English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell]

I completely agree. I was with councillors from Brent and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) earlier today, and they have similarly tried to use creative methods to restrict these places opening, but they have really struggled, so they really welcome these impact assessments.

In the interests of time, let me say that it is my sincere hope that these gambling impact assessments will start to tilt the balance back to communities and away from these companies. These formal assessments must help communities like Earl’s Court, where too many gambling venues already exist and the harms are already clear to see. We need these preventive powers, not just reactive regulations and law enforcement to clean up the problem after the fact, so I strongly support Government amendment 80 and look forward to the day when it comes into force.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We now have a three-minute speaking limit.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I am pleased that the Government support the principle of banning pavement parking and giving local authorities new powers, assuming that they come with new burdens funding. However, Lords amendment 40, which will give powers without a national framework, risks confusion, with inconsistent enforcement, frustrated residents and unfair pressure on frontline staff.

We need a ban across the country, with embedded changes to the highway code and a public information campaign. Shifting the responsibility to councils that decide to go ahead of the curve means that drivers could be caught out, particularly in areas of high tourism like mine in Dorset, where many drivers come from elsewhere. We need the law to be clear about exemptions for postal workers, emergency vehicles and where roads are too narrow for parking. Where such issues exist, we need the time to put down yellow lines and parking restrictions to prevent one problem from being replaced by another.

I recognise that as Lords amendment 40 is a Government amendment, there will be no vote on it, but I urge the Government to consider the potential pitfalls of the amendment and whether it answers the question that people have been asking for so many years. I think the answer is that it does not, and I urge the Government to bring forward a proper road safety Bill in the King’s Speech to properly ban pavement parking.

Let me turn to community asset transfer. I recently worked with Corfe Mullen town council to prepare an application for a transfer but it was no longer needed, thanks to the community raising nearly £600,000. I am now working with Holt football club to help it to protect its club from sale; the club was started 60 years ago by Terry Bradford with a lawnmower and a hosepipe for a shower, I am told. Since then, local residents and businesses from Gaunt’s Common and Holt have invested for all those decades to build a fabulous clubhouse and develop talent that has represented their country.

However, these projects fail because communities cannot compete with private buyers looking to make a profit and sellers knowing that they can squeeze every penny from local people by setting a price beyond their ability to fundraise. I welcome the Government’s commitment in the Bill to extend both the time that communities have to delay a sale and the independent valuation, but I seek clarity on whether the change will take effect on Royal Assent and be retrospective for applications already in train. I also strongly support the Lords amendments to extend the time on the register so that Holt football club, which has previously been threatened with eviction, can protect itself into the next generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I will briefly speak to Lords amendment 98. When it comes to regions such as Cornwall and my constituency of North Cornwall, this Bill neither respects nor gives due consideration to our unique national minority status. In a letter sent to the leader of Cornwall council in November last year, the Secretary of State said that he recognised Cornwall’s “distinct local identity” and said that the Government were

“minded, on an exceptional basis, to work”

with the leader to explore a bespoke deal for Cornwall.

Five months later, the Bill has progressed through both Houses and still we have nothing in writing about that bespoke Cornwall-only deal, or even provisions to allow for one. Instead, we see efforts by this Government to undermine Lords amendment 98. The Secretary of State plans to force his MPs to vote against that vital amendment, which would prevent the Bill from giving overreaching powers to Ministers, through which they could essentially force local authorities to combine, against the will of local people.

On 24 March, on Report in the other place, the Government Whip responded that discussions are “positive and ongoing” and urged my Lib Dem colleague in the other place, Lord Teverson, to withdraw his amendments that were specifically designed to provide appropriate legal protections for Cornwall. The Minister in the other place said:

“While the United Kingdom is a proud signatory to the charter and the framework convention, accepting these amendments risks creating uncertainty over the status and interpretation of those treaties in domestic law.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 March 2026; Vol. 854, c. 1413.]

Instead, the Government seem to have chosen to completely ignore the European framework convention and charter for languages, which opens up the Bill to potential legal challenges.

Our national minority status in Cornwall has been completely ignored, and now risks being ignored by future Governments as well. This essentially means that the current or any future Secretary of State could force Cornwall to combine with other authorities, and disregard its national minority status. Let me be clear: Cornwall does not want that, and my constituents regularly urge me to make this point. We do not want to be dragged kicking and screaming into a combined authority with Plymouth or any other wider south-west authority.

Without Lords amendment 98, we risk having a diktat from the Westminster Government that tells us what to do. That is not devolution. I urge Members from across the House to vote against the Government’s attempt to disregard this vital amendment, and I respectfully ask the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and set out what protections for Cornwall’s national minority status the Government will bring forward, and when.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. I invite the Minister to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With the leave of the House, we will consider the motions to disagree with Lords amendments 99 to 116 collectively.

Lords amendments 99 to 116 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 120 and 121 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 123 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 155 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendments 1, 3, 5 to 12, 14 to 25, 27 to 35, 38 to 40, 42 to 84, 88, 92 and 93, 95 and 96, 117 to 119, 122, 124 to 154, and 156 to 170 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 39.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with certain of their amendments.

That Miatta Fahnbulleh, Deirdre Costigan, Laura Kyrke-Smith, Sam Carling, Andrew Cooper, Sir James Cleverly and Zöe Franklin be members of the Committee;

That Miatta Fahnbulleh be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Points of Order

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I mentioned earlier, the Scottish Parliament goes into recess today ahead of the election, yet the Minister has talked about seeking a legislative consent motion. This is an important issue, and I respect the work that has been done, but can I seek your guidance on how these measures can be brought forward in a timelier manner so that we can respect the democratic process of other parliamentary institutions within these islands?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. This is not a matter for the Chair, but those on the Treasury Bench will no doubt have heard exactly what he had to say and will, I hope, ensure that his comments are addressed and taken on board—

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I can see the Secretary of State looking at me and nodding. Let’s take that as a positive.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? We have just had a statement from the Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government on donations. Can you tell me whether the Secretary of State or the Department have given any indication that they propose to come to the House to give a statement and an opportunity for questions on local government reorganisation? I know that Mr Speaker was particularly concerned that a good deal of information has been placed in the media over the last 24 hours about decisions that have been made, and as yet no Members of this House have had the opportunity to scrutinise the Government on those matters.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member has put his point appropriately on the record. I have not been given any notice of such statements, but the Front Bench has no doubt heard his concerns and will respond accordingly.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This House passed the Humble Address so that there is full transparency on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States. That includes the due diligence undertaken by the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team. Yet, in an answer to a written question, Cabinet Office Ministers have now admitted that the people advising on what is to be redacted or deemed in scope are the very same propriety and ethics team that undertook the due diligence. Is that not a massive conflict of interest? What advice can you provide to Ministers on mitigating those conflicts of interest in responding to the House, given that the advice on such matters would normally be provided by the very same propriety and ethics team?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member will know that I am not responsible for the inner workings of the Cabinet Office—that is a matter for the Government. I would, however, say that I know the House awaits with interest further disclosure of material under the Humble Address. I gently encourage Members to wait and see what is released, and should they require further advice at that time, the Clerks will be available.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 9 February, I submitted a named day written question to the Cabinet Office asking if any taxpayer-funded Government payment would be made to Morgan McSweeney or Tim Allan, both of whom had just resigned in the wake of the Mandelson scandal. It was due for answer on 12 February, but the question was ignored.

I tried again to solicit an answer as to whether Morgan McSweeney or Tim Allan would, or will, receive a payout by asking a further written parliamentary question on 17 March, asking specifically when an answer to the original question would be provided. This written parliamentary question was due for answer on Monday. Again, the deadline came and went, and that question was ignored. Ignoring scrutiny at Prime Minister’s questions is routine for this Prime Minister, but it appears that the broader Government are also showing total contempt for their responsibilities to be open and transparent with Members of this House. Can I please seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what recourse is available to Members whose written parliamentary questions are stonewalled by the Government?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is of the utmost importance that Ministers take their responsibilities to this House seriously. I would always expect timely answers to written parliamentary questions. They should be within scope and within the deadline, obviously. The Treasury Front Bench will have heard his concerns. The hon. Member may also wish to raise this issue with the Procedure Committee, which is running an inquiry into written parliamentary questions.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy. I seek your advice. You and the rest of the House will be aware of the deployment of HMS Dragon to the eastern Mediterranean to deal with the conflict in Iran. Most people might not know, though, that HMS Dragon was removed from the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 commitment to be retasked to go to the eastern Mediterranean. I have asked several questions of the Defence team. Most recently, on 9 March, I asked the Defence Secretary whether he could guarantee that we would be able to fulfil that NATO commitment and whether a British ship would deploy on those Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 commitments. He assured me that we will “fulfil our NATO commitments”. However, today it has been reported that the German frigate Sachsen will replace HMS Dragon on that NATO Maritime Group 1 tasking. I seek your advice on whether we can establish that the Defence Secretary comes back to the House to inform us exactly when that decision was taken and whether he inadvertently misled the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The contents of Members’ speeches, including ministerial answers, are a matter for them and not for the Chair. However, he has put his point on the record, and I am sure that the Defence Secretary will no doubt have heard this point of order and will be quick to correct the record if necessary.

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

I would like to make a statement on foreign influence and interference.

The responsibility of protecting our democracy is a duty that every single Member of this House shares. As a Government, we are clear-eyed about the evolving threats we must contend with from those who wish to disrupt our democracy for their own gain and their own twisted purposes. We already have a strong toolkit to detect, disrupt and deter interference, and we are strengthening it through our Representation of the People Bill and counter political interference and espionage action plan. But as threats evolve, so too must our protections. For this reason, I announced in December an independent review led by the former permanent secretary, Philip Rycroft, into foreign financial interference in UK politics. I would like to place on the record my thanks to Mr Rycroft for his thorough, diligent and swift work in rigorously assessing our political finance framework and identifying where further safeguards are needed. The full report from his review has today been laid before the House, and the findings are stark. Mr Rycroft concludes that this country faces a persistent problem of foreign interests seeking to exert influence on, and to interfere in, our politics, and that the threat has become arguably more acute. While he welcomes the measures in our Bill, the report is clear that we need to go further, and I agree.

We welcome Mr Rycroft’s assessment and his wide-ranging recommendations, which cover the regulation of corporate and overseas donations, the need to close loopholes used by some non-party campaign groups, the approach to combating online threats, the importance of ensuring that enforcement agencies have the information and powers they need, and the organisation of Whitehall to ensure that we are best placed to tackle these threats.

In advance of the Commons Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill, we will provide a comprehensive, line-by-line response to all the report’s recommendations. I am clear that, wherever necessary, we will amend the Bill to ensure that our defences against foreign interference are robust. Given the gravity of the threats we face and their level of seriousness, I reassure the House that we will take immediate action on the most serious loopholes set out in the report that allow illicit foreign money into our democracy.

British citizens living overseas have the right to participate in UK parliamentary elections, and that gives them the right to donate to parties or candidates they support. However, the report raises two fundamental concerns about such donations from overseas. First, the report is clear:

“Inevitably, tracing the source of funds offered by individuals living abroad is more complex than for domestic donations.”

Secondly, it raises concerns about the “democratic fairness” of allowing people

“who have chosen to live abroad in order to have their wealth taxed abroad”

none the less to

“have the opportunity to make potentially game-changing donations into British politics.”

I will therefore take immediate steps to implement the report’s recommendation on donations from overseas electors. We will introduce an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to place an annual cap on the total political donations that an overseas elector can make. The cap will be set at £100,000 a year. In the light of the gravity of the issues raised in the report, I am not prepared to allow any window of opportunity in which malign actors based overseas can funnel dark money into our politics. The cap will therefore apply retrospectively, so it will include all donations from overseas electors received from today and all regulated transactions entered into from today.

Once the provisions are in force, any donations by an overseas elector to any political party or regulated entity that exceed the cap for that overseas elector will be an unlawful donation. Subject to parliamentary approval of the amendment that I will table, the recipient of any unlawful donation will have 30 days to return that donation once the legislation comes into force, after which enforcement action can be taken and criminal penalties will apply.

The cap will apply to relevant donations from today in all elections in the UK, including for parties at the upcoming English local elections, Scottish Parliament elections and Senedd elections. In Scotland and Wales, donations to candidates rather than parties are devolved matters, but my intention is to seek a legislative consent motion for our amendments to ensure that there are no gaps in our safeguards. I will speak to my counterparts in the Scottish and Welsh Governments to emphasise my commitment to work together to protect our electoral system right across the United Kingdom.

The second recommendation on which I will take immediate action relates to donations made in cryptocurrencies. Following extensive consultation, Mr Rycroft sets out clearly the deep reservations that many people have about such donations, and his conclusions are clear that

“there is a risk that cryptoassets are used as the vehicle to channel foreign money into the political system in the UK…we should pause the use of cryptoassets for political donations for the time being.”

I accept Mr Rycroft’s assessment that the anonymity inherent in cryptocurrency transactions could make it easier to mask the origin of donations and to evade robust checks on the true source of funds. The clear route that that creates for illicit channelling of money into our politics is unacceptable and undermines public confidence in our electoral system.

In the light of that, I can confirm that the Government will take immediate steps to implement the recommendation made in the report, and we will introduce an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to place a moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency. I want to be crystal clear: as the report recommends, I mean crypto in any amount, including donations of a value that would ordinarily fall below the threshold for control on donations. There are specific risks posed by cryptocurrency donations, such as the risk of rapid multiple small donations being made just below our current thresholds.

The moratorium will remain in place until the Electoral Commission and this Parliament are satisfied that there is sufficient regulation in place to ensure full confidence and transparency in donations that are made in that way. Subject to parliamentary approval, the moratorium will be applied retrospectively to any crypto donations received from today by any political parties and regulated entities. Once the provisions are in force, if a political party or regulated entity has received a donation in the interim, they will have 30 days to return it, after which enforcement action can be taken and criminal penalties will apply. That will again apply to all elections in the United Kingdom. As I have set out, we will work with devolved Governments to secure legislative consent where that is required.

I would like again to express my thanks to Philip Rycroft for his comprehensive, thoughtful and well-reasoned report. It is, and always will be, an absolute priority for this Government to protect our democratic and electoral processes. The swift and decisive action being taken by this Government sends a clear message: we will do everything necessary to protect the UK’s democracy. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Those Members who have come into the Chamber extremely late will not be called to participate in the statement. Members have to be here for the beginning of a statement, not for the last minute of it.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her questions and for her support for this work. The intention is to bring the amendments forward on Report. In advance of those amendments being laid, we will provide a detailed response to each of the 17 recommendations, including the one to which she has just referred.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support and her active interest in making sure that the legislation that follows is as robust as possible. I would be more than happy to make sure that she has a meeting with me or the relevant Minister to discuss her amendments. The report and its recommendations cover some of her concerns, and it is our intention to amend the legislation to deal with those concerns.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As a former elections policy Minister and member of the defending democracy taskforce, may I thank the Secretary of State for launching this inquiry? I also thank Philip Rycroft for his work; it was a pleasure to give evidence to him during that process.

I welcome the spirit in which the Secretary of State has brought forward with urgency the changes that are so demonstrably required. May I ask him two direct questions? If amendments to reflect the Rycroft report are not to be tabled at Committee stage but on Report, will he ensure through the usual channels that the length of time devoted to Report stage reflects the fact that the House will be debating for the first time amendments to the legislation, which were not included on Second Reading? That speaks to the process point made by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly).

If these important new rules are to be policed effectively and properly, there will clearly be additional demands on the Electoral Commission both in terms of power and resource. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of those needs and how will they be delivered in speedy time to mirror the urgency that is required?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I appreciate that colleagues want to be forensic in their questioning, but shorter questions will be very much appreciated. I call Dr Andrew Murrison.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Mr Rycroft’s wide-ranging review makes the non-inclusion of China—or, failing that, its constituent entities—in the foreign influence registration scheme look increasingly bizarre. Will the Government look at this again as a matter of urgency? If it is the case that the FIRS is inadequate to include the state entity or its constituent parts in the meaning of the scheme, will he look to review it and perhaps replace it with something that will achieve the same end?

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

I am going to mention the elephant in the room. Earlier this month, the husband of a sitting Labour MP—the hon. Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid)—was arrested on suspicion of spying for China. The hon. Member was subsequently suspended from the Labour party. It has been reported that she received a donation from her husband’s firm, which presumably would be covered by the Government’s plans. I do not expect any comment on that live investigation, but in the light of that and the historic case of Christine Lee, Labour MPs and the Chinese Communist party, will the Secretary of State confirm that the measures he has announced will apply equally to members of his own party who find themselves compromised by the Chinese Communist party?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) will know that when we plan to mention colleagues in the Chamber, we give them notice.

[Suella Braverman]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

She is saying that she has done so. We obviously do not mention live cases either.

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. and learned Member, as a former Home Secretary, will of course know that I cannot comment on ongoing investigations. The provisions of the legislation that we will bring forward—as with all legislation—will apply without fear and favour to members of all parties, as indeed does the bribery legislation that applied to Nathan Gill, a traitor who was the leader of Reform in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his deep interest in this entire matter. Our intention is to ensure that the safeguards we put in place are robust enough to ensure that no dirty or dark money can enter British politics in any way or from any source. I am always more than happy to continue to engage with him about any specific concerns he may have.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am completely disappointed with myself for not wishing the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a happy birthday today. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is why his question was allowed to be a little bit longer than usual, but hopefully it will not be next time.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I welcome this statement. The public must have confidence that political decisions are made in their interests, not those of wealthy donors. Nowhere is that more important than in relation to the housing crisis, where there are also significant concerns that vested interests are seeking to exert significant influence on policy making. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss my proposed amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to ban developers from donating to politics and restore trust in our planning system?

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

The fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017 was a catastrophe that exposed systematic failures in regulation, in oversight and in the value placed on the lives of people in social housing. Seventy-two people died and hundreds more lost their homes, community and sense of safety. Families are still living with that loss every single day. Tragically, nothing we can do in this place can bring back those 54 adults and 18 children. As the Secretary of State noted in his speech, there is still so much to do to find truth and justice, and to ensure that it never happens again. We owe it to the families, the bereaved, the survivors and those who fought so hard for justice to ensure that what happened on that dreadful night is never, ever forgotten, and that those responsible are held to account.

This Bill is about the memorial and the foundation that will properly fund the community-led work on this memorial. Its narrowness ensures that it is the community who will choose the best way to do this. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for his words, his work and his leadership for truth and justice. I associate myself with his statement that we cannot stop until we have accountability, justice and action for change.

I represent Portsmouth North, a constituency in a working-class city that knows about close-knit communities, resilience in the face of loss and the importance of remembrance. When I was a teacher, before I came to this House, I spent years helping young people to understand not just what happened in the past, but why it matters that we remember. The archive, exhibition and memorial site will serve that purpose for generations to come. We must be able to look at what happened at Grenfell and understand why the safety of every person in every home in every tower block matters. That is a responsibility that falls on all of us.

I pay tribute to the survivors, the bereaved families and the community groups who have campaigned with such dignity, determination and immense courage. They asked only to be safe in their homes, and they were let down horrifically by a chain of failures across government, regulators and industry.

We should be clear about one of the lessons—and, indeed, the title—that comes out of the work of journalist Peter Apps. In his brilliant book, Apps noted how, for years before the fire, experts, campaigners and residents raised warnings about dangerous materials and weak fire safety rules in high-rise buildings. Yet in the atmosphere of deregulation, with the political drive to cut red tape, these warnings, and indeed these people, were repeatedly delayed, dismissed and ignored. Apps shockingly recounts how, when pressure was put on officials to strengthen fire safety guidance, one response was chilling in its bluntness: “Show me the bodies”. The unimaginable tragedy of Grenfell is that the bodies did come.

Seventy-two lives were lost in a disaster that was not inevitable, but the result of choices made over many years to weaken oversight and treat safety regulations as a burden rather than a protection. Cutting red tape may have an attractive ring as a political soundbite, but red tape can also be the crucial regulation that keeps us safe in our homes, our cars, our workplaces and our public realm. With that tragic lesson at the front of our minds, it is right that our attention turns to a memorial. The least we can do is to stand with the Grenfell survivors and campaigners, support their vision and together pass this legislation without delay, so that we remember them not only today and in debates in this place, but into the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind hon. Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Madam Deputy Speaker—please use our names. Madam Chair or Madam Chairman are also acceptable.

Clause 1

Expenditure relating to commemorating the victims of the fire at Grenfell Tower

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.

Representation of the People Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

It is great to speak in a debate that has been so well-tempered, and mostly very thoughtful.

I start by welcoming the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. The Lib Dems have campaigned on that for many decades, so we are delighted that the Government have reached into our policy locker. I also welcome a lot of the work that will be done under this Bill around donor transparency—the idea of knowing our donor. If we are all being honest, many of us, looking at the rules around the donations that we all seek and accept, think that someone could, if they chose, drive a coach and horses through them. When we buy a house or a car, or some other expensive goods, we often have to prove where the money has come from, so it is about time that we had the same rules when it comes to political donations.

In the limited time available to me, I would like to highlight a couple of areas where we need to go further. I am a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, the Chair of which, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), spoke earlier. The Committee has recently covered a couple of points that I implore the Minister to look into in greater depth. Our long-running inquiry on defending democracy looks at exactly the issues addressed in the Bill, and I would like to talk about two of them.

First, representatives from the National Crime Agency came before the Committee and told us that the law as set out—both the current law and that mooted by the Government in their strategy—does not give the agency sufficient legal grounds to investigate suspicious donations. The Minister can look at the evidence given to the Committee, but there are lots of behaviours that appear to be undemocratic, but after discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Crime Agency, they are judged not to meet the threshold for breaking the law, either currently or if the Bill as drafted is enacted, so no further investigations are undertaken. There have been many instances when the National Crime Agency has been looking at something that is illegal and, in the scope of its activities, it has uncovered other activities that look “dodgy”, but it is unable to investigate further. That evidence was set out to the Committee, so the Minister can look at that.

Secondly, there are the issues around cryptocurrency, as other hon. Members have already raised. This is a frontier that is moving incredibly fast. On one hand, cryptocurrency has blockchain, so it is possible to look at the ledger to see where donations have come from. On the other hand, with multiple different cryptocurrencies, the ability to move funds in and out of cryptocurrencies in different jurisdictions on crypto exchanges that are held in jurisdictions with which we do not have good relationships, and the ability to use AI to split large donations into tiny donations, spread them out across hundreds of different crypto exchanges and cryptocurrencies, and then reform them into microdonations, this frontier is moving incredibly fast and we do not understand it. For that reason, the Chair of the Committee wrote to the Secretary of State last week asking for a moratorium on cryptocurrencies, and I urge the Government to look into the issue—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Justin Madders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I will not, because of the time. The British Social Attitudes survey shows that a majority of all political supporters are in favour of proportional representation, and of course, it is pragmatic and will improve our politics—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Florence Eshalomi.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. To help more colleagues contribute to the debate, the speaking limit has dropped to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I do not think I will get the time to say this at the end, so I want to put on the record that the Government should set up a national commission to look at our voting system. Whatever our views on it, we no longer live in a two-party electoral system, and if our electoral system does not acknowledge that fact, we will have even more chaotic and unpredictable election results, as Professor Rob Ford says.

I welcome many of the changes introduced by the Bill. Members from across the Chamber have talked about the principles behind democracy. My view is pretty simple: we should make it as easy as possible for as many people as possible in our democracy to vote. Unfortunately, some political actors have moved us away from that basic principle in recent years with some of the measures that they have introduced. There are always trade-offs in supporting the security and integrity of our electoral system, but the introduction of photo ID in our elections was done in a way that placed an unfair burden on people going to vote, while not doing anything to support the integrity of our electoral system.

In the 2023 election—the first time voter ID was introduced—a nurse in my constituency was not able to vote because she did not have a valid form of ID. I am sure it is possible for people in this Chamber to argue that at some point between her 12-hour shifts, saving the lives of my constituents, she should have found the time to fill in the proper paperwork. That right to vote was taken away from her to stop a problem that the Electoral Commission consistently said basically did not really exist. There is almost no evidence to show that it ever existed, if only because it would be incredibly inefficient to provide that on a large scale. I acknowledge that there are problems with electoral fraud in our democracy, but there is almost no in-person fraud at the ballot box. The introduction of that law therefore had almost no benefit, and it is right that the Government are increasing the range of supported IDs.

In the same vein of making it as easy as possible for people to vote, I would like to support the changes to automatic voter registration, but I acknowledge some of the problems raised by Opposition Members. While I accept that it will not be possible to say that there will be full-coverage automatic voter registration by the time of the next election—that does not, in and of itself, create a problem—it would be good to have reassurance from the Government on two points. First, where there are constituencies that cross multiple local authorities, we must not have a problem whereby half the constituency has automatic voter registration and the other half does not. Secondly, by the time we come to the next boundary review, when it comes to automatic voter registration, there must not be incomplete coverage. Can we please have a commitment to a way of addressing that problem—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

There is a lot to welcome in this legislation that we are debating this evening. In my view, extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds is a statement of confidence in the next generation and a practical step towards a more inclusive democracy. As I have told my constituents, my support for 16 and 17-year-olds getting the vote stems less from their being determined in adult, which has been contested this evening, and more from the need to balance our political debate. With a shrinking birth rate and an ageing population, the electorate are set to become more imbalanced over the coming years, so there is a practical reason for making this change.

I also welcome the Bill’s provisions to improve voter registration and to protect candidates and electoral staff from intimidation and abuse. On voter registration, I particularly encourage Ministers to take seriously the work of the Migrant Democracy Project. I believe we should use this opportunity to extend the franchise to more adult residents, not just younger ones, given that there are 4 million people in this country who cannot vote in a general election at the moment. I also note the Bill’s intention to strengthen transparency and security around political donations. As has been discussed extensively, those are vital changes.

As many colleagues have said, there is something important missing if we genuinely want this Bill to create a fair, secure and inclusive democracy. That is, of course, the decision to not look again at the central mechanism that decides who sits in this House. Under first past the post, millions of people can do everything that is asked of them—they register, turn out and vote in good faith—but still end up without meaningful representation and a sense that their voice truly matters. It is arguably getting worse. In only the past week, many of us have been out on the doorstep at the by-election, and I spoke to many people who were actively debating how to stop a particular party and were using their vote to achieve that particular end, rather than voting for something positive and something that reflected their views and their policy aspirations. Surely we can do better than fighting elections on the basis of the best worst option, which is how so many people see it.

I want to put on the record my support for the work of the APPG for fair elections and to urge Ministers to genuinely look at the call for some form of a national commission on electoral reform, so that modern Britain genuinely considers how we can ensure that every vote counts.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the final Back-Bench contributor, Bell Ribeiro-Addy.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

We know that to sustain a healthy democracy, we have to always look at ways to strengthen it. This Bill seeks to do just that, so I am pleased that the Government have brought it forward. By lowering the voting age to 16, we are expanding democratic participation and taking a vital step to strengthen and renew our democracy.

I have often been sceptical of those who say that young people are not interested in politics or do not understand it enough to vote. To Members of this House who suggest that, I simply ask them how often they visit schools in their constituencies. I have encountered students far younger than 16 who have shown more than a basic understanding of our political system. I regularly visit schools in my constituency and experience at first hand the political intelligence and impressive cross-examination of young people there. Last summer, I was pleased to host my first activism academy, inviting 16 to 18-year-olds to a three-day learning programme to understand what MPs do, how Parliament works, and the ways in which they can get involved. Our young people are politically engaged and understand the weight of the right they are being granted.

While I welcome the change, I am disappointed that it has not been coupled with a robust programme of civic education. While many 16 to 18-year-olds have a firm understanding of politics, without comprehensive political education, those who want more information are forced to seek it elsewhere and will likely resort to social media, which is riddled with fake news. I ask the Minister when they respond to outline what the Government have planned.

I very much welcome the provisions in the Bill that will introduce automatic voter registration, which is an important step to improve voter turnout. I would also like to see the Bill go the way of Australia, where everybody who is eligible to vote has a legal obligation to do so.

Finally, I would like to see the Bill offer more power to the electorate to recall their Members of Parliament—yes, you heard that right. I suspect this is not a suggestion that will make me popular with my colleagues, but I think we should all be more concerned about what our constituents think. At the moment, for an MP to be recalled, they must be convicted of a criminal offence that makes them eligible and they must have exhausted the appeals process. That can take years, and during that time their constituents are not getting the representation they deserve. Unlike recall procedures in other countries, the Recall of MPs Act 2015 does not allow constituents to initiate proceedings, instead relying on criminal criteria being met. Even then, a high threshold of petitioners is needed for a by-election to be triggered.

Over a number of years, MPs have been investigated for criminal offences or gross misconduct, and Members have failed to behave in a standard that is befitting of an MP. They have disgraced themselves, our profession and this House and, most importantly, they have failed their constituents. With trust in politicians at an all-time low, we need to show that we are willing to put it right. This is the Representation of the People Bill; it should seek to strengthen and improve the representation of British people by giving the electorate greater power to hold their MPs to account. The Bill is a great starting point for strengthening our democracy, and I hope the Government will not shy away from going further.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Grenfell Tower Annual Report

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

I start by acknowledging the presence in the Gallery of survivors and relatives of those who died at Grenfell Tower. They have the deepest sympathies of the whole House, and our most profound respect. The fire at Grenfell Tower, which claimed 72 innocent lives, was a terrible moment in British history. We will not forget what happened that night. We must make sure that nothing like it can ever happen again.

The Government accepted all the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s findings, and committed to implementing all 58 recommendations. Everyone deserves a safe, decent home. This requires a new culture of transparency and accountability. Today I can report that we are on target to complete 70% of the inquiry’s recommendations by the end of the year. Since the inquiry published its final report, we have completed 10 recommendations from phase 2, and two outstanding phase 1 recommendations. Today, I will set out the progress that we have made on reforming the construction industry, strengthening fire and rescue services, and improving support for vulnerable people. We will complete all the remaining recommendations during this Parliament. We are also publishing the construction products reform White Paper, building on the proposals we set out in December for a new single construction regulator. Our work goes beyond the inquiry recommendations, because we are determined to secure lasting change across the whole system.

Last summer, we ensured that the Building Safety Regulator had the leadership it needs to do its job well. Lord Roe reformed the London Fire Brigade and is bringing the same determination to making the BSR work. Over time, the BSR will evolve into the regulator the inquiry recommended. We are consulting on that today. We will replace fragmented regulation with clear accountability. Everyone will understand their role and the standards that are expected of them. We have already made changes to get our own house in order. Fire policy now sits within my Department, ensuring that oversight of housing, building safety and fire is properly joined up in Government.

The construction products reform White Paper sets out ambitious plans for modernising the rules. We will make sure that products are safe, and will ensure that everyone meets their responsibilities. These reforms will mean sensible regulation, fit for the future, and confidence in the safety of our homes. We will make sure that people working in construction have the skills that they need. We support the building professions, and there will be rigorous expectations relating to competence and ethics. We have also published a formal statement setting out the path to proper professional regulation of fire engineering.

One of the clearest lessons from the inquiry was the need for better fire and rescue services. I am grateful to the National Fire Chiefs Council and the London Fire Brigade for their work on improving fire and rescue standards. A new national college of fire and rescue will ensure that these improvements continue.

Protecting people means making sure that those most at risk are never left behind. New regulations requiring emergency evacuation plans for high-rise buildings will come into force on 6 April. These will mean that vulnerable people have a plan for safe evacuation in the event of a fire.

Making sure that everyone has a safe home also means tackling wider problems in social housing. Grenfell shone a light on so many wrongs that we are now putting right. Under Awaab’s law, landlords must make urgent repairs where there are serious threats to health. People have more power to hold landlords to account, and we are giving them better access to information, so they can have more involvement in how their home is managed.

Speeding up remediation is one of my highest priorities. Work to remove and replace unsafe aluminium composite material cladding—the same type as on Grenfell Tower—has finished on 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings, with work on most of the rest well under way. We are working with developers, freeholders and local authorities to remove other types of unsafe cladding as quickly as possible, and are monitoring thousands of high-rise residential buildings to make sure that they are making progress.

We have also strengthened local resilience and emergency preparations. All five local resilience forum trailblazers have been funded, and the four chief resilience officers have been appointed. We are also setting up a national system for local areas to learn from each other, so that the lessons of Grenfell lead to lasting improvements in crisis response.

It is only right that we are transparent about how we address the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s carefully considered recommendations. We will continue to inform Parliament each quarter about progress on those recommendations. Alongside this statement, I am publishing our annual report on gov.uk. We will continue with these reports until every recommendation is complete. The Government’s new public dashboards for inquiry recommendations will continue to be updated quarterly.

Throughout this work, the Government have acted on the inquiry’s findings to address the culture that allowed failure to happen, yet we recognise that for many, something is still missing. For the bereaved, survivors and the wider Grenfell community, the need for justice is deeply felt, including decisions on criminal charges. The Metropolitan police investigation, which is independent of Government, is one of the largest and most complex in the force’s history, but I know that the slow progress is painful for those who have already waited too long for the justice that they deserve.

Nothing can erase the grief suffered by the Grenfell community. Their loss, strength and determination to change things for the better guide all that we do. Failures of government under successive Administrations made this tragedy possible. That brings an enduring duty to honour the memory of the 72 men, women and children who lost their lives. As part of that duty, I can inform the House that we are introducing legislation to provide the spending authority required to support the memorial commission and the community in building and maintaining a lasting and dignified memorial.

I know that there is still much that we need to do, but there has been real progress. The foundations for lasting change are in place: a reformed regulatory system, empowered residents, accountable landlords, stronger professions and greater transparency. Our objective is clear, and we remain true to it: never again. Never again should people go to bed unsure that their home is safe. Never again should public institutions fail in their duty to protect. Never again should the voices of residents be ignored.

The actions that we are taking honour those who died at Grenfell, support those who survived and serve our shared obligation to make every home a place of safety, dignity and trust. In that spirit, I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and welcome the tone that he has adopted. It is quite right that we should all work cross-party on this matter to speed up the outcomes that we are all looking for and that we work together in a way that shows respect to the families and those who lost their lives in this tragedy.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the single construction regulator. The BSR became a stand-alone body, separate from the Health and Safety Executive, on 26 January. Work is progressing on bringing into the BSR all the other aspects that will allow it to function in due course as the single construction regulator, which the inquiry identified as such an important part of fixing the building safety system. Lord Roe is overseeing rapid improvement in the performance of the BSR even as I speak.

The hon. Gentleman asked about remediation. It is welcome that 91% of high-rise residential or public buildings with unsafe ACM cladding have been remediated, but we recognise that there is further to go. Further acceleration plans are available, and I am happy to write to him if he would like access to that information.

Similarly, the hon. Gentleman asked about key dates in implementing further recommendations. We will continue to publish quarterly reports so that the whole House can scrutinise the progress that the Government are making with these recommendations. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), and I are meeting regularly with the families and affected groups to ensure that we hear their concerns directly and can feed them straight into the system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell)—take your time.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

As we approach the ninth anniversary of the Grenfell tragedy, bereaved survivors in the community are still rightly advocating for truth, justice and change on behalf of the 72 people who lost their lives in an entirely preventable fire. I pay tribute to all those who have joined us again in the Gallery today and those who are watching this statement. I know that the whole House will agree with the Secretary of State that criminal accountability cannot come soon enough. In the meantime, I welcome this annual report and the progress being made in many areas, from building safety to social housing management.

We know that, too often, lessons have not been learned from public inquiries and the implementation of recommendations has not been transparent and accountable. I would welcome an update from the Secretary of State on the proposal for an oversight mechanism to ensure that recommendations are actually implemented.

When it comes to the performance of Kensington and Chelsea council, many residents are highly sceptical about progress given that, according to the independent regulator, it has a seriously failing housing department and, according to the local government ombudsman, the third worst record on complaints. On the Lancaster West estate itself, there is uncertainty over the budget for completing the promised works. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea will remain under close central Government scrutiny and that he will do all he can to broker a solution so that residents of Lancaster West—the people who least deserve to suffer—do not wait years more for their own safe and healthy homes?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate him on being such a powerful voice for his constituents and all those who have suffered and died as a result of the tragedy of Grenfell Tower. He has rightly earned respect from Members across the House for the dignified way in which he has carried out his role as a representative for the community.

The Government are very keen to make sure that we learn the lessons and implement the report. We will continue to publish quarterly reports to update the whole House, and indeed members of the public, on the progress that we are making. Work is continuing across Government, including in my Department, on setting up a national oversight mechanism to make sure that the recommendations of this and other inquiries do not just sit on shelves, but get implemented and inform improvement in the way that we deliver public services, including, in this important case, fire safety.

I had the opportunity to visit the Lancaster West estate with my hon. Friend. The Government have made £25 million available to allow work to continue on upgrading and improving the estate. He will be aware that we have concerns about the council’s delivery capacity and cost control. I am in contact with the leader of the council about those concerns in the hope and expectation that we can address them together, but the interests of the residents of the estate must come first for all of us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats’ thoughts, like those of everyone in the House, are primarily on the 72 tragic losses of life that occurred in the Grenfell disaster. I welcome the spirit of cross-party discussion that the Secretary of State and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), have set out. I endorse the points made by the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell).

I welcome many of the recommendations and the actions being taken by the Government. In passing, I note that they apply to chartered architects. I have begun the training now required of all architects as a result of the Grenfell report—I declare an interest as a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects—which brings home, in a salutary way, the failure of the professions, successive Governments, industry and regulation on a tragic and horrendous scale.

One of the key recommendations in Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report, set out in the typically neutral language of a High Court judge, is a request for the Government to reconsider

“whether it is in the public interest for building control functions to be performed by those who have a commercial interest”.

Sir Martin Moore-Bick raised similar questions on the construction product testing system. The White Paper says:

“Unethical manufacturers were able to exploit systemic weaknesses with appalling consequences”.

The follow-up Morrell-Day report on construction product testing highlighted that there were conflicts of interest. The White Paper also mentions “virtually absent” enforcement. Those are all shocking parts of this tragedy.

My first question is therefore whether that decision has been taken. We would go further and say that commercial interests have no place in building control inspection and product testing. My second question—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I know that this is a very sensitive issue, but the hon. Member has two minutes and he is now over by 35 seconds. Timing is everything, so will he please ask his next question quickly?

[Gideon Amos]

I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. My second question is about those excluded from the building safety fund. Tens of thousands of families are in buildings under 11 metres or living with products that might last an hour in a fire under PAS 9980—that is the wrong standard. We need all highly flammable materials and all buildings that have fire safety risks to be remediated. I ask the Secretary of State to address that question.

Local Government Finance

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

I beg to move,

That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2026-27 (HC 1604), which was laid before this House on 9 February, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2026-27 (HC 1605), which was laid before this House on 9 February, be approved.

[Steve Reed]

Before I begin, I notify the House that the local government finance report has been updated with small corrections on pages 7 and 13. These corrections have been passed on to the House in the proper way ahead of today’s debate. Like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its careful consideration of these reports.

I believe in local government, because I have lived it. As a councillor and as a council leader, I saw the difference that councils make to people’s lives. Local government is the part of our democracy that is closest to people and the things that they care about the most—their family, their community and their home town.

Labour took office after 14 years of ideological cuts imposed on local government. The Tories devolved the blame for their failure in national government by imposing £16 billion of cuts on councils and local communities. Even worse, they targeted the worst of those cuts deliberately on our poorest communities. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), was filmed standing in a leafy garden in Tunbridge Wells boasting about how the Conservatives had stripped away funding from struggling towns so that they could play politics with public money.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

I was council leader at St Helens for five years before coming here in July 2024. I just want to say thank you to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government, and the Ministers in post before them, for the engagement, because the relationship now is different from what it was before. The conversation we have had since the provisional settlement has been constructive—it has been good; it has been done in good spirit—and I am very grateful for the result that we have for St Helens. In 2010, St Helens got £127 million a year from the last Labour Government, but when the Conservative party opposite left office it was £13 million a year. Does the Secretary of State share my absolute shock at the brass neck of Conservative Members?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Brief interventions can be just as productive as lengthy ones.

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. What he is seeing is the realignment of funding with deprivation, and that is as it should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for recognising that funding is now following deprivation. He will find the answer to his question in the homelessness strategy, which I will come to. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, you are indicating with your wrist that I need to speed up, so I will make some progress.

On children’s social care, the system was again left on its knees. That is why this Government are driving forward the biggest transformation of children’s social care in a generation by rolling out the Families First Partnership programme. We have backed the programme with nearly £3 billion over four years, including an investment of over £2.4 billion in this multi-year settlement. It gives local authorities, police and health partners the tools to provide families with the right support at the right time, shifting the system from expensive statutory provision towards early intervention and preventive support. It will help families stay together, divert thousands of children from care and transform the outcomes and wellbeing of children across the country.

The investment in the Families First Partnership programme marks a milestone in transforming the children’s social care system, but we recognise that the children’s social care residential market is fundamentally broken. Local authorities are being pushed to the brink, while some private providers are making excessive profits. This cannot—and it will not—continue. Instead, we are working to reduce reliance on residential care and move towards a system rooted in family environments through fostering. Last week, the Government set out a plan to expand fostering for 10,000 more children by the end of this Parliament. The evidence is clear that taking this approach will be better for children and better for the local authorities that provide the services. Using the new powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we will explore the implementation of a profit cap in the children’s social care placement market to ensure that public money delivers value and care, not profiteering.

It is obvious that the current special educational needs and disabilities system is not working for children and families. We know that it is not working for councils either, as they are seeing funding for neighbourhood services diverted into a broken system. The Government are bringing forward ambitious reforms that will create a better and financially sustainable SEND system, built on early, high-quality support for kids with SEND to improve their time at school and maximise their potential throughout life. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will set out the details of those reforms in the upcoming schools White Paper.

Crucially, we are taking action now to support local authorities as we move towards that reformed system. We will deliver this in phases, the first of which will address historic deficits accrued up to the end of 2025-26. All local authorities with SEND deficits will receive a grant covering 90% of their high-need deficit up to the end of 2025-26. This is subject to local authorities securing the Department for Education’s approval of a local SEND reform plan.

On homelessness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) has said, we know that temporary accommodation is a growing financial pressure on councils, with near record levels of rough sleeping and declining social housing stock. The final settlement also provides a £272 million uplift to the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant, taking total investment delivered through the settlement to £2.7 billion. On the ground, that will mean families off the streets; kids out of temporary accommodation and instead living in safe, secure homes; and people’s lives put back on course. We are matching that landmark investment with our national plan to end homelessness, led by the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, to put the full might of the state behind preventing homelessness before it happens.

Today’s settlement is about keeping a promise—a promise to repair the broken foundations of local government, and a promise to put the heart back into our communities. When the last Conservative Government slashed councils to the bone, the consequences were severe: the services people use every day were undermined, streets became filthy and people’s lives got tougher. The hard work of councillors, mayors and frontline staff kept vital services running during those hard Tory years, and we thank them for the work they did in those circumstances. Our aim is a future where councillors, working with their communities, have the freedom to innovate—rebuilding public services and investing in high streets, youth clubs and libraries. We are fixing the foundations so that councils and their communities can build the public services, renew the high streets and shape the future they want to see.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before I call the shadow Minister, I will announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026. The Ayes were 362 and the Noes were 107, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Holocaust Memorial Day

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for not just his opening remarks but his commitment to this cause, both in this House and outside it. The Holocaust was a unique event in human history in which the state waged external war with expressly genocidal aims, combined with the industrialisation of killing as a transcontinental enterprise.

The Holocaust matters to us today because we owe it to the dead, and to the living who went through that horror, to commemorate their suffering; because we should pay tribute to those still with us, as well as those who have gone before us and who brought an end to the Hitler regime, whose raison d’être was the mass murder of Jews and others whom they saw as less human; and, perhaps most importantly, because we owe it to ourselves to remind each other of where the poison of racist hatred takes humanity.

Holocaust Memorial Day matters more this year, because there has undoubtedly been an appalling rise in antisemitic violence and in the public and private abuse of Jews. If the Holocaust teaches us anything, it is to stand up and call out hatred and racism. There is now a barely hidden campaign to drive Jews out of public and civic life in Britain—a campaign, I am sad to say, in which Members of this House are active participants or complicit. The eruption of antisemitism in Britain since 7 October 2023 has underlined how supposed progressives and anti-racists are fine to speak out, unless it is about hatred of Jews. Campaigners have marched alongside open supporters of fascistic Hamas and shouted slogans advocating a global war against Jews. They have done all this because they believe that their new-found allies are merely “anti-Zionist” and not actually antisemites at all.

The arguments that dominate today’s antisemitic discourse are superficially more sophisticated, and are increasingly shaped by the melting pot of extreme ideas that is provided by social media, but the reality is that the far right, the far left and the Islamists still rely on the old tropes of hidden Jewish power and manipulation, Jewish blood lust, and Jews as the killer of Christ. They now hide this behind the words “Zionism” or “Israel” and hope that people will not spot the difference. Through social media, many of these ideas have seeped into the discourse of what is supposedly mainstream.

In 2019, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) told the Bruges Group of the supposed threat of “cultural Marxism”, an idea that has direct Nazi roots. It is a phrase that the former MP Andrew Percy warned others against using. In 2024, Liz Truss was forced to remove a bogus and antisemitic quote attributed to Mayer Rothschild from her memoirs. Then there is the case of Reform’s recently announced candidate for Gorton and Denton, who, like the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), appears not to believe that ethnic minority children born here can ever be British or understand British humour. This is the antisemites’ baseline argument about the otherness of Jews, retooled for the use of today’s insurgent far right and far left.

It behoves all of us to call out the issues in our midst, and there has been too much silence in this regard. Members of this House have been involved in stoking the fires of Islamist hatred, antisemitism and Holocaust inversion. Perhaps some will make very fine speeches about Holocaust memorial, as they did last year, but we should not allow ourselves to be fooled. One Member of this House, writing about the middle east on social media, invoked images of the gas chambers, a barbaric creation used for the industrialised and systematic murder of Jews—Jewish men, women and children. That trivialises the Holocaust.

However, there is not only Holocaust inversion; there are outright antisemitic tropes. Members of this House have shared posts on social media of images of political leaders being “dog-walked” or controlled by Israeli politicians or the Zionist lobby. This draws on stereotypes of Jewish power and control, and alludes to some kind of malign Jewish influence. These classic antisemitic tropes have existed for thousands of years, but are continually being repackaged and updated to fit the contemporary political context.

In the Budget debate, the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) talked about her constituents “bleeding…dry”, because of our Government’s support of Israel, and we also heard a Member of this House talk about Israel’s—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I want to make sure that protocol has been followed. First, we obviously do not mention Members by their names, not that the hon. Member has done that. She has, however, referred to a few Members by their constituencies, so can I have her assurance that she let them know that she would be referencing them in the Chamber during this debate?

[Joani Reid]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I can confirm that I have written to all the Members I have included in my speech.

Another Member talked about Israel’s “blood-soaked tentacles”. There is no safe limit of antisemitism that we should tolerate, and no requirement for us to apply weaker moral tests of what is an acceptable opinion because of the religious heritage of our interlocutor. Human rights apply universally, and so do human responsibilities. We need to enforce those responsibilities before it is too late. The warning lights are already flashing. We do not have to look back to the 1930s to see how democracies can crash under the burden of political extremism and contempt for the rule of law, because we see that in the news every day.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to speak in this debate and to follow such passionate speeches, including that of the hon. Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid). I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) not only on such an eloquent introduction to this debate, but on such an interesting history of the persecution of Jews in Britain for the best part of 1,000 years. That was very informative and provided a much-needed context for our discussion.

Many Members spoke about the individuals, charities and organisations working tirelessly to ensure that the nation and schoolchildren in particular are educated about the Holocaust and will not forget it. As the average age of Holocaust survivors is 87, it is very prescient that the Holocaust Memorial Day theme is “Bridging Generations”. The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust plays a vital role in ensuring that remembrance is not limited to those whose families were murdered in the Holocaust, but includes those who, having been mercilessly killed by the Nazis, were left with no one to speak their names. The legacy of victims with no surviving family or relatives must be safeguarded through education, remembrance and memorial.

If the words “never again” are to mean anything, they must represent a shared commitment to challenge hatred wherever it appears. Sadly, this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day comes against a backdrop of rising antisemitism. Jewish people in the UK are facing unacceptable and rising levels of hatred and violence—and I know from speaking to my constituents in Winchester just how isolating and frightening that can be. No one should feel anxious or scared when going to their place of worship and no one should be denied the freedom to express their religious beliefs. It ought to be a national shame that we need security measures outside places of worship, but with the murder of two members of the Jewish community just last year outside their synagogue, those measures are, unfortunately, necessary.

For so many British Jews, Holocaust Memorial Day is deeply personal. It is a day of grief, of remembrance and of resilience. Primo Levi wrote:

“The story of the death camps should be understood by everyone as a sinister alarm-signal.”

While hatred and division persist, that alarm signal must be in our minds today, and must remain in our minds for generations to come. On my way to the Chamber today, I walked past the very moving exhibition in Parliament of the replicas of the shoes of people who were killed in those death camps. Some of those shoes are of little children. That is a stark and haunting reminder of what the Holocaust required. The Holocaust depended on the systematic dehumanisation of its victims, casting human beings as non-human to justify the unjustifiable. To murder millions, the Nazi state had to treat even little children not as children with names, families and futures, but as something less than human.

In this Chamber and in our communities, schools and neighbourhoods, let us all stand with Jewish communities, because antisemitism has no place in our country or abroad. We must do all we can to ensure that Jewish people can practise their faith freely, live openly and participate fully in our society without fear. We remain today, and will always remain, committed to creating a society that never stops learning from the lessons of history.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Prinsley]

It has been an immense privilege and honour to listen to the many brilliant speeches in the House this afternoon. I thank anybody who said anything kind about me.

I have made some notes about what people said—there is no time to go through all of them, but I must mention one or two. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) spoke with such gravitas; I think she has a future as a distinguished rabbi, should she ever wish to go out of politics, which she perhaps will not. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) spoke about Peter Kurer BEM, who is my sister-in-law’s father. He will be so chuffed to learn that he was mentioned here in Parliament, and I thank the hon. Member for that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) spoke about the Windermere children. We all know that story, but Samantha, who was a University of East Anglia student, became a close friend. She is one of the granddaughters of a Windermere boy, so it was great to hear about that. We will never forget the Heaton heroes.

If there is time, let me quickly explain Bevis Marks, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake). Bevis Marks in the City of London should actually be “Bury Marks”, but I have to stop.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

No, you don’t!

[Peter Prinsley]

Oh, there is time! In that case, I will tell hon. Members the story. The great Abbey of Bury St Edmunds had large landholdings all over the country, including land in the City of London. Wooden stakes were put out each year to define the land, which were called the Bury marks. “Bevis Marks” is simply a spelling mistake.

Local Government Reorganisation

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for her questions. I reassure her that I have imposed nothing. I took representations and listened to local councils, and today I am merely responding to the representations that I heard. Most councils will go ahead. It is the councils themselves that have reassured me that they have the resources to go ahead with elections and deliver the reorganisation that is so important to improving frontline services for local people. I am acting on the information that they have given me; I am imposing nothing. She will, I hope, appreciate that it is not appropriate or possible for me to comment on legal proceedings.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Today’s announcement raises three questions about waste, incompetence and trust in democracy.

First, on waste, councils across the country have already committed significant public money in good faith to preparing for these elections, which the Government repeatedly assured them would go ahead. Cancelling them at this late stage is not cost-free. Will the Secretary of State commit today to reimbursing councils in full for every pound spent as a result of these cancellations, or are local taxpayers now expected to pick up the bill for ministerial indecision?

Secondly, on incompetence, will the Minister—who repeatedly told hon. Members, including at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on 11 November and during oral questions in the Chamber on 24 November, that elections scheduled for May 2026 would go ahead—explain why a U-turn happened a few weeks later, in December? What new information came to light between November and December that prompted that change of heart?

Finally, on trust in democracy, councillors in West Sussex will serve for six instead of four years. That is not the “short period” stated by the Secretary of State. In 2021, the world was a very different place. We were at the peak of the Boris bounce. The electoral map and the world have changed dramatically since then. When public trust in politicians is low, it can never be right for those who are up for re-election to decide whether they want to face their electorate. Today’s decision undermines trust in elections and in democracy. Surely the Secretary of State can see that this plays into the hands of those who want to undermine our democratic institutions.