abuse. As other Members have said, a home should be a place of safety, yet for many victims, housing insecurity is what stops them from escaping abuse. That is unforgivable and we must remove that barrier. The measures will make it easier for survivors to remain in safe accommodation. I hope Members across the House are able to unite behind that principle.
Can I ask the Minister to address two questions when winding up? First, how will the Government ensure that the protections translate into a genuine long-term increase in social rented stock in high-demand areas such as Southampton, where waiting lists and temporary accommodation costs are already straining local services? Secondly, what support will be available to local authorities and housing associations to implement the Bill successfully? Legislative reform is essential, but councils need the financial and operational capacity to deliver the outcomes that we are all behind. Will the Department match the ambition of the Bill with the capital investment needed to ensure that authorities such as Southampton, which already carry a decent homes backlog on more than half its stock, can genuinely invest?
As others have said, legislation alone will not solve every aspect of the housing crisis that faces Southampton and the rest of the country, but the Bill takes bold and meaningful steps in the right direction: protecting social housing and stopping the leaks in the bucket; protecting survivors of domestic abuse in their own homes; and giving councils the tools and the confidence to build again. For residents in Southampton and across the country who need a safe, affordable, secure home, that progress matters. That is why I will proudly vote for that progress today.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Some £7.9 billion a year: that is how much the Chartered Institute of Housing estimates is spent on housing benefit for tenants renting privately. In my local area, a lot of that will be going to people living on the St Helier estate, one of the largest London council estates built during the interwar period, much of which has been sold under right to buy over the past few decades. That means that instead of our local authority receiving rent from those properties, the national Government are paying market rates to private landlords on homes that we built. That is maddening and it surely makes the scale of right to buy sales, alongside the failure to replenish the stock, one of the single greatest policy failures for a generation.
Deirdre Costigan
I know the St Helier estate well, but would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it was his party, the Liberal Democrats, in coalition with the Conservatives, that massively increased the discounts for right to buy that caused the very problem he is talking about?
Bobby Dean
I am sure the hon. Member is aware that right-to-buy sales were happening throughout the ’90s and under the last Labour Government as well, so there is a stain on all parties from what has happened over the last few decades.
The loss of stock has an impact not only on the taxpayer but on our constituents. My inbox is full of people struggling in the housing market. It is by far the biggest issue that I face in my patch, and it is the one I end up feeling the most hopeless about. Sure, we can get things fixed when it comes to the condition of people’s housing, and sometimes we are able to get people’s position on the waiting list successfully reviewed, but a lot of the time, the fundamental issue is supply. Thousands of people are waiting, and just a couple of hundred properties become available each year, and for that I have no magic wand.
I have families living in one-bedroom accommodation where teenagers are sharing the only bedroom and parents are sleeping on the sofa. I have hard-working families come up to me all the time who are frustrated by being told that there is no point in them even applying to get on the list. It did not used to be that way. I benefited first hand from growing up in council accommodation. My parents are working class—a scaffolder and a cleaner—and they raised their family well. When my youngest brother was born—the third sibling —we managed to move from a two-bedroom flat into a three-bedroom house. That was considered normal back then, but now that sort of situation feels like a luxury.
We have turned social housing into an emergency provision for the vulnerable, instead of being the foundation of our society. To fix the supply problem is going to require bold reforms to local authority resources and powers. They need greater staffing capacity, relief from the unjustified housing revenue account debts, and to be liberated to build directly. The right-to-buy reforms that form the centrepiece of the Bill are welcome, and will stem the losses, but they must only be the first step if the Prime Minister’s ambition in this area is to be realised. Given how precious legislative time is in this place, I hope that more work will be done as the Bill progresses through the House to also increase the supply of homes.
What has happened to social housing in this country is part of a broader public policy failure, where the Government are forced into throwing good many after bad, and into intervening later rather than investing early. In the future, I hope we can recognise social housing as national infrastructure—part of our national resilience. The Government must invest to save more often. I welcome the Bill as a first step on the journey, and I look forward to the Government going further to reverse the failures of the past.
As I have the time, I will make one more remark. It is notable that the Conservative party has put forward a wrecking amendment today that picks on minorities, but not a single Conservative Back Bencher has come to defend it. What a disgrace! They should have the bravery to make the argument in full, if that is what they want to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will introduce a three-minute time limit after the next speaker.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I am mindful of time, so I will make just two points. First, no one would dispute that the right-to-buy scheme has helped many families achieve the dream of home ownership, which might otherwise have been beyond their reach, but its ideological implementation has had consequences.
More than 2 million social homes have been sold since the scheme was first introduced, yet far too many of those properties were never replaced. The result has been a significant reduction in the stock of good-quality affordable social housing available to meet today’s demand. The risk that newly built homes could be lost before the investment costs can be recovered has weakened the confidence of providers to invest in new social housing at anywhere near the scale required. We have more than 1.3 million households on social housing waiting lists, while close to 180,000 children are growing up without the security of a stable home.
I welcome the measures that seek to place right to buy on a more sustainable footing, protect existing social housing stock, encourage new house building and ensure that more people can access the decent, safe, secure and affordable homes that every family deserves. However, I would like the Bill to go further in ensuring that homes sold at a discount through right to buy do not immediately end up being let out for private profit. The New Economics Foundation estimates that 41% of homes sold through right to buy are now in the private rented sector—that cannot be justified as a good use of public money. I hope that the Government will consider amendments to prevent this from occurring in future, at least for a period of time after a property is sold. I would be happy to speak to the Minister about how we can bring that forward.
Finally, I turn to the introduction of meaningful safeguards for survivors of domestic abuse. These measures recognise that access to safe and secure housing is often fundamental to a survivor’s ability not only to escape, but to rebuild their lives afterwards. We know that perpetrators can exploit housing insecurity as a means of control, leaving victims facing an impossible choice: remain in an abusive situation and continue to endure harm, or leave and risk homelessness and further insecurity. No survivor should ever be forced to make that choice.
It is therefore a significant step forward that we are giving social landlords stronger tools to respond, particularly in relation to complex cases involving joint tenancies. Giving survivors the ability to seek the removal of an abusive partner from a tenancy, and enabling them to remain in the safety and familiarity of their own home, is extremely positive. However, I would like the Bill go further by introducing specific measures to tackle furniture poverty among survivors.
Escaping an abusive relationship often requires people to leave home at extremely short notice, taking with them little more than a few personal belongings. Worse, many survivors have been subjected to financial abuse, leaving them without savings, access to credit or the means to replace the items needed to create a new, safe and secure home. While it is fundamentally important that victims of domestic abuse are always given priority access to social housing, the reality is that many of the allocated properties are entirely unfurnished. As a result, families who have already experienced trauma can find themselves moving into an empty property without beds, kitchen appliances, flooring, curtains or other basic household items. In those circumstances, the challenge is not simply accessing housing, but being able to live in it. A safe and secure home should be the foundation from which survivors rebuild their lives, not the start of another period of hardship.
The Bill is an important pillar of the Government’s work and commitment to create a social housing system that is fairer and more secure and that works better for the people who depend on it. I am proud to support the Bill and the positive changes it seeks to address across our social housing sector.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I support the Bill. It is the beginning of what the Government should be doing, but they can and should go a great deal further, both to address the need for significant growth in the scale of social housing being built and to support particularly vulnerable groups, including, as the Bill rightly says, victims of domestic violence.
I am surprised that the protections from right to buy have not been extended by preventing sales of the homes held by community land trusts, housing co-ops and not-for-profit housing providers, which have very small stocks that really do need to be protected. I am also surprised that the Government have not brought forward measures to stop the bedroom tax, which Labour campaigned against during the coalition Government. At that time, I introduced a private Member’s Bill, the Affordable Homes Bill, which Labour supported, but the Government have not included its provisions in this Bill.
I do hope that the Minister will take a second look at the issue of disposals and clause 12, on which I intervened on him earlier. At present, stock is haemorrhaging out into the private sector as a result of understandable requirements from the Government to achieve higher energy performance certificate levels and the decent homes standard. Where it becomes too expensive for housing associations to deliver on those requirements, there should be a presumption in favour of disposal to democratic bodies such as community land trusts at a value consistent with affordable housing. The problem is that housing associations sell those homes at open market value, when in fact they could be taken on by local charitable bodies and still be provided to local people in housing need.
The Minister referred to my private Member’s Bill. There are a number of provisions in it that I hope that he will consider that I do not need to propose myself. We need to strengthen the protection for areas that immediately adjoin communities, and to protect the rural exceptions policies, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). We need to work out how we can deliver more social housing when hope value is being fuelled by counterproductive housing targets. That is undermining so many measures that should be available to communities to help them to deliver what is desperately needed.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Housing remains one of the biggest challenges in my inbox, and I meet weekly with constituents who are stuck on a waiting list for social housing. In fact, almost 5,000 families in Gloucester are waiting for somewhere to call home. I am proud to support this Government, who are committed to the biggest increase in social housing in a generation. That is in stark contrast to the record of the Conservatives; rough sleeping went up 165% under their Government, and the number of children living in temporary accommodation more than doubled. Their current plan to add another 100,000 to that list is simply not acceptable—not on our watch.
I welcome the Bill. I agree that it is right that we incentivise the building of social homes. We need to build more in Gloucester, and I stand ready to work on a cross-party basis with Gloucester city council, local housing associations and Homes England to deliver this. It is also important that we improve the quality of existing social homes and follow through on the promises made to local residents in Podsmead and Matson, who have been promised regeneration of their areas for far too long without seeing it delivered.
Finally, I am pleased to see the work that this Department is doing with other Departments to tackle violence against women and girls. No one should be forced to stay in an unsafe situation because they are worried about becoming homeless. I welcome measures to support survivors and victims of domestic abuse, especially new mechanisms to remove perpetrators from their tenancies, not victims.
Alongside our Government’s commitment to offer everyone sleeping rough a roof by Christmas—there is £1.6 million for Gloucester city council to deliver this—we are making a clear argument that everyone deserves a safe, decent place to call home. Those are the foundations that we need to rebuild hope in Gloucester and deliver the better future that my constituents deserve.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am an East Cambridgeshire district councillor—a district council that erroneously boasts of being debt free because it sold its housing stock many years ago, and that criticises the other district council in my constituency, South Cambridgeshire, and indeed Cambridge city, for having major debts, without mentioning that those councils have retained their council houses, built more, and continue to build more. I agree with the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) that we have to address that.
Average house prices in my constituency are about 10 times the average salary, and the average rent is over £1,000 a month, so it is not surprising that a lot of emails in my inbox are about social housing need. I have had people in my surgeries in tears because they cannot get a decent home for their family. We must build more council houses; I support that. I would like the Minister to consider rural areas carefully. In such areas, we might be able to accommodate only two or three units, but we really do need them. It is not just a case of building large quantities in the bigger towns; we need a good mix of council housing, including larger houses for larger families, and bungalows for people who are getting older and want to downsize.
We also need to make sure that the houses that we have are in really good condition. I really welcome the warm homes social housing fund, which is helping many of my constituents to replace their oil-fired boilers with air source heat pumps, but I wonder if there could be a similar sort of grant to bring those houses up to a good standard. Many of them were built in the ’20s and ’30s, and were then very poorly insulated around the ’70s, which added to the damp problems. Addressing those problems is a huge cost for social housing providers. As we have heard, when those houses become empty, because the providers cannot make the figures stack up—the cost of the repairs versus the future income stream from rent—they sell the houses in the private sector. Some of those houses are in my villages, where we already do not have anything like enough social houses. Providers really need financial help to bring that stock up to a decent standard.
People are also worried about shared ownership. They feel trapped into paying very high service charges that they cannot afford, but when they try to sell their property, potential buyers see the charges and pull out of the sale. I am glad that the Government will review that.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill and the Government’s commitment to a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing. I will use my time to speak on behalf of the villages in my Rushcliffe constituency, and to draw the House’s attention to the work of the Labour Rural Research Group.
Affordable housing is too often discussed as if it is purely an urban and metropolitan problem—it is not, as we have just heard. In villages in my constituency and across rural Britain, families are being priced out of the places they grew up, young people are leaving because they cannot find a home, and the social housing stock that once anchored our rural communities is shrinking, not growing. The LRRG’s March 2026 report, on rural poverty in England, sets that out starkly. In 2024-25, just 17,506 affordable homes were delivered in rural local authorities, compared with 47,256 in urban ones. Rural delivery fell by 2% on the year before, while urban delivery rose. In a significant number of rural councils, only 4% of homes are affordable for someone on an average local income, compared with 10% of homes in urban authorities. That is why I welcome the fact that the Bill already exempts properties in designated rural areas from the right to buy. That principle reflects exactly what the LRRG called for in its report: recognition that rural housing is structurally different and policy needs to treat it accordingly.
However, I will press the Minister to go further in three specific areas. First, on the disposal of rural social housing stock, we would particularly welcome a local replacement guarantee, so that rural communities are not subsidising urban housing waiting lists at the expense of their own when stock is disposed of. Secondly, rural exception sites deliver important housing opportunities in rural areas, but LRRG has called for them to be placed on a statutory footing, alongside the Bill’s right to buy reforms, and for the policy to be strengthened and simplified, so that planning authorities can accelerate delivery. Thirdly, on measurement and targets, as it stands we do not properly track rural affordable housing delivery as a distinct category. The LRRG has called for a dedicated rural affordable housing delivery target, with separate monitoring by tenure type. Without that data, we cannot know whether the policies are working for rural communities.
Sarah Russell
Might I suggest that producing social housing that includes flooring as standard is a fourth area in which the Minister could go further? That is delivered by the private market, but it is not a requirement for social housing providers at the moment.
James Naish
There are several areas in which we make further interventions to support our rural communities.
The Bill is a good and necessary step. It protects social housing stock, gives greater security to survivors of domestic abuse and reduces unnecessary bureaucracy for providers. However, if we are serious about a decade of renewal that reaches every postcode, rural Britain cannot be an afterthought. I hope that the Minister will look closely at the LRRG’s recommendations as the Bill progresses, so that rural communities are not left behind.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
Green MPs welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction—it includes important changes—but it does not match the scale of our housing crisis. It needs to be braver and bolder, and deliver the council homes that our communities desperately need.
Social housing is not just a roof over someone’s head. It is the secure home they come back to after a long day; it is where their kids grow up and their grandkids come round. It means knowing their neighbours and having somewhere safe and secure to put down roots. That is the kind of security that everyone deserves. However, more than 1.3 million households are waiting for a social home, and more than 170,000 children are living in temporary accommodation. That statistic alone should shame us into action.
Councils are giving millions of pounds to private landlords, and I see what the lack of council housing means for people in Gorton and Denton every single day. Across Manchester and Tameside, 3,180 households are in temporary accommodation, including 5,368 children. There are parents and four children, including twin babies with additional needs, squeezed into a two-bedroom home; a family of seven, including a child with a rare genetic disorder, are living in an overcrowded three-bedroom home; and a couple who have been on waiting lists for over 10 years, and are now approaching retirement, are terrified that they simply will not be able to afford their rent when they have to stop working.
We need to do three things. The first is to stop selling off the homes that we already have. We need to abolish right to buy. The Bill makes it harder for homes to be sold off, but if more than a million households are waiting for a social home, how can we justify selling off any of them? That is not to criticise anyone who has bought their council home; those people are not to blame —the policy is. Scotland ended right to buy in 2016, and Wales has done the same; it is time for England to join them.
Secondly, we need to build more social homes. After the second world war, councils built more than 120,000 social homes a year on average. We need that ambition again, because today, councils in England are building an average of just 1,320 social rent homes a year, and by my maths, that is an average of about four per constituency. When the Prime Minister was campaigning to be MP for Makerfield, he said that all of the £39 billion affordable housing fund should be dedicated to building council homes, but he has now backtracked on that. Why? We need to get building again, properly and at scale.
Thirdly, we need to buy back the council housing stock. Green MPs are fully behind councils that are buying homes to bring them back into council housing. “Buy the supply” is an idea brilliantly championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). We need more of that. My message to the Government is simple: be braver, abolish right to buy, build social homes at scale, and do more of “buy the supply”.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for council and social housing. The scale of the housing crisis in our communities today represents, in a crowded field, the most consequential and damaging retreat of the public realm in the UK, and a dereliction of its most basic duties. Everyone deserves a safe, comfortable and stable home where they can put down roots, so it is very welcome that, through this Bill, our national politics begins to recognise that the provision of things that people cannot live without cannot be left to private markets, which respond to demand, not need—and those will never be the same thing in a deeply unequal society like ours.
The consequences of the failure to understand that fundamental economic reality are writ large across our nation. More than 130,000 households are trapped in temporary accommodation; many of them are stuck in bed and breakfasts and hostels, which are no place to raise a family. Frankly, it will remain difficult to talk seriously about national pride while 170,000 kids are homeless in this country, and are left without the space to learn, play, grow and simply enjoy their childhood. The human cost, measured in the futures and happiness of a generation, is proof enough of the urgent need for a change in direction.
The choice before us, then—our new Prime Minister is absolutely right on this—is whether we continue with a model that provides unsuitable accommodation at extortionate prices, or put the public back in the driving seat. I welcome the attention in the Bill to retaining the social housing stock we already have. For far too long, we have lost social homes faster than we have built them. Putting a firm stop to that trend, alongside the Prime Minister’s commitment to a new generation of council homes, puts us in a position finally to get the housing crisis under control.
I remind the House that in six years—at a time of shortages, debt, constraints and even greater competing demands on public expenditure than we face now—the post-war Labour Government oversaw the construction of more than 800,000 council houses, some of the best ever to be built in this country.
Now is the time to recognise once again that the only way to get high-quality homes that those on waiting lists can actually afford is to directly plan and deliver council housing for people on low incomes, and that only the Government on behalf of the people can mobilise the patient capital capable of realising all the wider benefits that decent homes for all will secure for our society. With fresh leadership in the Department, I look forward to supporting this important legislation to ensure that we deliver the quality social homes that our communities need.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
In 2021, there were 6,145 social housing units in my constituency, representing just 14.2% of the housing stock, compared with 17.1% across England and Wales. More than 300,000 people are currently on rural social housing waiting lists, and at current build rates, it would take 89 years to clear the backlog. I welcome the Bill’s measures to disapply right to buy in national parks and designated rural areas. In places where social housing is already scarce, we cannot afford to lose more of it. It is therefore right that we protect the limited stock we currently have.
More than anything, though, I welcome the Bill’s protections for the victims of domestic abuse, because this is where the question of housing becomes a question of safety. If someone knows that leaving means homelessness, temporary accommodation or being separated from their children, family and support network, the decision to leave an abusive relationship becomes enormously harder. The Bill rightly proposes protections allowing victims in joint social tenancies to remain in their home while the perpetrator is removed, as well as helping victims secure alternative accommodation.
Stephanie was forced to leave her family home with her four-year-old son, Neo, because of verbal and emotional abuse from her former partner, who was a joint tenant. Neo has cerebral palsy and has recently undergone back surgery. He is learning to walk again using mobility aids. Stephanie is temporarily staying with her mother and urgently needs suitable housing, but because the rent on the family home is not up to date, she has been told that assistance cannot be provided until the arrears are resolved. She is terrified that she will be placed in temporary accommodation away from Bridport, away from her support network that her son relies on.
Cases like hers are precisely why housing-related debt arising from domestic abuse must not become a barrier to accessing social housing. A survivor should not be punished for financial circumstances created or exacerbated by their abuser, and I therefore strongly support strengthening the Bill so that survivors can leave unsafe homes, retain their tenancy rights where appropriate, or secure suitable alternative housing without being trapped by the financial consequences of the abuse.
I also want to raise the point that a home is not necessarily suitable simply because it is technically available. Ruby was offered a first-floor flat in Bridport despite having serious physical disabilities. She was told that she could not refuse the property as she would not be offered alternative housing. I have numerous other cases that time simply will not allow for me to get to, which is a shame. I want to see the Government go further in ensuring that social housing allocation in rural areas reflects local needs, accessibility, disability, age and family circumstances, but otherwise I support the Bill.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I was disappointed by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who sounded complacent when he talked about the aspiration to buy a house. Of course, there is that aspiration, but does he not understand the aspiration of people on the waiting list? Millions of people, including 170,000 children in temporary accommodation, aspire just to have a key for a council house. Has he ever seen the gleam in a family’s eyes when they get that key and manage to get a secure home, knowing it is there for the future? It is not good enough to simply say that the aspiration to buy a house is more important than the aspiration to have a home, and one that is warm and secure.
Also, there was no sense of contrition that the right to buy legislation resulted in 2 million council houses being sold, whereas only 250,000 new houses were built in that period. Of those 2 million that were sold, 800,000 now belong to private landlords. That is quite shocking because the rents that private landlords charge are a multiple of what a council or social landlord would charge.
In my constituency, 6,000 homes have gone to private landlords. The council received about £140 million in capital receipts for those 6,000 houses. They are now worth £1.1 billion. This has been a racket; it has been like the gold rush in the Klondike, a race for money. In the meantime, rent levels in the remaining social housing are only 61% of the rents charged by the private landlords.
It is totally anomalous that for two or three houses on the same street in the same estate a higher rent will be charged by a private landlord than that for the people next door who are still renting from a social landlord. The Government need to move fast. We cannot allow so many children and families to be left in that perilous situation—55,000 individuals are struggling in the district of Wakefield.
Let me make one final point. The Treasury’s dead hand of economic orthodoxy prioritises house building by housing associations over house building by councils, which is a mistake. The Bill does not address that, but I wonder whether the Minister could respond on that in some way. A council can borrow money to build an asset worth more than what it has borrowed and receive an income from it through rent, yet that counts towards the national debt; for a housing association, it is different. I think those rules explains councils’ retreat from committing to build more housing rather than social landlords.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I welcome much of what is in the Bill—the reforms to right to buy are overdue and the new protections for tenants experiencing domestic abuse are an important step—but it lacks the ambition needed to address the wider social housing crisis and does little to address a problem hollowing out village after village across South Devon: the disposal of social housing by registered providers. Since 2018-19, housing associations have sold over 25,000 social and affordable homes on the open market. In 2024-25 alone, they sold 5,250, which was the highest figure on record. In the South Hams, one housing association has sold 49 homes since 2022, with the heaviest losses in Salcombe and Dartmouth, where property is extremely expensive. In Kingswear, 36% of social housing stock has been lost in just three years. The primary school has since closed due to a lack of pupils. With so little affordable housing left, there is little prospect of new families moving in.
Over the last five years, 3,600 new homes have been built across my constituency, yet more than 2,500 families remain in housing need. Most of those homes are at full market price, way beyond the reach of local people. I absolutely reject what was said by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon)—the answer is not to build more open market homes that cost £1 million. When a single social rented home became available in Malborough, 119 households bid for it, and in Brixham 190 people bid for one social home, yet councils have no power to stop housing associations disposing of the few affordable homes that remain.
I am really proud that council housing was introduced by the Liberal party under Lloyd George. I am furious that the Conservatives enabled so much of it to be lost. Just this morning, I heard from a constituent whose disabled son was offered a bungalow perfectly suited to his needs, allowing him to live independently while remaining close to his family. The family were then told that the housing association intended to dispose of it. A home that could have transformed someone’s life is being sold—it is heartbreaking.
I will also address the need for smaller developments of affordable—including social rented—homes in villages. We must build small amounts of social housing around villages so that young people who have grown up in the village can afford to stay there and older people can downsize, yet social housing providers are fixated on large developments on the side of towns. The future of rural communities depends on homes that local people can afford. Without real powers for councils to protect social housing and hold developers to their affordable housing commitments, we will keep watching schools shrink, shops close and villages empty out, one sale and one broken promise at a time. It is not good enough.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The housing crisis is the single biggest issue facing my constituents. Every single year since I was first elected as a local councillor on the same day that the coalition Government came into power in 2010, I have watched the housing crisis deepen and become more entrenched in my constituency. Our local council had vital grant funding for new social homes withdrawn; subsequent Conservative Governments froze and cut council rents, leaving gaping holes in the housing revenue account and hamstringing our councils on repairs and investment; and right-to-buy changes have haemorrhaged council homes out of the system and into the private sector, sometimes only for them to be let back to our councils as temporary accommodation at extortionate rents.
After 14 years of harmful policies, the impacts are clear: tens of thousands of families living in temporary accommodation and in unsafe, damp, mouldy conditions that harm health and undermine the essential stability and security that every one of us needs to thrive. This is not only a housing crisis, but a public health crisis, a cost of living crisis and a basic human decency crisis.
I rise to speak in particular to the campaign that I have been running since 2022: a reform to social housing regulations called Georgia’s law. Georgia is a former constituent who had been a social housing tenant for five years when her eldest son, having done nothing wrong, was threatened by gang members. The police told Georgia that his life was at risk and that she needed to move. The move into temporary accommodation was catastrophic for Georgia and her family, ultimately resulting in the murder of her second son—a horrific act that would never have happened had that family’s life not been destabilised in that way. What we discovered was that Georgia had no security of tenure as a social housing tenant in those circumstances; her family had to move through no fault of their own, because they were the victims of a threat of serious violence.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister’s commitment and engagement on this issue, and I particularly thank the noble Lord Best for picking up this issue in the Lords and for the debate and discussion that happened there. I look forward to engaging further with the Minister on the amendments that might be tabled to secure in law the protection for social housing tenants who have to move because of a threat of violence, where police deem that move necessary, so that they do not suffer the compounding trauma of the destabilisation of their lives in temporary accommodation. I will table an amendment on Report if necessary, but I look forward to further engagement with the Minister on the issue in the meantime.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Of course we need more council homes and social homes, and it is welcome that the Bill makes provision for just that. But for the lack of social housing, we would not see the growth in houses in multiple occupation, which are blighting communities up and down the country. That indicates a clear need for council homes and social homes of the right kind and in the right place.
It is also essential that we take action now because it is anticipated that, by 2024, an additional 1.3 million pensioners will be living in rented accommodation. Whether they are just state pensioners or have some private pension as well, as their earnings start to level out and become more restricted, the private rented sector will not necessarily be the kindest place for them. Social homes will be the places that provide them with security and comfort in their older years.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me move on to the issue of empty homes—this is not the first time that I have mentioned it to him. There are nearly 2,000 in my constituency. While we talk about building new social homes, we have an opportunity not just to look at building new social homes, but to look at houses in the private sector that have been empty for a long time. We could make it easier for local authorities and third sector voluntary organisations to get access to those homes and use them. That could include apprenticeships to help in bringing them back into use for local communities.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes an important point about empty homes. When I was shadow Housing Minister 20 years ago, the Empty Homes Agency estimated that there were 700,000 empty homes in England and Wales alone. That number has barely shifted, and no Government have brought forward appropriate policies to alter it, so I do hope that this Minister will look at that closely.
Melanie Onn
I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for supporting me on that point; this is an issue that affects many constituencies across the country.
Housing associations are purveyors of social homes, so there needs to be a review of their accountability and the expectations of how well they work with local authorities. We often see disputes over land management and trees, about who looks after the land, but the people living in that area should not have to worry about who has responsibility. It is a real sticking point that I see all the time in my area.
Housing associations often hold on to empty land. In my constituency, about 700 people were accommodated in high-rise flats that the housing association decided to tear down. That space has been an eyesore since 2016, and another housing association, the council or the charitable sector could easily access it and build much-needed new homes in the town centre, to prevent the doughnut effect of town centres being hollowed out.
Despite the Government not really wanting the measure in the Bill—the other place voted it in—the shared ownership rules, I am pleased to say, will be looked at again. When shared ownership properties are owned by housing associations, they are often the last consideration in their portfolios. People who buy those properties to get on the first rung of a bit of the housing ladder often suddenly find themselves trapped, taking up a home that would be somebody else’s first step on the ladder, and there is no requirement for housing associations to take that more seriously.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
One major driver of the housing crisis has been the selling off of our council homes under Thatcher’s right-to-buy scheme. Not only has that greatly reduced the supply of social housing, exposing more people to higher rents and the insecurity of private renting, but we now know that it has indirectly inflated private rents by shifting low-income households into market-rate renting. That is why I welcome the Bill’s aims of protecting existing social housing stock and incentivising the building of more social rented homes. I also commend its commitment to provide greater social security and stability for social tenants who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse.
However, while the Bill turns over a new leaf in our housing policy, I am concerned that it does not go far enough on right to buy. New social homes will only be protected for 35 years, and existing tenants will wait seven more years to buy their homes at a discount, so we will still lose our social housing stock, just at a slower pace. The argument we often hear against removing right to buy from existing social housing is that it would be unfair to those hoping to buy their homes at a discount, but selling public assets to private individuals at a loss to the state is accelerating the housing crisis for all.
Since council homes began being sold off at a discount, the state has effectively given away an estimated £194 billion, and to add insult to injury, 41% of those homes are now in the hands of private landlords. The Government rightly recognise that we need to replenish our social housing stock, so as well as a mass programme of council house building, we must help local authorities to recover former council homes through grants and a stronger right of first refusal policy. These measures will, in the long term, pay for themselves.
A typical private tenant spends over a third of their income on rent today, compared with only 10% in 1980, so we need more drastic measures to tackle the housing crisis, and that includes stabilising our social housing stock. We should be ending right to buy completely, as Wales and Scotland have, because every year delayed is another year that we fail the hundreds of thousands of people without a secure home, the over 170,000 children in England who are in temporary accommodation and, of course, the millions paying extortionate rents to their landlords.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill and all it will do to support the very Labour promise that everyone should have access to a safe and secure place to call their home. While the Leader of the Opposition apparently believes that if nurses, teaching assistants and tradies cannot afford to live in Bracknell Forest, with its high rents and house prices, they should be forced to move out, I believe the answer is more social and council housing to support people from Bracknell Forest to stay in Bracknell Forest. That is why I support the push by the leader of Bracknell Forest council, Helen Purnell, to make the council a leading force in delivering new council housing.
I welcome the measures in the Bill on the disposal of social houses by registered providers, but the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I think we need to go further. Since 2018, housing associations have permanently sold 28,585 social homes to private and other non-social purchasers, with 5,806 sold in 2024-25 alone, the highest annual figure on record. Some 87% of those went at open market value, far beyond the reach of a local authority’s purchasing power. Unlike right to buy, these homes are not being sold to the families living in them—they are being sold out of the sector entirely into private ownership. In my constituency, 154 homes have been sold since 2018, including bungalows and several three and four-bedroom properties, which are the very homes Bracknell Forest families most need.
As it stands, the Bill asks housing providers to give local authorities notification of any disposals that they are planning, but the measures are not sufficiently strong. On Third Reading in the other place, the Minister confirmed that the Government are planning a Commons amendment on the notification period, so may I press the Housing Minister for more information on that and on what we can do to strengthen that measure?
Will he also consider two further changes to the Bill? First, Homes England should develop a code of responsible disposal practice, with the regulator and the sector more widely, to which housing providers can be held as a condition of holding long-term partner status under the social and affordable homes programme. That is a very simple principle: if they are receiving Government money, they should not be disposing of homes, wherever possible. Secondly, when a social home is disposed of, the Government should do more to ensure that the income is reinvested in replacement social rent homes in the same local authority area.
I know my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister shares my concerns about this issue and I am committed to working with him and the Government to ensure the Bill addresses disposals properly. I look forward to constructive conversations with the Minister as the Bill progresses.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, and as a survivor of domestic abuse with direct experience of how that issue relates to social housing, I hope that the Bill can truly ensure that it leaves no survivor behind. Indeed, survivors and survivor-led organisations that have been campaigning for decades welcome many provisions in the Bill, but they have also expressed concern that some of the proposed protections would apply to too small a proportion of survivors.
With criminal justice outcomes for domestic abuse so poor, it is clear that civil outcomes should be considered as part of the mandatory grounds for eviction. I am glad to have heard today that the issuing of a protective order will be introduced to schedule 1. I also believe that we should consider enhancing these grounds to include victims and survivors of rape and other sexual offences, including where a perpetrator is not an intimate partner, for instance a flatmate. Will the Minister clarify how the Bill will incentivise or ensure that these powers are actually used by landlords, rather than leaving them as wholly discretionary?
On joint tenancies, there are grounds to say that the proposals exclude many survivors who are not listed as tenants, disproportionately affecting younger survivors and survivors of familial abuse. Will the Minister clarify if the Government have considered or are considering expanding these protections by accepting established evidence of residency in place of named tenancy? Furthermore, when a perpetrator has been removed from a joint tenancy, an unsustainable financial burden might arise for a survivor holding sole custody. With the benefits system likely too slow to respond, Women’s Aid, Refuge and others have called for consideration to be given by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Minister’s own Department as to how to incorporate affordability assessments at the point of transfer.
Provisions on alternative accommodation raise the issue of furniture poverty, which is faced by far too many survivors. There are calls from experts to introduce a statutory duty for social housing provided to survivors to come furnished, and I hope the Government will pick up on that.
Although I have raised many different points for consideration, there should be no doubt that the ambition of halving violence against women and girls in a decade will require painstaking efforts across all Departments and the examination of all frameworks. On housing, there is still far more to be done, and that mean listening to the VAWG sector and to survivors when they point out shortfalls in these proposals. I hope that the Minister will listen to these concerns and offer to meet members of the APPG to discuss our concerns and the implementation of the measures.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I had a much longer speech prepared for this debate, but with the constraints on time I do not think I will be able to make it. Let me reflect on the fact that for the majority of this debate, the Conservative Benches have been next to empty, with almost no contributions from Conservative Members other than those on the Front Bench. I posit that that may be because of an element of shame on the part of Conservative Back Benchers regarding the contribution that we heard from those on their Front Bench. This is a Tory party—that, not too long ago, was led by somebody born on the upper east side of New York—deciding that it will start defining the value of people as British citizens based on whether they were born here. For shame! I am more than happy to get fully behind this legislation.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Cornwall’s social housing shortage is not only a major contributor to our severe housing crisis, but one of the greatest blockers of economic regeneration. In the Conservative years, the construction of new social housing in Cornwall plummeted—for example, in 2015-16, just six new homes were built for social rent across the entire duchy. Combine that with 14,000 second homes and nearly 24,000 Airbnb listings, which further reduce the overall housing stock, and it comes as no shock that our social housing waiting list stands at a staggering 25,000. That incurs vast costs for emergency and temporary accommodation. The size of that register will only grow in coming years unless urgent action is taken.
In the light of our acute housing crisis, I warmly welcome measures in the Bill to protect our existing social housing stock, particularly the right to buy exemptions for new social homes and for those in designated rural areas. However, the scope of the Bill addresses just one element of Cornwall’s housing crisis. I welcomed the former Chancellor’s stamp duty increase for second homes from 3% to 5%, and I also welcomed the confirmation last week by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport that a new registration scheme for short-term lets will be live by March, but we must go further. To that end, I have three quick asks of the Government.
First, I urge the Government to review Cornwall council’s £90 million housing revenue account debt associated with the 2012 self-financing settlement. Servicing that inherited debt settlement diverts key resources away from repairs to existing homes and delivering additional affordable housing. Secondly, the Government have already recognised the value of low-cost development finance through 0.1% loans to housing associations. Extending those opportunities to councils would unlock significant additional housing delivery. Thirdly, Cornwall must not be locked out of further powers and funding for social housing simply because we will not be joining a mayoral strategic authority. A strategic place partnership with Homes England would give us not only the framework to deliver social housing for Cornwall, but the funding, which so far has gone only to mayoral strategic authorities.
Cornwall cannot build a stronger economy on a foundation of housing insecurity. The only sustainable answer is to increase our stock of genuinely affordable social homes and to do that at scale. To that end, I strongly welcome this Bill.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I welcome this Bill, particularly the very important measures to support victims of domestic violence and the sensible measures to reform the right to buy. In the limited time available to me, I will point out how valuable that is to my constituents in Reading and other similar parts of the country where there is growing demand on public services, a growing population and a shortage of housing. Both as an MP and as a councillor, I have been very aware of the housing shortage in our town.
Let me describe some of the issues that residents face; they are quite severe. The cost of housing is high—where I live, a two-bedroom terraced house can cost up to £370,000. That means that for many people, it is extremely difficult to become an owner-occupier, and social, affordable and council housing is extremely important in our community. I have seen terraced houses split up and subdivided into HMOs or two flats for residents, who are under extreme pressure. I have also seen families having to live in emergency housing, so I am very much in favour of more social and council housing, in particular, and I believe that the Bill will help and support that. We are lucky that our local authority is already taking steps, but I believe that the Bill will help it and other local authorities to go much, much further.
One of the great pleasures I have had recently as an MP was visiting the opening of new council houses in Coley in Reading and seeing wonderful modern homes that are being built by Reading borough council next to existing council properties—it is using land more efficiently, finding more space for houses and improving local facilities, such as a children’s play park. I would like to see more of that, and I believe the sensible reforms in the Bill will help and support it. I look forward to working with Ministers on exactly that.
I should commend my local authority, because it has a number of other sites where building is under way. Other local authorities are doing the same, but I would like to see a broader movement across the country with more councils taking up these sensible policy options, investing in council housing and providing more council homes to residents who unfortunately are unable to buy a home of their own.
I would like to flag to the Minister that, as part of that, he has announced the excellent policy of liberalising development near stations. That will help hugely with the supply of housing, particularly in my area—only about 10% of the land near Reading station has been regenerated. I hope the Minister will be able to link up those two policies, and I look forward to talking to him more about that, or perhaps hearing some more about it this afternoon.
I also look forward to further action to crack down on irresponsible landlords and support tenants. I know that the Minister is working very hard on a number of measures in that regard, including on management companies. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to participate in the debate.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill that the Government have laid before us today. I want to use my time to talk about community-led housing and its role in delivering on the Government’s social housing ambitions. I have supported such projects in my constituency for many years, because they embody exactly the sort of innovation and local empowerment that we should be encouraging.
I would like to acknowledge the work of Eddy Morton, the chair of Stourbridge Community Development Trust and the development manager of West Midlands Urban Community Homes. Through its engagement with Birmingham city council, West Midlands Urban Community Homes has successfully helped to secure the adoption of community-led housing policy, creating a valuable precedent for how local authorities can work positively with community-led organisations. Too often, that process highlights the structural barriers that continue to hold back community-led housing.
The reality is that many community land trusts face years of delays before a single home can be built, and every one of those delays has a consequence. Money that could have been used to reduce rents locally or improve environmental standards is instead absorbed by additional development costs, and for small organisations those pressures are especially acute. One of the most consistent concerns I hear is not about a lack of ambition, but about a lack of understanding within parts of local government. Officers may support affordable housing in principle, yet lack the knowledge, guidance or confidence needed to engage constructively with community-led organisations. The result is delay, inconsistency and missed opportunities. If the Government are serious about unlocking the full potential of community-led housing, financial support must be matched by practical support for local authorities and housing associations.
There is also a broader point about trust and confidence. Partnerships between housing associations and community organisations must remain true to the principles upon which the projects are founded, and—as has recently been highlighted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—these agreements do not always play out as planned. Could the Minister provide some assurance and guidance to ensure that housing associations honour their commitments to communities and work constructively to deliver genuinely community-led schemes? Will he also set out what steps the Government will take to ensure that local authorities have the knowledge, training and guidance necessary to support community land trusts and other community-led housing? Will the Government consider encouraging councils to identify dedicated officers or champions for these issues to give greater consideration to community organisations when disposing of public land? Finally, what mechanisms do the Government believe are necessary to ensure that community-led housing partnerships remain financially viable and community ownership remains at the heart of the movement?
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
As someone for whom a council house was a lifeline out of the cycle of homelessness, I strongly welcome this Bill and the Government’s actions outlined in it. I was homeless not because of someone born abroad, but because of decades of Government inaction, the mass sell-off of council homes without them being replaced, and the housing crisis that has developed in this country over decades. The comments made today by the Conservative party and by its spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), were absolutely shameful—people in temporary accommodation in my constituency will not be served better by the actions the Conservatives are proposing. They will be served better by the measures in this Bill.
I strongly welcome the Government’s action to support victims of domestic violence. Many of us will have seen victims having to leave their accommodation instead of the perpetrators and the awful situations that result. I strongly welcome the measures on that in the Bill. As I said to the Minister earlier, I hope for action on rent arrears. Only about one fifth of local authorities specifically exclude the rent arrears provisions for victims of domestic violence. I welcome the guidance, but I encourage the Minister to outline the timeline for that guidance and how its effectiveness will be assessed.
I support the measures to review shared ownership. I have been contacted by Fiona and David and so many other constituents who were sold a dream that turned into a nightmare. They have a percentage of ownership, but all the responsibility when things go wrong. I encourage the Government to make that review comprehensive and thorough.
Finally, we have heard from a number of other Members about the trap of furniture poverty. I heard from Shannon, who was a victim of domestic abuse. She said:
“At times, I considered returning to the abusive relationship so my daughter would have a bed to sleep in.”
We have to end furniture poverty. It is not a luxury to have a bed or white goods; they are essential, and not having them traps people in a debt cycle and pushes them towards rent arrears and future homelessness. I encourage the Minister to meet me and other colleagues who are interested in ending furniture poverty to explore how the Bill could genuinely do that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. There is now a two-minute time limit.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
The housing crisis is urgently felt by local people in South East Cornwall, and I warmly welcome the fact that this Government are taking action. In Cornwall, we need first homes, not just second homes. We need genuinely affordable homes for local people that allow them to stay in the communities where they have built their lives. This Bill is good news for our rural communities, because when a social home is lost, replacing it can be exceptionally difficult in areas like mine. Our land is constrained, development costs are high and the pressure from second homes and holiday lets can make it harder for local people to compete in the housing market.
I am working with local people to support greater financial literacy and women’s financial independence, because I believe that everyone needs that knowledge to be secure. I welcome the focus in the Bill on protecting victims of domestic abuse, because for a woman who is living with an abusive partner, the question of whether she can leave is often tied to the question of where she can go.
In South East Cornwall, I have been encouraging key businesses and developers to build genuinely affordable homes and to consider how they do so. I want to see my community benefit from Government investment. Each year, Cornwall’s infrastructure is put under strain by the influx of tourists. While that seasonal increase helps our economy, it puts pressure on our services. Cornwall council is ready to work strategically with Homes England to make sure that development strengthens communities and does not put them under greater strain. Will the Minister work with Cornwall to secure that strategic partnership and give them more power to make our communities resilient?
I welcome the Prime Minister’s focus on growth in every postcode. It might interest the House to know that in South East Cornwall, we have many Plymouth area postcodes. We must see our PL postcodes included in a Homes England deal in Plymouth. I invite the Minister and the Secretary of State to see how much that investment could matter for our area.
I know that the Minister wants to see lots of progress, and I am glad to support the Bill. I want to see urgent implementation with Cornwall. I want to see that partnership, and the same applies to Plymouth.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the measures in the Bill on right to buy, including those on exempting properties in designated rural areas and council homes for market rent from the scheme. I welcome Baroness Taylor’s commitment to look at introducing a power for those rural areas to be designated in regulations, and potentially with local authorities. Between 1979 and 2025, Cornwall council sold off nearly 11,000 council houses, which is more than the current remaining HRA council housing stock. Meanwhile, we have nearly 25,000 households on the housing register and more than 800 people in temporary and emergency accommodation.
Too often, homes that were once part of the social housing stock have been converted into holiday lets or student accommodation, which places huge pressure on an already stretched housing market. The covenants and deeds of ex-council houses, which are intended to prevent them from being used for profit, could and should be properly enforced. I recently found a former council home on the Beacon in Falmouth being advertised on a website for £2,500 a week. That is not right.
Our ambition for council homes must reach every corner of the country, including rural and coastal communities such as those in Cornwall, where the need is so acute. One of the barriers to delivering more council housing locally is the level of HRA debt, which is an important factor alongside repairs, the state of the construction market and council expertise in building. Will the Government please look at options to help councils build when they are faced with such barriers?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak opposite the new Minister, with whom I very much enjoyed working on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Now that she is on the Government Front Bench, I suppose it is left to me to ask the tough questions.
The Government have said that the Bill has been designed to encourage social housing providers to invest in the building of new socially rented homes. They want to encourage councils to build by restricting right to buy. That is the wrong approach. Yes, waiting lists for councils homes are far too high, but making it harder for tenants to get on in life and escape the clutches of the public sector is not the right solution. Instead, Ministers should look at what their policies are doing. Despite their promises, Labour is going backwards on house building.
As our reasoned amendment states, last year there were
“12,810 fewer net additional dwellings delivered in England compared to the previous year”.
Why are the Government not pledging to take on the developers, who are sitting on thousands of unbuilt planning applications? The Institute for Public Policy Research—Labour’s favourite think-tank—has found that 1.4 million homes have been left unbuilt since 2007, despite planning permission being granted. The figure of 1.4 million homes sounds rather close to the Government’s challenging target of 1.5 million new homes.
People are fed up with the eyesores in their neighbourhood—levelled ground left abandoned, surrounded by hoardings. I can show the Minister many examples in my Broxbourne constituency, and I am sure that hon. Members from right across the House can do the same. Taking on the land-banking developers would have widespread public support, but this Government only seem interested in making it easier to build on the green belt. We are still waiting for them to reveal what action they are taking to speed up building following the consultations held more than 12 months ago, so there is clearly no urgency.
The Government should also consider who should be eligible for the help of a social home. People who come to this country and wish to live here should not rely on the generosity of taxpayers. Making Britain your home should be earned by working hard and integrating; it should not come with a free ride on the benefits system. That is why the Conservative party will end social housing tenancies for foreign nationals. Ensuring that only UK nationals can access social housing would free up 230,000 homes for British families. That change would make an immediate and significant difference to those stuck on council house waiting lists, but the Government would prefer that they sit around waiting for the Bill.
Sadly, this Government, and especially their Back Benchers, are blinded by their ideological dislike of right to buy. It is clearly—[Interruption.] A number of Members have asked where Conservative Members were today. As I said in a Westminster Hall debate, Members of Parliament have a lot to deal with. When we do surgeries in our constituencies and people say, “When I turn on the TV, I see hardly anyone in the Chamber,” we all explain why that is. I suspect there will be times when all hon. Members cannot make it to important debates that their constituents want them to attend.
It is clearly the view of Labour Members that if we had no right to buy, social housing waiting lists would disappear, but where do they think the 2 million families that have utilised the scheme would be without it? Well, I can tell them: they would probably be in the same home, but it would be subsidised by the taxpayer rather than privately owned. Abolishing right to buy is not the silver bullet that they think it is.
The Government are placing huge burdens on social housing providers to help Ministers meet their own net zero targets. The cost of complying with new energy regulations is causing significant pressure, and getting 713,000 homes up to minimum energy efficiency standards is estimated to cost £4.5 billion. The Chartered Institute of Housing told the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that housing associations do not want to buy properties with gas boilers because they know that it will cost them more money to strip them out and make properties energy efficient. That is pushing up council house waiting lists.
The National Housing Federation is clear about what that means: spending billions to comply with net zero regulations will make it harder to build new homes. Ministers already know this, as they reduced energy efficiency targets for social housing in January on the basis that providers could not build new homes because of the financial burden of upgrading their existing stock. If Ministers want councils to be incentivised to build, entirely getting rid of those expensive regulations would be a good place to start.
What is positive in the Bill is the review of the shared ownership scheme, and I hope the Minister, when she gets to her feet, can confirm that the Government intend to keep that review in the Bill. This obligation was added by the Government only due to the diligent work of the Conservative team in the other place. I have lived in a shared ownership property, and I know that—as for other forms of ownership, such as leasehold—reforms are desperately needed to fix the many problems residents face. The Opposition agree that the provisions to protect victims of domestic violence are needed, but a separate legislative measure would have been the right way to bring those forward.
I gently say to the many hon. Members who have made impassioned speeches that, when I was a council leader, I had a number of meetings with housing providers and housing associations, and not once in the hundreds of hours of meetings I had with social housing providers did they say to me that they could not build new social homes in Broxbourne, or in fact across the country, because of the right to buy. It was never mentioned as a reason why housing associations are not building social homes.
Luke Murphy
Providers did, however, when the Conservatives were in government, point to the 60% cut in the affordable housing budget, which nearly led to the abolition of social rent under the Conservative Government. There was a 97% reduction in builds between 2010 and 2016; that is the record that the hon. Member’s party stands on.
Lewis Cocking
The hon. Member has intervened on me quite a lot, and we have had quite a ding-dong in this Chamber. I say gently to him that when I speak to housing providers, they tell me that one of the reasons why they cannot build new social homes is the Government’s increase to employer national insurance contributions, which means that they spend more money on taxes, rather than on building new social homes.
In summary, this Bill is the wrong approach, and it is fundamentally built on the wrong beliefs. It will not build a single new social home, but it will deny many families the opportunity of ever owning a home of their own. The Conservative party will always be on the side of aspiration and opportunity, and that is why we will vote for our reasoned amendment.
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for bringing their experience and expertise to today’s debate. Like many of them, I was fortunate enough to live in social housing, which my family secured following a period of homelessness in my childhood. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) mentioned the relief, and that light in your eyes when you get a set of keys and know that you and your family do not have to move yet again with plastic bags and a suitcase. The relief that social housing brought us, the safety and security of having a roof over our heads, was priceless. I share the disappointment and anger expressed by Members from across this House about the fact that this is not available to many families today. Many Members highlighted the importance of social housing to communities up and down the country.
I turn first to the reasoned amendment to the Bill, tabled by the Opposition. While I am happy to see the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), a fellow former member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I am worried to hear Opposition Front Benchers contradicting themselves. They welcome our support for protections for victims of domestic abuse, but I am disappointed with their contradictory response to our wider reforms. They both want to permit homes to be sold under the right to buy at the unsustainable rate that is discouraging our local councils from building more of them, and say that we should support more councils in building and increasing the supply of social homes, but it cannot work like that.
I am mindful of time—we do need to finish—but I want to reflect on some remarks made. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), spoke about protecting tenants who are fleeing violence. I am sad to say that I have had to help three families in my constituency who, tragically, have lost young people due to knife crime. It is important that we look at this issue and highlight some of the changes that were outlined by my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister.
Many Members raised the issue of shared ownership. As the Housing Minister outlined, we have taken positive steps to look at the shared ownership model, including the expectations on landlords who bid for shared ownership funding. As the Minister highlighted, we do not believe that a review is necessary, but we are already considering specific issues that have been raised, including about data and long-term affordability for customers. We will report back on that at a later date.
Andrew Cooper
Is my hon. Friend aware of how difficult it is to sell a shared ownership home when the previous owner is deceased? The estate can end up paying service charges and rent for quite a long period. Will she consider whether there is further action that the Government could take on that?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I think that will be one of the areas that we consider when my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister looks at shared ownership.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members mentioned domestic abuse and debt. It is really important to know that this is a key area for survivors of domestic abuse. The Government are committed to addressing this issue in their national plan to end homelessness. We believe that the best route for doing so is to ensure that the regulations are amended and the relevant legislation is looked at. My understanding is that the Housing Minister will look at that. I am due to meet the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), and I would welcome other hon. Members attending that meeting.
A number of hon. Members mentioned council disposals. I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on this matter. I want to reassure hon. Members that we take the issue very seriously. We want local authorities and housing associations to, where possible, retain homes in the social housing sector. We believe the new disposals notification requirements in the Bill will help to maximise opportunities for social housing providers to retain homes. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister highlighted: housing associations remain independent organisations, responsible for their own asset management decisions. However, we will continue to explore what further steps we can take to stop social housing stock being sold.
Our right to buy reforms will mean a net gain of 18,000 social homes over the next 10 years, whereas there would be a loss of 26,000 homes if we retained the current system. The right to buy remains a crucial route into home ownership, but we must also confront the reality: social house building has struggled to keep pace with sales under the right to buy, and that has resulted in an increase in the number of families in costly temporary accommodation and expanded social housing waiting lists across the country. Our right to buy reforms, notably the new build exemption, will give councils the confidence to get building again.
We refute the accusation that we are doing nothing to ensure that social housing is being used effectively. The Government expect social housing landlords to maximise the use of existing homes, as well as to build more. We have launched a review of how effectively social housing providers use their properties. We will report on its findings later this year.
On the Opposition’s concerns about the allocation of social housing to non-UK nationals, the Government do not support restricting social housing solely to British citizens. Such an approach would be unworkable and would cut across legal obligations, including obligations relating to EU citizens with settled status and the Equality Act 2010. Eligibility for social housing is already tightly controlled by local councils. If a person’s immigration status does not allow them recourse to public funds, they are not eligible for social homes. The racist rhetoric and the demonising of people who want to work has to stop. The vast majority of those allocated social homes in the UK are UK nationals. That is a fact, so I hope that the Opposition will withdraw their amendment on the issue.
When the Prime Minister stood on the steps of No. 10, he put building more council homes at the heart of this Government’s agenda. For far too long successive Governments have failed to deliver the homes that we need up and down the country, while simultaneously failing to protect our housing stock. We know we can and must go further.
The Bill is about bringing an end to the era of failure on social housing; it is about protecting the homes that we have and supporting the building of the new homes we need; it is about ensuring that the system works fairly for those who need it the most; and it is about reducing the overreliance on temporary accommodation that is crippling so many councils, up and down the country. Collectively, London councils are spending £5.5 million a day on temporary accommodation. That is unsustainable.
We need to turbocharge social housing, up and down the country. Social housing is not just about a roof over people’s heads; it creates strong connected communities, enables families to live happily, enables healthy lives and provides long-term sustainable housing. The Government are making progress to reverse the decline of social housebuilding, as represented by the latest figures from Homes England showing a 65% increase in social rent completions.
Across the country, almost 180,000 children are growing up in temporary accommodation. As many hon. Members have mentioned, over 1.3 million people are on the housing waiting list. That has a devastating impact on the wellbeing of our children and families, who are facing poor conditions, lacking the space to grow. How can we expect those young children to contribute to society in later life when they do not have a safe place to call their home? The Bill brings an end to that failure.
The Bill provides the crucial step that many families want to see—the same step my family was given many years ago. It ensures that when families face homelessness and women are fleeing domestic abuse with their children, they are not the ones who are evicted—the perpetrator is. The Bill ensures that we restrict right-to-buy sales, and that 100% of the receipts go back to councils so that they can reinvest in their local areas.
The Bill will ensure that we turbocharge and bring a new lease of life to local council building across the country, working with our councils, providers, housing associations and private developers to get the housing right. It is important that we continue to progress the Bill. I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I put the question, I need to inform the House that in the event of a Division—I pass no comment on whether there will be one—some of the pass readers in both Lobbies are currently not in operation. I ask all Members to follow the directions of Doorkeepers and Division Clerks and use the working pass readers, which have notices on them. The Parliamentary Digital Service are working hard to restore the remaining pass readers for any Divisions tomorrow.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Social Housing Bill [Lords] (Programme)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business without Debate
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Point of Order
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the end of July, the Prime Minister announced that he was holding cross-party talks on social care. He did not invite the Green party, despite our involvement in the Casey commission cross-party talks for the past 18 months. When I expressed my concern about that in business questions this morning, the Leader of the House suggested that smaller parties had not taken up an invitation. No doubt inadvertently, that is misleading because no such invitation was ever issued to the Green party. Will you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I might go about getting the record corrected?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order and indeed for giving notice of it. Did she raise the matter with the Leader of the House prior to making the point of order?
Madam Deputy Speaker
She did. As she will know, the content of ministerial answers to questions and contributions on the Floor of the House is not a matter for the Chair, but those on the Government Front Bench will have noted her remarks. If any correction to the record is necessary because of an inadvertent error, I am sure it will be forthcoming.
Water Management
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
After a summer of drought in England, including in my constituency, we are bracing ourselves for flooding and storm overflows, and then more drought and more flooding, and then more storm overflows, and then more drought, more flooding and more storm overflows. On the levels around Stathe, Helland, Burrowbridge, Stoke St Mary and North Curry, my constituents must get used to the risk of their land being underwater almost every year, sewage being surcharged into the River Tone, and hosepipe bans and drought, if not at the same time, then in very quick succession.
We are looking at a future of water scarcity—too little water—and too much water. The proposed solutions sound familiar: more reservoirs, more underground stormwater tanks, thicker concrete, bigger pipes, more pumping, more energy and more chemicals. Yes, we are going to need some of that, but that alone would amount to one of the most carbon-intensive infrastructure investment programmes this country has ever seen. In treating the symptoms, not the causes, those measures risk failure. Instead, it is time to tackle the problem where it begins: in the way that our homes, streets and buildings have been designed for decades and in the way that they will be designed in the future.
The truth is that England does not lack water. I will be able to point to an awful lot of it this autumn across my constituency. Rather, it lacks the ability or perhaps the political will to manage it sustainably where it lands.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on introducing the debate. Is it not time to ensure that developers with a number of projects—many of them building hundreds of houses—start paying towards the upgrading of waste and water management? They often have big profit margins on their houses and such a policy would take the onus off Government and off the Minister.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that developers should pay their way. There is much to do, as I will come to.
On average, each house roof in England receives enough free rainwater to meet all its household’s non-potable—non-drinking—water needs, including flushing toilets, washing clothes and watering gardens. Instead of that, we send it, often at high speed, into the sewerage network where it discharges into our rivers. At the same time, we spend millions of pounds making pure drinking water, pumping it into our homes and flushing that down the toilet.
Around a quarter to a third of drinking water in our homes gets nowhere near being drunk. In fact, it is all flushed down the drain without a single drop quenching anybody’s thirst. It is an appalling and pointless waste of drinking water and energy. It means that we respond by investing tens of billions of pounds in reservoirs to hold a bit more rain, so we can treat more of it, pump more of it into our homes and—yes—flush more of it down the toilet unnecessarily. That is not environmental progress; that is a high-carbon and highly expensive way of papering over the cracks in our water system.
The water from our homes and highways—vast volumes of rainwater—continue to go straight down the drain as well, mixing with sewage, pointlessly being pumped and treated and pumped and treated, and far too often creating a backwash that sends sewage tumbling into the River Tone in my constituency and into rivers and beaches across the country.
Our waste water treatment plants can cope with the sewage that is produced. What they cannot cope with is the millions of litres of rainwater we add to the sewage before we send it to the waste water treatment plants. Too often we respond by investing huge amounts into storage tanks to hold stormwater, so we can pump and treat more of it. that is a high-carbon and highly expensive way of papering over the cracks in our water system.
The climate is making the problems worse and, ironically, our addition of rainwater into the mix is making the climate worse—a classic doom loop. As the atmosphere warms, England’s winters become wetter and our summers drier with more intensive thunderstorms. Meanwhile, housing delivery continues at scale, covering land with more impermeable surfaces while we continue to legally entitle developers to collect new rainwater and add that to the sewerage systems as well, which cannot cope. We are building the problem into existence before our eyes.
Contrast this with how we look and deal with energy. We no longer assume that all power has to be generated centrally. Instead, we actively encourage decentralised generation, such as solar panels on roofs which, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), will now be required on every roof of every new home. We have batteries in homes and heat pumps replacing distant combustion, and we offer grants to make it happen. On water, we remain stubbornly stuck in—well, I was going to say the 20th century, but it feels like the 19th century.
Other countries have progressed. In parts of Belgium, new homes must capture rainwater for beneficial use. No wonder it has achieved the lowest per capita water consumption in Europe, and no doubt the lowest water bills with it. Australia, Germany and Singapore have embedded rainwater harvesting and source-controlled drainage into mainstream development. In England, by contrast, we continue to ignore rainwater’s massive asset value. Even the amendment I proposed to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 that new homes should capture rainwater to use it and lower residents’ bills was rejected, I am sorry to say, by the Government.
This issue will not go away, and the alternative approach is really not that radical. It is all remarkably simple. The simple principle is what is called source control: capture rain where it falls, use it wisely and return the excess rain to the ground where it fell. Why use it to top up our sewage? Do we love sewage so much that we actually want to make more of it by adding more water and creating an even greater volume? For all those homes built in earlier centuries where rainwater is directed into the sewer already, why not offer grants to retro-split two drains from the one drain they have at the moment? It would mean lower costs for the consumer, lower water bills, less sewerage for water companies, less sewage going into our rivers and lower costs for the Government, the public and the agencies to cope with.
It could cut water bills by roughly a third, meaning £225 off the average household bill. A household in Taunton and Wellington that catches its own rainwater and takes it out of the sewer would cut its water bill by a quarter to a third. That is around £225 a year off a £695 bill. Nationally, that is 28% to 35% of the total bill. If we gross that up, that is £6.5 billion off bills across 29 million households. Imagine what that could do if it was freed up to be spent in the economy in other ways.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I confess that I am a little confused. There are plenty of places in the country, including in my region, where we already have a separate system for sewage and rainwater runoff that should keep them separate. Yet, over many years, we have seen that that has not had the desired effect, and I am sorry to say that we are still seeing far too much sewage going into our rivers. While I recognise the point he is trying to make, I do not think that it is the silver bullet he suggests. Does he not accept that if we are to capture more rainwater, the way to do that is to build the reservoirs we need?
Gideon Amos
As I said at the beginning, we certainly need some reservoirs; I completely accept that. However, as I have explained, we do not assume that the only solution with energy is massive, centralised power stations. In the same way, collecting water on our roofs and in our homes can make a massive contribution. That contribution —some £6.5 billion back into people’s pockets—is not to be sneezed at.
Done at scale, the approach simultaneously tackles water scarcity, water excesses and carbon emissions. Toilets flushed with rainwater reduce demand for new reservoirs and enable more new development. Soakaways, green roofs and property-level sustainable drainage systems help to slow run-off and reduce flood risk and storm overflows. Less pumping and treatment means lower operational carbon. Less concrete and excavation means lower embodied carbon. Crucially, decentralised rainwater management delivers the benefits exactly where people experience them.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
My hon. Friend is showing his usual erudition on these topics. He mentions SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—which can be an important part of the solutions he outlines. However, many homeowners in my constituency find that those sustainable drainage systems do not work as intended because they are not properly designed and maintained. We have unenacted legislation that means developers are not being held to account. Does he agree that we need to do more to make sustainable drainage systems work effectively?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend is characteristically right, and I will come on to schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which he and I tried on several occasions to have enacted during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
Crucially, decentralised water management delivers the benefits I have listed: homes that are more resilient, bills that are lower, streets that flood less and rivers that have less sewage being discharged into them. Before I was elected as an MP, my campaign was to get the River Tone designated as a bathing water at French Weir. Working with the friends’ group, we succeeded, but unless we take action to reduce sewage volumes in the Tone catchment and around the country, we will not be able to meaningfully reduce sewage discharges into those rivers and beaches.
Crucially, none of this requires an AI data centre to make it happen; what is required is a shift in mindset: managing rain before it becomes a problem rather than using it to make a problem and then trying to manage that problem we have created. We can personally do our bit. My son thinks that the enormous water butt I am trying to make in my back garden is a Heath Robinson creation—well, he would if he knew what Heath Robinson was, but he is far too young. Following all the regulations is challenging, but I am working on it. However, what is really needed is the Government to take action on regulation.
Three key changes are needed from the Government. First, we need to stop designing homes that treat rain as an inconvenience to be sent elsewhere. Rather, it should be sent into people’s homes and harnessed as the asset and essential natural resource that it is and require rainwater harvesting in all new homes. Secondly, the Government needs to bring schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act into law, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), so that we start to drain more of our rainwater into the ground where it falls and have a properly regulated system for doing so. Thirdly, the Government need to grant the retro-splitting of household drains so that people can save on their bills and at the same time save our rivers—like our precious Tone—which can be spared the sewage these drains create, add to and augment.
England is about to spend unprecedented sums on water sewerage and infrastructure. We cannot solely rely on carbon-heavy centralised systems. We should finally change our relationship with the rain that falls right on the top of us all. If we want cleaner rivers, secure water supplies, lower emissions and homes fit for a changing climate, the answer is learning to value rain and use it to save us all money where it lands.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing the debate. I really enjoyed listening to his speech. There was so much agreement from the Government side of the House on pretty much everything he said. He described what I would refer to as “pre-pipe”, which I am really interested in. It is about, exactly as he described, looking at how we stop rainwater ending up in our sewerage system and often contributing to pollution incidents—the system becomes overwhelmed —when, as it is rainwater, it could be elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman touches on one of my favourite things to talk about: nature-based solutions—how we can use nature more, create soakaway areas and create sustainable urban drainage. That is absolutely correct. I am passionate about thinking about how we manage water. We often talk about how to solve problems around pollution, but if we better manage rainwater that falls from the sky, we can help to deal with pollution, as well as many other things. Reservoirs are hugely important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) pointed out, and we should absolutely be using them, but they are part of the wider system—collecting the rainfall and putting it where we want it, rather than it ending up where we do not.
It is obviously for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to talk about building standards, but I can tell the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, because I asked MHCLG ahead of this debate, that it is reviewing water efficiency standards in the building regulations for new homes, and considering how to enable water reuse systems, including rainwater and grey-water systems, where those are safe, practical and cost effective.
I have mentioned this issue a few times, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern—“astonishment” may be going a bit too far—that we use drinking water to flush our toilets. To give the other side of the argument, which I have had played back to me, the rules mean that the water supplied to domestic properties has to be drinking water quality. I hope that I am not telling the House things I should not, but we are exploring how we can guarantee that we do not mix up the water pipes that go into homes and therefore cause problems that way. This always has to be safety first. That is why the only water that can enter a property—unless a private individual has set up their own system—has to be drinking water quality.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that much progress has been made in regard to rainwater harvesting, not just by MHCLG but by the Minister’s Department—not least the landmark report, published this March, by the Drinking Water Inspectorate? The report exactly explored a potential governance framework that sets out standards for non-potable water in domestic settings, and talks about accreditation and standards, to ensure that these systems, when we are ready to bring them in, are safe and will be properly maintained.
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend; I was trying remember what the report was, so I very much appreciate the intervention. She is absolutely right. We have some of the best drinking water in the whole world; we have incredibly high standards for the health of our drinking water. The report by the Drinking Water Inspectorate looks at how we can do this in a safe way, and I am keen to explore that. We are going to be short of drinking water if we continue at this scale in the future. Thinking about where we are using it, rather than using it to flush our toilets, feels like a way forward. There is a huge amount of cross-party thinking on how we can do that. This comes back to the topic of how we manage water. How do we think about water? Where is it falling?
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
The Minister is obviously aware of the work of the Labour rural research group. One thing we have been talking about is whether environmental land management schemes need longer-term certainty. Farmers are trying to invest in proper water management, as she is describing, but they often need more than three years to do so. Does she agree that her Department may need to look at how we can arrange for ELM schemes to be longer term, specifically when it comes to water?
Emma Hardy
I am hesitant to agree to something that is not in my brief, but I will certainly mention that to the Farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan).
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is right that when we think about water management, we often talk about reservoirs; those are very much needed, and do matter, but so does managing water where it falls—thinking about roofs, streets, gardens, farms and developments. That is why we want a more practical, prevention-focused approach to water management that captures more water, wastes less of it and plans developments in a way that looks at local catchments.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
One thing that will benefit farmers in my constituency is the £50 million through the sustainable farming incentive to allow farms to build more water storage on their land. That is going to be of huge benefit, because their food stocks are down going into winter after the hot summer. We also have an issue with flooding. Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act has not been enacted, meaning that every development has a right to be connected to the drainage system, which increases the amount of flooding. If the Minister could take that forward with colleagues at MHCLG, I would be very grateful indeed.
Emma Hardy
On the point about farm reservoirs, my hon. Friend is correct. Today I held a meeting of the national drought group, and we had a focus on agriculture and the impact that drought has had on farmers. We are talking now about potential rain, El Niño and flooding, but drought is still here in this country. One of the conversations we had was, how can we support farmers to hold more of the water that comes down from the sky? We are focusing a lot on funding farm reservoirs, but we also need to think about filling farm reservoirs. How can farmers get them full for the summer, which we need, given our changing climate, with more rain in winter and drier summers?
I love SUDS—I get very geekily excited about sustainable drainage systems. I know I am shocking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will try to convince you that they can be really nice, and they can be spaces for nature as well. I am not winning, am I?
Peter Swallow
I completely agree with the Minister. There are many SUDS in Bracknell Forest that have been delivered as part of alternative natural green spaces, and they create lovely nature corridors in our community. I just wanted to put that on the record.
Emma Hardy
This is like geeks united—we love our SUDS! They are brilliant.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is right: the point about the maintenance of SUDS has been raised a few times. It is okay to build them—I actually think most are built and designed in a very effective way—but there is also the question of how we ensure they are maintained and who is responsible for that.
Gideon Amos
I just want to make an observation. When I trained as an architect, I had to follow a whole series of regulations on drains about what the diameters are, what the gradients are—everything has to be followed. For SUDS, there are no such regulations. One is regulated; the other is all down to policy. As many Members have said, we need proper regulation for SUDS, because things will go wrong if we do not get schedule 3 or similar legislation on to the statute book.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the expertise he brings to this House from his previous occupation. That is one of the things we are trying to work through with industry and MHCLG. We all agree that SUDS are a really good thing. Where they may not be as effective is the maintenance issue: who is responsible for maintaining them, and who pays for it? That is the kind of thing we are thinking about.
This goes back to the point I made earlier. When it comes to planning, are we thinking about the management of water in an area? With our changing climate going from drought to flood, are we thinking about where we want the water? It is a slightly different, nuanced conversation to say, “When it floods, where do we want the water to go? When there is a drought, where are we going to get the water from?” That means thinking about it more holistically in a way that we have not done previously, when we thought about each point in isolation.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In January last year, Storm Chandra caused devastation in East Devon, and there was significant flooding in Ottery St Mary. Does the Minister think that, as well as attenuation ponds and SUDS, people should be encouraged to store water in their own gardens using such things as water butts?
Emma Hardy
Absolutely; the more we can all do collectively, the better. We are coming up to Flood Action Week, beginning on 12 October, when I will be calling on every single Member in this House to do what they can to get the message out to their constituents about being prepared and how we can all collectively play our part in what could be quite a challenging winter.
The national planning policy framework requires all new developments to incorporate SUDS designed and maintained in accordance with national standards. There are some new national standards, and the hierarchy within those standards prioritises collecting rainwater for non-potable uses. We are also committed to better joined-up water planning, with decisions on housing, drainage, water supply and waste water taken together, so that growth is supported in the right places and communities are better protected.
In conclusion, I have really enjoyed this debate and talking about some of my favourite things: natural flood management, SUDS, rainwater and water management in a catchment—it has ticked all my favourite boxes. Managing rainwater where it falls is practical, local and important. It can help households to use less mains water, reduce pressure on sewerage, improve drainage, support flood resilience and make new developments more sustainable. That is why this Government continue to support better management of rainwater. Our water system faces significant challenges, but this Government are taking action, cleaning up rivers, tackling pollution at source, holding water companies to account, improving resilience to flood and droughts, and securing investment needed for the future. Through reform, investment and stronger regulation, we are rebuilding public trust and creating a water system that works for people, the environment and our economy.
Question put and agreed to.