Council Housing

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this important debate on the delivery of council housing. I appreciate his passion for the subject following the debate that he brought forward last September on the provision of council housing. I also thank all Members for their rich contributions. They really reflect the challenges that exist across the country.

Nearly 180,000 children are in temporary accommodation in this country, and over 1.3 million households are on local authority housing registers. Members across the House will agree that we cannot allow that to continue, because behind every one of those statistics is a person, a family and a child. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Housing Minister and the whole Government are clear on our resolve and intention to tackle the issue. We are also clear that councils have a leading role to play.

Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Government are committed to delivering the biggest council house building programme since the post-war period. That level of ambition is necessary because of the scale of the challenge that we are facing. This Government are removing barriers and backing councils to use all the levers at their disposal to deliver safe and decent homes at a scale not seen for decades.

We have taken decisive steps to improve councils’ financial resources, capacity and capability to invest in new and existing homes, and the social and affordable homes programme funding is putting councils at the heart of that delivery. It is the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable homes in recent memory. Initial allocations under the programme were announced in August and, for the first time, three councils outside of London—Newcastle, Eastleigh and Cambridge—were awarded strategic partnership status. The Greater London Authority has also offered allocations of at least £6 billion to providers of social and affordable housing, with 60% going to local councils.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Leeds is one of the biggest local authorities in England. We have 27,000 households on the waiting list for council housing, 5,000 of which are in priority need. So many constituents come to me saying that they just cannot afford private rented homes. The main issue is that there is just not enough council housing. I welcome the Government saying that they are building more houses, but there needs to be specific help for Leeds, including both more funding for land remediation and the purchasing of city centre developments that are unoccupied or under-occupied. What additional support can the Government provide for that type of housing?

[Jim McMahon]

Leeds city council is ambitious for its city and is a key member of the West Yorkshire combined authority. It is doing a lot of work, not just on housing but on bringing forward brownfield sites through growth and infrastructure funding to make sure that, as many Members have said, housing goes alongside that wider community infrastructure.

In addition to the funding that I have just mentioned, over £21 billion is still to allocate, which will be prioritised for social homes, particularly council homes. That reflects our commitment to increasing council house delivery. To further improve financial capacity, deliver new supply and invest in existing homes, we have committed to a 10-year social housing rent policy with a convergence mechanism. That gives councils much needed certainty on their income to enable them to increase and manage their housing portfolios efficiently and effectively.

Heathrow Airport Expansion

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The context of this debate has changed, which is my point; things have changed since 2015. We are looking again at devolution and growth across the country, and that changed context means that Heathrow expansion really needs to be looked at again, especially when the Mayor of London opposes it so strongly.

Fourthly, business travel has changed; the world that originally produced the case for the third runway no longer exists. Much of the demand modelling that was made then assumed ever-increasing business travel, but the pandemic accelerated a shift towards remote working and video conferencing, which has become permanent. Research highlighted by the New Economics Foundation shows that over the two decades before the pandemic, UK GDP grew by around 25% while business passenger numbers through UK airports showed virtually no growth at all. Today, business travel remains at a level that is about 20% below pre-pandemic levels, so the fundamental assumption about business travel no longer applies.

Fifthly, assumptions about sustainable aviation fuel have also changed. Sustainable aviation fuel was meant to be the great white charger that would come galloping over the hills, and that we would all be using it, and it would be the answer to all our climate problems. However, use of it is far less than predicted and is growing more slowly than predicted. It still accounts for far less than 1% of global aviation fuel use, and even under the Government’s own plans, around 90% of aviation fuel being used in 2030 would still be conventional fuel. In effect, Parliament is being asked to approve additional emissions now on the basis that future technology might solve the problem some time later, but that hope is really not being borne out.

Sixthly, the climate challenge has become far more acute. The Climate Change Committee’s conclusion in its report last month was clear—the UK does not currently have a credible pathway to reduce aviation emissions in line with net zero while accommodating Heathrow expansion. The Committee estimates that expansion would add an additional 2.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year by 2050. That is roughly the equivalent of putting around half a million additional petrol-fuelled cars on Britain’s roads, all the emissions of Denmark, and greater than all the emissions of New Zealand.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

When I was first elected to Parliament nine years ago, we had people coming in and saying that new technology in aviation—electric planes, hydrogen planes and SAF—would significantly reduce emissions by 2025; I think that was the date given. None of that has happened. So all these assumptions are being made about new technology, which has not arrived and will not arrive. And we will break through our carbon budget just with increased aviation, particularly if we go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for that intervention, which speaks for the views of so many people, who are saying similar things. Indeed, a long time ago they were saying, “Look at the assumptions”, but now we have even more facts about those assumptions. We know what has actually come to pass and it is not all that was promised. At a time when households, motorists and businesses are being asked to reduce emissions, and after the summer of extreme weather that we have just had, why would we seek permission to increase emissions by so much?

Seventhly, our understanding of the health impact of noise has changed. Noise is not just an inconvenience; it is not something for people to get used to. We now know the impact of noise on many health conditions, including heart conditions and mental health conditions. This new knowledge about the impact of noise and what that impact will be on so many millions more people really should give the Government pause for thought. At the very least, the Government should commit to a full seven-hour night-flight ban between 11 pm and 6 am, with a pathway towards an eight-hour ban in the future. That respite would be so important for my constituents.

Eighthly, our expectations on air quality have changed. London is now the world’s largest clean-air zone. Putney’s high street used to be one of the most polluted in the country, but is now just the same as other high streets. That has been through a lot of hard policy and hard work. The ultra low emission zone covers every London borough and has reduced harmful nitrogen dioxide concentrations in central London by more than 50%. There has been heavy investment around improving our air quality, but this pollution from Heathrow airport would take us in the other direction.

Those are eight things that have changed since 2015, and I am sure that the Minister has listened very carefully to them all, but there are three things that have not changed. First, there is no funding plan for the surface transport to go along with the airport. I have been asking this question of Treasury Ministers ever since the proposals came out: “Will the Government fund the ground transport?” No. I have been asking Heathrow, “Will Heathrow fund the ground transport?” No, it will not. We have a massive gap here given the number of people who will travel to Heathrow airport. What will they travel on? I think that that will be a real millstone around the Government’s neck in future.

The second thing that has not changed is that Heathrow is the wrong location for a hub airport of this scale, for areas such as Northern Ireland—I know that we have a Member from Northern Ireland here—Liverpool, Manchester or Scotland. If anyone looked at the UK to decide where to put a hub airport, would they really put it next to one of the most densely populated parts of the whole country, or would they put it in the middle of the country? Would they locate it at an airport that already had two runways, such as Manchester’s?

The third thing that has not changed is that we do not have a national aviation strategy. Why are these decisions being made piecemeal? We have Gatwick, Luton and now Heathrow; where is the overall strategy for this? What is the decision-making behind it? Why do we not step back, look at what kind of aviation growth we want and need and where we want that to be, and then put this decision within that?

When the Airports Commission recommended Heathrow’s expansion in 2015, it asked the public and Parliament to accept a trade-off: to accept the noise, the environmental impacts and the disruption, because the rewards would be worth it. We were promised transformational economic growth across the United Kingdom, but, more than a decade later, we find a very different situation. Those foundations and assumptions are very weak. The projected economic gains are smaller than promised.

[Alex Sobel]

One concerning point that my hon. Friend did not raise is the number of houses that will be demolished and the number of people who will be displaced. Heathrow’s own assumption is fewer than 1,000, but that is really only the direct curtilage of the runway. Even a quite casual look at a map would show that the uninhabitable zone around Heathrow could be north of 5,000 homes.

Who would pay for those demolitions, and for the replacements and compensation for those homeowners? That is something, alongside ground transport, that nobody is willing to pay for. That is an exceedingly large amount of money, on top of the misery caused for all those people living there.

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely have all those communities in my mind. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I am sure that we will hear more about that from other Members in this Chamber today who represent those communities that will be so directly affected.

That is what I mean about the national strategy; that would be a very big factor. How many communities will be affected? What is the trade-off here? Why—again—would anyone choose to put this hub airport next to London? It affects more people than all the other major hub airports across Europe. Five hub airports there have fewer people affected than this one, because it is so close to London. It is not in the place we would put it if we started from scratch.

As I was saying, Parliament was asked to accept a trade-off between the negative effects and the economic gains, but that whole equation has now crumbled. This is no longer the proposition that Parliament was presented with in 2015; it asks communities to accept many more dangers and harms, but for less-certain benefits.

Every day, my constituents live with the consequences of Heathrow. Asking them to accept more flights, more noise and more disruption requires a compelling national case, and we just do not have it here. If the growth is smaller, the jobs are less certain and the benefits are less widely shared than promised, the responsible thing to do is not to simply press ahead regardless; it is to stop and look again. I therefore hope that, when the time for a conclusion comes, the Minister will conclude that a third runway at Heathrow is not right for the country.

Representation of the People Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Chowns]

I will move on to my amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Amendment 15 seeks to ban all corporate donations. Donations from companies are banned in France and Canada, among many other countries. According to research conducted by CenTax, about a quarter of donor companies are so opaque that it is not possible to identify who controls them, and almost £1 in every £10 given by companies comes, indirectly, from people who could not make donations themselves. This is a loophole in our politics. The Bill already accepts that a company has no independent right to donate, as it depends on the individuals who own it being on the electoral register, so it makes sense to complete the step and ban corporate donations altogether. If the House is not willing to go as far as a ban, it can still strengthen the Bill by strengthening clause 60.

I have also tabled new clause 30, which calls for

“a review of how campaign expenditure limits could apply on an annual basis”.

The new clause would deal with another huge loophole. We recognise that money skews politics; that is why there are spending limits during the short campaign; but we know that politics does not happen just in that short period before an election. Politics happens all the year round, especially now that the online world is such a big part of our politics. Long gone are the days when elections were fought only in those short weeks. Political campaigning happens throughout the year, not just on doorsteps but also online, and it is therefore imperative to place limits on annual campaign expenditure to prevent our politics from being skewed out of all proportion by big money. That is why I support new clause 70, tabled by the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), which would lower limits for campaign spending altogether.

In her new clause 120, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) makes a clear case for a cap on all donations. Big money has been allowed to skew our politics for far too long. I would prefer the cap to be much lower, perhaps at £50,000 a year, and that view is supported by the majority of the British people, but any move in that direction would be an improvement.

Moreover, some donations simply should not be allowed. I welcome new clause 22, tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon): there is no place for fossil fuels in a sustainable future, and no place for dirty fossil money in our politics.

I also welcome the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), particularly new clause 43, which calls for

“a repository of digital political advertising”.

This is absolutely crucial: we have to guard against the use of AI to fuel disinformation. We have to take big money out of politics, take the poison of disinformation out of politics, and fix our political system once and for all.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, the largest APPG in Parliament, I am delighted to welcome the Bill as a significant culture shift for our democracy and a generational step towards fairer politics. I also welcome the Minister to her place, as she is a trusted friend and ally on fair elections. The APPG’s loss is certainly the Government’s gain.

It is fitting that the Representation of the People Bill is the first piece of legislation to come to the House under the Government’s new leadership. The Prime Minister’s long-standing commitment to free and fair elections, support for young people and commitment to cleaning up our politics is well known, and I look forward to this being the first of many steps that he will take to make our politics fit for the future and reflective of the United Kingdom in which we live today.

The Labour party is the party of change: system change, culture change, democratic change. I am proud to be part of a party that has always fought to strengthen our democracy. We must now do that for a new generation, by facing up to the triple threat that disinformation, dark money and a failing electoral system pose to our politics. Westminster is unfortunately becoming dangerously outdated. A five-party electorate can no longer be represented by a two-party system. “Business as usual” and low voter turnout are changing everything.

I am sad that my new clause 31 has been ruled out of scope today.

[Luke Akehurst]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) that it does not require legislation for the Government to set up a commission to look at electoral systems?

[Alex Sobel]

I do not want to anger Madam Deputy Speaker, with whom I have served not just here but in other democratic forums, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of Members who signed new clause 31 shows the amount of support there is for this in the House; it reflects how many Members support change. I understand that this issue is not in scope of the Bill, but I trust our Prime Minister, who has long been supportive on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important contribution. It is right that we look at the range of different requirements placed on candidates. My understanding is that some people, such as local councillors, are required to have DBS checks, but again, as many hon. Members have noted, there is no such requirement for us as parliamentarians; that is something that we need to test and look at further. I can continue to work with her and other interested Members on looking at this area.

New clause 48 concerns accessibility for voters and seeks to mandate the provision of audio and tactile devices in polling stations. The Government are firmly committed to supporting democratic participation for all eligible voters. I recognise the important work that hon. and right hon. Members from across the House have undertaken to champion accessibility and ensure that disabled people can participate fully in our democracy.

[Alex Sobel]

I know the Minister has long supported changing the system of election to the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has also committed to it. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are actively considering changing the system from first past the post?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I will come on to my hon. Friend’s remarks later in my speech. To come back to accessibility, we agree with the principle outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) in her amendment, which is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who has lived experience of this, and many other Members. We will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and other interested Members from both Houses on a suitable amendment that can be tabled in the Lords.

A number of Members from right across the House have mentioned electoral reform. In the spirit of transparency, I should say that a number of Members know my position on electoral reform. The Government’s priority is a politics that works for all people in all places, not some people in some places. The Prime Minister remains committed to electoral reform as a way of supporting that objective. However, this is a complex constitutional matter, and it is premature to legislate now for one approach. I would be happy to meet Members from across the House to hear their views, look at how we can work on strong proposals, and discuss next steps.

On new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the rules on third-party campaigning are clear, proportionate and workable in practice. On new clauses relating to spending limits, we are of the opinion that an independent assessment is needed of the adequacy of current spending limits in electoral law. We agree that the Electoral Commission is best placed to provide that assessment. That is why the Secretary of State and the First Secretary of State wrote to the Electoral Commission on 29 August, asking it to expand its review of spending limits to include candidate limits. That builds on the Government’s current ask of the commission to provide recommendations by July 2027, and will ensure that the electoral spending framework is scrutinised and fit for purpose for the modern campaigning world.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds]

I am going to make a little progress, if I may.

The key point is to ensure that our local authorities can set out their governance arrangements in a way that reflects the needs of their community. The Government have already accepted the argument that we need to ensure a degree of nuance in the Bill for rural and coastal communities, and this is another example of exactly that argument.

On parish governance, I know we do not all have parish councils in our local areas, but they are a significant feature of civic life across the country and many of them run important local facilities such as leisure centres and car parks. It is clearly important to ensure that their role is enshrined, especially at a time when this Government’s wider agenda of local government reorganisation is leading to a significant transfer of services to parish councils from districts due to be abolished, so it is welcome that the Government are moving forward on that.

On the final two groups of amendments we are debating this afternoon, the so-called agent of change principle is the idea that a new arrival in a community should bear the cost of consequent changes on its gaining planning consent: if somebody opens a new music venue or builds a new residential development, that should not be at the expense of existing and long-established uses. Many of us as constituency MPs have had experience of when, for example, a property developer creates a new residential development and seeks to close down an existing venue such as a local pub—I had an example to do with a bus garage—because they are concerned about the impact it would have. Clearly those established uses with prior consent need to have a degree of priority, and that has already found its way into law in Scotland. We believe that it is reasonable to recommend that the Government take this forward and ensure that those existing uses have sufficient protection in the Bill that they are not subject to the unfair impact of new and subsequent arrivals seeking to pass the costs of mitigating the consequences of their activity on to them.

Finally, Lords amendment 98 is about the Secretary of State’s powers on changes to strategic authorities. It was hotly contested as the Bill made its way through Committee that it contains chapters and chapters of new powers for the Secretary of State to direct mayors or combined authorities, which very much speaks to the point that this is centralising legislation. While it introduces a new layer of local government, it none the less results in central Government having significantly more powers to levy a precept, to create a new housing development, to create zoning to ensure development takes place, and to bring together groups of local authorities and assume some of their responsibilities. All of those now fall much more strongly within the purview of the Secretary of State issuing directions from Whitehall about how things should happen locally.

It remains the Opposition’s position that, as supporters of and believers in devolution, we should not simply pay lip service to it in the title of the Bill, but ensure that those measures have the consent and support of the locally elected politicians whose mandate gives them the power to make those decisions on behalf of their community. We remain determined to push ahead in favour of that principle of consent and ensure that local communities continue to have champions who speak up for them in this Chamber.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

In my comments, I will address the agent of change principle. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music, and this has long been on our agenda. The shadow Minister got the gist of this right when saying that it is about existing or long-standing venues—music venues and nightclubs, in particular—having to bat back legal challenges from residents of any new build residential property, but primarily apartments. We have had examples of cases, such as Alphabet and the Moth club, where there have been legal costs of £50,000 or more from having to take on new developments that are challenging their ongoing operations.

I encountered a case of this kind in my constituency, which we had to fight in the planning committee. An organisation called Music and Arts Production provides music and arts education in its building for young people who have been excluded from school and who would otherwise become NEET—not in education, employment or training—but who are thus kept within the education system. One of its main sources of funding is Cosmic Slop, an event that raises a significant amount on Saturday nights.

There was to be heavy residential development in the area in the form of a new block of flats in Mabgate, opposite the MAP building. The problem was that there would be no sound protection or mitigation; in its local plan, Leeds had not mapped music venues or nightclubs. I received thousands of emails about the planning application from as far away as New York. We had to have significant discussions with the planning department and councillors to ensure that the necessary stipulations were made for noise reduction, and to ensure that the new residents could not, in effect, close down the club night, because if that happened MAP would have to close as well, and all those young people would become NEET.

I sympathise with the Ministers dealing with this matter, because throughout the process the national planning policy framework, on a non-statutory basis, has forced local authorities to take such action. I think we should consider ways of addressing this issue through secondary legislation and the local planning process, because at present neither the Bill nor the NPPF protects venues adequately. I know that, like mine, the Minister’s constituency contains many music venues and nightclubs, and she obviously cares deeply about such venues. I hope she will reassure me that the Government will look at the agent of change principle and ensure that, both locally and nationally, the relevant protections are available so that further pressures are not put on those venues. Nightclubs in particular are already suffering as a result of the business rates increases and other recent cost pressures, and the additional costs of having to fight developers will eventually push them out of existence.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

Absolutely. Too many music venues risk becoming old news by being forced to shut, even if they are where the likes of Fleetwood Mac learned their trade. I totally agree with my hon. Friend.

The Government recently made a welcome commitment to set out a new high street strategy. The high street is, of course, changing due to changing retail habits, including online shopping. Cultural venues such as music venues are absolutely core to the regeneration and future of the high street, which means that the sort of protections envisaged in Lords amendments 94B and 94C become even more crucial.

[Alex Sobel]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are particular issues for councillors on the planning committees of local authorities? The amendments would bring a clarity that would make it much easier for planning committees to operate and give music venues and nightclubs the reassurance that they need.

[Lewis Atkinson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will come on to say a little about the national planning policy framework at the moment. When my hon. Friend spoke, he made a good point about local plans. Part of the issue at the moment is that local councils have very different approaches. I wonder whether there is scope for the Government to ensure, or certainly encourage, local authorities to explicitly reference and identify grassroots music venues in their local plans so that when such planning applications are put in, there is explicit recognition of those venues.

It is not just the risk of actual closure that the lack of “agent of change” envisages; there is also the ongoing uncertainty. The Night & Day Café in Manchester spent three days fighting noise abatement proceedings from a nearby development, which put stress and risk on that establishment over time. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith) is not in his place today, but he intervened last week in the debate, referencing venues like that one.

I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgment from the Dispatch Box that the current planning framework is not operating as initially envisaged. I think the “agent of change” principle was first put into the national planning policy framework in 2018, following a private Member’s Bill secured by the now Lord Spellar—MP for Warley at the time. That guidance has not been sufficiently implemented; the Music Venue Trust reports that there has not been a meaningful reduction in the number of planning applications that risk threatening music venues. There is an issue about enforcement. Will the Minister say a little about the work that the Government are doing to increase the resources and the ability of local authorities to enforce the national planning policy framework when it comes to “agent for change” in future?

The other reality, I am afraid, is that the NPPF, including the draft NPPF set out by the Government recently, is not strong enough; Lord Brennan of Canton referred to that in his speech in the other place last Thursday, I believe. To reassure the Minister, I should say that I am not seeking a widespread power that would extend noise protections to all sorts of establishments. My concern, and that of others across the House and in the other place, relates specifically to cultural venues—in particular grassroots music venues and nightclubs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) has ably set out.

I support the Government’s mission to build more houses and create more residences. The example in my constituency is that the lack of clarity and enforcement of the current framework is stopping properties being built—some flats in my city centre are not being built because the developer tries to get away with what it can under noise abatement, in the absence of a clear statutory duty. A local music venue is therefore stressed about potential threats, and a developer is not able to build houses.

There is reported to be greater clarity in Scotland. I understand that the Scottish planning system is significantly different in many elements from the one in England. The Music Venue Trust reports a significant reduction in the number of venue closures in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I could not have put it better myself. If we believe in “brownfield first”, which we do, then it has to be enabled. That requires funding, which requires political will, which we Labour Members have, but which is sadly too often missing from the Opposition.

I turn to agents of change. I thank hon. Members for their contributions on the subject, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), who talked knowledgeably, articulately and persuasively on this question. I reiterate our strong reason for maintaining the view that a policy approach is best suited to addressing issues of implementation, when it comes to the agent of change. As with “brownfield first”, there is no difference in policy here. I absolutely agree with the points and concerns that have been raised. National planning policy exerts a significant influence on the planning system in two principal ways. Plan-making authorities must have regard to national policy when preparing development plans that form the basis for decision making, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. National policy itself is a material consideration, meaning that the NPPF can have a powerful and immediate effect on planning decisions, allowing policy changes to take effect quickly.

Furthermore, the new draft framework aims to improve delivery across the planning system by setting out much clearer policies for plan making and decision making. It makes it explicit that the decision-making policies should not be repeated in local plans and provides for these policies to bear on the system from day one. That is why we have not taken forward statutory national development management policies at this stage, although we are keeping that decision under review.

[Alex Sobel]

Would the Minister and colleagues be prepared to look at the idea that grassroots music venues and nightclubs should be in the local plan, so that planning committees and planning officers have to have regard to them? This is clearly a gap. If they are in the plan, this will not move on to a statutory footing, which is something that she is obviously concerned about.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Local plans can include community facilities, and we are committed to looking at ways, through the local plan, that we can strengthen the policy intent that we all agree that we are trying to achieve. First, we intend to work closely with local planning authorities, once the new NPPF is finalised, to ensure that the policy is fully understood and implemented. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said, there is a discrepancy between planning considerations and what is actually enforced. We recognise that discrepancy and are looking at what more can be done to ensure that local planning authorities are enforcing planning conditions related to this important issue. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing is very exercised by this issue and is grateful for all the contributions that have been made by hon. Friends. He is content to meet to discuss what more can be done, but I hope that Members hear the Government when we say that we agree with the policy intent and that the national planning policy should be strengthened—we are undertaking that. We think there is an opportunity to make more progress through the local plan, and we are committed to working with local authorities to do that. We have committed to working with Members from across the House to ensure that this bites in the way that Members are keen for it to bite.

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I am not so sure there is much precedent for that level of retrospectivity.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank Philip Rycroft for meeting me in my position as chair of the fair elections APPG and for including some of my points and evidence in this excellent review. I also thank the Secretary of State for including the donations cap—an issue that I raised with the Minister for Democracy, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), when we met.

My question relates to page 45 of the review, which talks about international best practice, and the point I raised with Philip Rycroft about VIGINUM in France, which monitors foreign online interference. That is the most pressing issue in UK politics today. It is about not just identifying it and publishing it, but attributing and exposing it, and in some cases even getting it removed. Are we considering the same modalities, capabilities and powers when implementing that recommendation in the UK?

[Steve Reed]

We will respond in detail to each of the 17 recommendations, including the one that my hon. Friend references. However, he is absolutely right: we can and should learn from best practice in other democracies to make our democracy as robust and safe as it can be.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. This Sunday, I went to our Holocaust Memorial Day event in Leeds and met Trude Silman, my former constituent from when I was a councillor. She is 97 years old, and we have fewer and fewer of these Holocaust survivors. I pay tribute to the children of Holocaust survivors—the second generation—including my father, who gave oral testimony to the Holocaust Centre North. I hope that by next Holocaust Memorial Day that will be transcribed and available to the public, not just so that my children and I can understand our family’s history, but so that everybody can learn from that and understand our link in the UK to the Holocaust and how it can echo through the generations.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I hope that we see that testimony shared more widely. I have a conflicting thought, however: while it is important that we hear testimony, listen to testimony and amplify that testimony, forcing people who may not necessarily want to relive that trauma to continually relive that trauma for us to learn is not always the best way forward. We have to find a balance between how we can educate people and not retraumatising survivors.

I am contacted by a number of people expressing deeply wrong views—not necessarily teenagers, but older adults in some cases. They are “othering” in their minds and putting ethnic or religious groups in some sort of box. Dealing with disinformation and misinformation is not just about young people, but every generation. We must do more to tackle that.

I do not want to take up too much of the House’s time, but I thank everybody who does stand up, whether in this place or not. It is appreciated when people take a moment to tackle and challenge those false narratives and are willing to say, “This is wrong. It is wrong to dehumanise people. It is wrong to put people in a box based on their religious convictions, their sexuality or the colour of their skin.” Anyone who is willing to do that in any circumstance is appreciated. It is not easy to do, but we all need to do it, because none of us wants to end up in a situation where we are bystanders as atrocities are committed. I thank everybody who does stand up. I thank all those people at the Holocaust Educational Trust and all those involved in Holocaust Memorial Day for bringing the information to us, so that we can make speeches and talk to our constituents about this and so that we can do our best to listen and to challenge those horrific, untrue narratives.

Chinese Embassy

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid that all I can say to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, is that all material considerations will be taken into account when reaching a decision on this case.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Joint Committee on Human Rights undertook an inquiry on transnational repression last year. It found that the Chinese state undertakes considerable transnational repression against the Chinese diaspora in the United Kingdom, much of it co-ordinated out of the existing Chinese embassy. The new super-embassy is a real threat to Hongkongers, Uyghurs and other members of the Chinese diaspora who do not toe the Beijing party line. Will the Minister reassure me that transnational repression of the Chinese diaspora is a material consideration when making this planning decision?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Foreign Secretary has been robust on human rights, including those in Xinjiang. She has raised our concerns about the implementation of the national security law in Hong Kong and called for the immediate release of Jimmy Lai. When it comes to human rights, we are forthright with the Chinese Government. I am not going to comment on a live case that is in front of Planning Ministers as to what specific material considerations will be taken into account, but I can assure my hon. Friend that they all will be.

Electoral Resilience

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

Safeguards are already in place, but the fact that the review will report in March means that it will come ahead of the elections. That is because not only Members of this House, but voters across the country, will want to know that the safeguards against malign foreign financial interference in the coming elections are sufficiently robust to ensure that those elections are free and fair.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, I warmly welcome this independent review into foreign financial interference in UK politics. However, foreign financial interference is not the only threat to our electoral resilience: misinformation, disinformation and aspects of the electoral system itself are all flaws in the system. Will those issues be in scope for the elections and democracy Bill that is coming next year?

[Steve Reed]

The terms of reference will be laid in the House of Commons Library today, but the review is not the only way in which we are looking at the security and integrity of our elections. The Minister for Security is leading the defending democracy taskforce, which is looking more widely at action that we may need to take to ensure that our safeguards remain robust against the changing nature of the threat to our democracy.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and all who have successfully brought this petition forward. I rise today, as many others have, in support of the petition calling for Hong Kong British national overseas visa holders to retain their indefinite leave to remain settlement.

As we have heard, such visas are a lifeline; they are a moral commitment created in response to Beijing’s crackdown on human rights and democracies. Families made life-changing decisions, leaving their homes, relatives and friends on the understanding that if they worked hard, paid their way, built their lives here and contributed, they could settle permanently after five years. To move the goalposts retrospectively would not only cause distress, but be a betrayal of everything that they think we stand for and that we hope we stand for, namely that we keep our word.

I have so many wonderful examples of Hongkongers in my constituency. For example, a constituent wrote to me about two people who had become invaluable to their community in Cherry Hinton. They help to run toddler groups and holiday clubs for more than 180 children, supporting families who speak little English. They are law-abiding, hard-working and deeply committed to their community, and yet they now live in fear that the rules will change midway, leaving their futures here uncertain.

I see no reason why those who are already here and contributing should be thrown into that level of anxiety. To delay their right to settlement would upend carefully prepared plans, heap financial pressure on families who are already struggling with the cost of living, and deny children who have grown up here their right to home fee tuition at university.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As well as those financial and educational anxieties, many Hongkongers, some of whom do not have permanent status here, are under threat from transnational repression, as the recent report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights shows. That includes having a bounty on their head. Is it not the case that we are putting anxiety on people who may be at risk of harm if they can no longer stay here?

[Pippa Heylings]

The hon. Member makes a really important point. Delaying their settled status would leave many of these people unprotected when travelling abroad and raise the stakes in terms of their own and their families’ security. Many families are already financially stretched and, as we have heard, that is often exacerbated by the fact that BNO visa holders are blocked from accessing their pension savings with the mandatory provident fund. With settled status, that would no longer be the case. They have told me that that would be best for everyone because they would then be contributing—they do not want to be a burden on the public purse.

We must never forget what is at stake, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) has said. In Hong Kong, nearly 1,000 political prisoners remain behind bars for daring to exercise their democratic right. It is neither safe nor realistic for Hongkongers to return. The petition before us is clear and just. It calls on us to stand by the word we gave and allow those on BNO visas to settle after five years, not 10. I urge the Government and the Minister to provide clarity and reassurance, and to exempt from these reforms all who are already here on BNO visas.

Strategy for Elections

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

The hon. Gentleman will understand the process and work of the boundary commissions. This strategy is focused on the themes that I spoke to earlier, and that is what we will be focusing on.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, I warmly welcome this policy paper. I think my hon. Friend the Minister and I were much more poorly equipped to vote when we were 18 than today’s 16-year-olds, so I warmly welcome that measure. I also welcome the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, introduced last week, with the Government saying that first past the post

“can lead to individuals being elected with only a small proportion of the total votes cast”,

and that Mayors and police and crime commissioners

“should be elected with a greater consensus among their electors.”

The Government have also claimed that this change will give the local electorate an “increased voice” and will

“better support the democratic mandate of people elected to such positions”.

Given the flawed nature of first past the post, will the Minister consider also reviewing the system for elections to this place?

[Rushanara Ali]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work with the APPG. He is aware of the policy of the Labour party and this Government on first past the post. I refer him to my previous answer on that question.