Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Angela Rayner Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is time to get Britain building again. It is what working people expect of this Government and it is what we will deliver. Our Planning and Infrastructure Bill is critical to achieving economic growth, higher living standards and a more secure future for our country. This is our plan for change in action: action to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament and a fast track of 150 major infrastructure projects—more than were decided over the 14 years of the previous Government. The Bill is also key to making Britain a clean energy superpower, bringing down bills for working people and securing our energy supply in a more uncertain world.

Make no mistake: the Bill will transform the lives of working people and Britain’s prospects for years to come. It is hugely ambitious, and rightly so. Everywhere I go, I hear the same frustrations: “We just can’t build anything any more,” and, “We desperately need more homes and more development.” For too long, the answer has always been no, which has choked growth, leaving working people worse off and leaving Britain behind, with trains that do not work, roads that are clogged and not enough homes being built.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I gently say to the Secretary of State that none of my constituents is saying, “In Shropshire, we don’t need any more homes. We don’t want any more homes.” They just want to be consulted. They want the homes in the right place, at the right scale, with the right architecture and in the right numbers. They want their voices listened to through a local plan—not ignored, as the current Government are doing.

[Angela Rayner]

I gently say to the right hon. Member that it is this Government who have brought forward mandatory local plans, and it was his Government who did not. For too long we have left home ownership to collapse, with homelessness soaring and over 160,000 children in temporary accommodation. This is a country that simply is not working.

The time it takes to secure planning permission for major projects has almost doubled in the last decade, and it now takes more than four years. It is slower and more costly to build big infrastructure in England than in France and Italy. No new reservoir has been built for over 30 years. There are countless other examples, such as the critical new road improvement scheme for Norwich, which would create jobs and speed up journeys yet was held up for two years by unsuccessful legal challenges. We have the ridiculous situation where 139 desperately needed houses were delayed in Bingley because of a row over the speed of balls at the neighbouring cricket club.

The result of such delays has been fewer homes built, higher energy bills, and lower productivity and growth. For 14 years, the country has been crying out for a Government with the will to change that. Successive Tory Prime Ministers promised that change, but when the bold action was demanded they were too afraid to stand up to their Back Benchers.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Can the Secretary of State outline what powers in the Bill she will use to take on developers and make sure that they build based on the planning permissions they already have?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member will know as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that we have already made changes through the national planning policy framework, and we have our new homes accelerator programme, which is already providing thousands of homes. The Bill is about building on those powers to ensure that we get Britain building. It was his Government who did not build the houses and the infrastructure that we desperately need and who were too timid to face down the vested interests. This Labour Government are on the side of the builders, not the blockers, and we are saying, “No more.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There is nobody who does not welcome the 1.5 million houses target, and it is important that we see those homes. Part of infrastructure is electric vehicle charging systems. Many people I ask about electric cars say that they are not getting one because there are not enough charging points. Clause 43 indicates that there will be more EV charge points. Is that something the Secretary of State will share with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland? I also understand that some of the standard accessibility requirements do not meet the standards. Can she confirm that that will be changed?

[Angela Rayner]

The Bill will streamline the approval of street works needed for the installation of EV charge points, removing the need for licensing where works are able to be authorised by permits, because we recognise that people need that critical infrastructure as part of these reforms.

We have taken more action in eight months than the Opposition managed in 14 years of government. We have reversed the damaging changes made by the Tories to the national planning policy framework and have brought green belt into the 21st century. We have ended the de facto ban on new onshore wind, and we are supporting local authorities with an additional 300 planning officers. Just this month, we set out reforms to put growth at the heart of the statutory consultee system.

Many would have said, “Stop there and allow the reforms to bed in,” but Britain cannot afford to wait. We have been held back for too long by Governments without the will to drive change. This landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill goes even further and faster.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on championing the expansion of affordable and social housing in particular. I ask her to take account of another excluded group: Gypsies and Travellers. They have been systematically discriminated against by the Conservatives over 14 years. There is no assessment of needs or statutory duty to provide sites any longer, and they are not in the strategic planning provisions. Can we rectify that in the Bill so that we have a level playing field for everybody who is in need of housing?

[Angela Rayner]

We are working with local authorities, and the Bill includes provision for strategic authorities so that we can look at where we have sites and ensure that people are accommodated. It is for local authorities to be able to do that.

The Bill starts with a quicker and more certain system for big ticket infrastructure projects. It will slice through the bureaucracy and speed up transport projects. It will overhaul how Government decisions on major infrastructure projects can be challenged, so that meritless cases will have one, rather than three, attempts at a legal challenge, stopping cases from being dragged endlessly and needlessly through the courts.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Somewhere knocking around in the system is a Government press release that says that the National Grid Sea Link project is being obstructed by too many objections. The reason that it is being objected to is that the National Grid wants to build a 90-foot-high converter station the size of five football pitches on the Minster marshes in Kent. We must have the right to object to that kind of project.

[Angela Rayner]

I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is not a loss of the right to object. In fact, we are strengthening and clarifying those processes as part of the Bill. I will say it again: there will be a quicker and more certain system for big ticket infrastructure projects. The Bill will slice through bureaucracy and speed up transport projects. What it will not do is allow meritless cases to have three attempts at a legal challenge. It will stop cases from being dragged endlessly and needlessly through the courts. It will begin to strip away the unnecessary consultation requirements that do nothing to improve applications and do not meaningfully engage communities, but slow down the delivery of infrastructure that will benefit communities in the future. It will create greater flexibility so that projects can go through a more appropriate and faster planning route.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The Secretary of State will understand that when a number of nationally strategic infrastructure projects are in one area, that has a huge impact. In my constituency we are looking at a strategic rail interchange, a major solar plant and the East West Rail project. Will she reassure my constituents that their voices will be heard under the Bill? Will she reassure us that when these issues go to the Planning Inspectorate and to the Secretary of State, the cumulative effect of national projects that are not present in local plans will be considered before decisions are taken?

[Angela Rayner]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we will consult on the draft we have put forward. We want better and quality engagement as part of the Bill. Our changes will ensure that everyone works together early on, and that we have proportionate and faster decisions. We will make sure that the Government’s infrastructure policies are updated at least every five years, but the measures in the Bill are not the limit of our ambitions.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State is outlining the process by which essential infrastructure needs to be built, but she will forgive me for coming back to Heathrow expansion. I would be extremely grateful if she could set out for us—perhaps not today, but later or in writing—the exact process for considering the expansion of Heathrow under the new legislation. In addition, could she explain why those who will be affected by compulsory purchase will now be removed as consultees at the pre-application stage?

[Angela Rayner]

I will not get into the details of any particular planning process, but I will say that the Bill is about better and quality engagement. Of course, statutory consultees will continue to be engaged, but what we do not want is major infrastructure projects continually being blocked for years and years. People have been speaking about some of these projects for decades, and we still do not have the connectivity that we desperately need.

We are open to strengthening the Bill, and we will give serious consideration to proposals that further our objectives. We will continue to engage with colleagues across the House, as well as with business and communities, on what might be done about existing requirements that are not working as they should. We are clear that where once the answer was always no, to get Britain building, to drive growth and to deliver opportunity, the answer must now be yes.

The Bill is also geared towards another crucial pledge: building the new homes that we need. We will boost house building in England by streamlining planning decisions.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the steps being taken to streamline the system and get more homes built. That, of course, includes social and affordable housing. Does the Secretary of State agree that that would go some way to helping the 160,000 children who are stuck in temporary accommodation?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the debate back to why we are all here and why we are in this mess in the first place. Over Christmas, when we all got to see our family and friends, I was thinking about the 160,000 children in temporary accommodation. During the general election campaign, one thing I was clear on was that we have to move forward to build the homes that people desperately need—behind every single one of those statistics is a family or an opportunity that is not being realised—and one of this Government’s missions is to strengthen that.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

If the Government are going to build 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament, and we are nine months into the first year of this Parliament, by my calculation they should have built 225,000 by now. Will the Secretary of State confirm how many homes have been built?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman has just given us an example of the mess the previous Government left us in. House building was going backwards, and they were nowhere near the figures they promised. That is why, within the first few months of us getting into power, we changed the national planning policy framework. We have been consulting, we have been working with industry, we have had a new homes accelerator—thousands more have been put into the system—and £2 billion for the affordable homes programme has been announced today.

We will boost house building in England by streamlining planning decisions, introducing a national scheme of delegation that sets out which types of application should be determined by officers and which by planning committees. Local democratic oversight is crucial to ensuring good development, but the right decisions must be taken at the right level to get Britain building.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Deputy Prime Minister is giving an excellent speech about the importance of building homes. She mentioned the importance of getting young people out of temporary accommodation, which I wholly support. Does she agree that it is not just about temporary accommodation but about families who are suffering from overcrowding, families in unsuitable accommodation and families at risk of homelessness, with the anxiety that brings? My inbox is full of that from residents in Harlow.

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Not only have the Government inherited a really dire house building situation—we will turn the tide and build 1.5 million homes—but we have seen homelessness levels rise. The previous Government promised to end section 21 no-fault evictions but did not; we are going to do it. We will also bring in Awaab’s law, which will protect people in the rented sector. There is so much wrong with our housing system. The Government are starting to turn the tide on that. This Bill is one crucial step in the overall picture of what we are doing to improve circumstances for people, whether they want to buy a home, whether they are in a home or whether they are in privately rented accommodation.

I turn back to the planning committees. We will bring in new controls over the size of planning committees, increasing the pace and quality of decision making while maintaining robust debate. We are introducing mandatory training for planning committee members to improve their expertise while allowing councils to set their own planning fees to cover their costs, with a promise that that money will be reinvested in the system to help speed it up.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

I welcome much of what the Bill will do. It will speeding up the planning system, which as a chartered surveyor who has practised in planning is I know desperately needed if we are to get more houses built. However, the one area of the Bill that I have concerns about is what she has just come on to. If local people feel completely overridden by their planning system, they will feel very hard done by. If we are to override local people, we might just as well have a nationally directed planning system rather than a local planning system. Will she think carefully about that balance?

[Angela Rayner]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this area, and he is absolutely right to say that there has to be a balance; that is why the Bill sets out that controversial schemes will still go to full planning committees. I am sure he would recognise that there are other areas where local planners could do some of that work. If we set out the rules clearly, we can make the process better, so that where there is more need for that engagement—with the mandatory training for those on planning committees—we will get a better result. I hope the hon. Member will continue to engage with us in that vein.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the £2 billion in extra money for social homes being announced today and the 150 new nationally significant infrastructure projects for which the Bill will pave the way. We are the party of the builders, not the blockers, so more importantly we need more builders. That is why the £600 million announced for a new army of 60,000 more brickies, electricians and engineers is very welcome. Can I suggest that Rochdale’s Hopwood Hall college, which has a brilliant record in training construction workers, is included in this project?

[Angela Rayner]

As my hon. Friend says, 10 colleges of excellence were announced as part of the £600 million funding and 60,000 new apprenticeships. By giving our young people opportunities, this is part of making work pay. It will be fantastic, and I hope my hon. Friend will be engaged in that process. My colleagues in Government will have heard what he said. As a fellow Greater Manchester MP, I feel that Greater Manchester definitely should be part of that process.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

To pick up on the tone of the comments made about blockers, I knock on many doors in my constituency and find the narrative about nimbys blocking housing and people not wanting homes built in their constituency to be untrue. People recognise the need for additional homes for themselves, their children and the growing population, but what they worry about is infrastructure. This Bill does not include mandatory infrastructure targets, and that is why residents are so sceptical. Given their inability to get GP appointments at the moment, with additional homes and additional demand they will struggle even more. How can we reassure them that those needs will be met in the future?

[Angela Rayner]

Let me be clear: I do not call people of this country the blockers. I do not see that when I am out and about; I never saw it during the general election campaign. People want this development. The hon. Member makes an important point about infrastructure; people often say that the infrastructure is not there. This Bill streamlines infrastructure. I think it goes some way towards doing the work. It is not everything; we have to do a lot of other things, like we have done with section 106, for example. Under the previous Government, we often did not get the benefit of that, because people wriggled out of their obligations. I appreciate the tone of the hon. Member’s remarks. This Government are going to make sure that we build the houses that people want, where they want them, with consultation and with the critical infrastructure that they need.

At the same time, we will unlock land for housing and infrastructure by reforming the compulsory purchase process, ensuring that important projects that deliver public benefits—such as many more social and affordable homes—are given the green light, and that compensation paid to landowners is not excessive.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I warmly welcome the changes to hope value in order to build more affordable homes, but will the Secretary of State clarify whether that will also apply to wider projects for community benefit such as playing fields? Udney Park in Teddington in my constituency has lain derelict for over a decade as successive owners have wanted to develop it but cannot do so. There is a huge demand for community playing fields and the community wants to be able to access that land. Will she assure me that the hope value changes will apply much more broadly than just to affordable housing?

[Angela Rayner]

I hope that the hon. Member continues to engage, because we want to make sure that we can go as wide as we possibly can so that we get the land that is needed and we can build the houses that we desperately need. We are also doing work within the devolution Bill, which will be coming forward, around compulsory purchase on other assets of public value that are not for building on. That touches on the point that the hon. Member has raised.

We are also strengthening development corporations to make it easier to deliver the housing projects we need. Those corporations delivered previous generations of new towns. This Labour Government are building on our post-war legacy by giving them enhanced powers to help deliver our next generation of new towns. These will be communities built with local people in mind, with the affordable housing, GP surgeries, schools and public transport that working people expect and need.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

The Deputy Prime Minister and I have a mutual passion: she too is a great fan of His Majesty’s work on the built environment and ensuring the high quality of design. One concern that a lot of people have is seeing the quality of design eroded, so that we see the same design in Kent as we do in Staffordshire. Would she look at what could be done to enhance design codes, because it feels like they have been eroded not enhanced?

[Angela Rayner]

The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of our time sparring at the Dispatch Box, but I am glad that I am on the Government side now. [Interruption.] I beg to differ.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about design, and we are covering that in our new towns. He is right that His Majesty is also passionate about this; I think everybody is to be honest—nobody wants to live in an ugly home. Design is important, and it is different in different places: Yorkshire is different from Manchester, which is different from Devon. Ensuring that design is part of the process is crucial, but it must not prevent us from going forward. That is why we have clarified some of the issues around “beautiful” in the NPPF that were holding things up. I want to reassure Members across the House that we expect safe homes, beautiful homes and homes fit for the future in terms of renewables and energy efficiency.

To meet our net zero ambitions and drive growth, the Bill will speed up approvals for clean energy projects. Some projects currently face waits of over 10 years—another legacy of Tory failure. With a first ready, first connected system replacing the flawed first come, first served approach, and with £200 billion of investment unlocking growth through “Clean Power by 2030”, our reforms will protect households from the rollercoaster of foreign fossil fuel markets and usher in a new era of energy independence, in which despots like Putin can no longer have their boot on the nation’s throat.

Britain’s electricity grid needs a 21st century overhaul to connect the right power in the right places, which is why our plans for vital energy projects needed for clean power, including wind and solar projects, will be prioritised for grid connections, with those living within 500 metres of new pylons getting up to £250 a year off their electricity bills. We recognise the service of these communities in hosting the infrastructure that will lower everyone’s energy bills.

[Bradley Thomas]

The Deputy Prime Minister makes an important point about the access to energy that all our communities require. Particularly prominent in all our minds, at a time when we recognise that food security is national security, is the displacement of high-quality agricultural land and, in effect, energy becoming a new cash crop. Will she assure the House that we are not at risk of falling into that trap and that we will not displace high-quality agricultural land for energy?

[Angela Rayner]

I can assure the hon. Member—I gave him two chances; I must like him—that we will protect high-quality agricultural land. Farmers have used land in various ways throughout the decades and generations, and we will protect our high-quality agricultural land.

Finally, I want to turn to the measures in the Bill on development and nature recovery. We have some incredibly important habits and species in this country, and the Government could not have been clearer in our manifesto that we are committed to improving outcomes for nature.

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a fantastic speech and a great piece of legislation that will turbocharge our plans to restore nature at scale and build the homes that we need. Will she say a little more about how the Bill could help us to restore our precious chalk streams, such as the River Pang in my constituency?

[Angela Rayner]

The Bill is about how we can do nature recovery and protect nature. We think that it is a win-win. Under the previous Government, all sorts of problems held us up, and we tried to work with the then Government but they would not work with us. That is why they are now on the Opposition Benches and we are on the Government Benches, building.

I am sure that all Members across the House share the goal of improving outcomes for nature, but I am also confident that no one here thinks that the system is working well. Any set of rules that results in a £100 million bat tunnel is an outrage. I know that Opposition Members agree, but they were determined to take a clumsy approach to fixing nutrient neutrality that risked ripping up environmental protections and would not have worked.

Thanks to a collaborative effort with organisations across the development and environmental sectors, our Bill sets out a better way. That is a win-win for development and for nature. The Bill establishes a nature restoration fund that will allow developers to make a simple payment to discharge their environmental obligations, and to crack on with the building of the homes and infrastructure projects that we desperately need. Natural England will use that money to take the action needed not just to avoid further decline in our natural world, but to bring about improvement.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is reassuring to hear that the right hon. Lady is so passionate about restoring nature. How, then, can she explain the fact that planning permission, which the local council had refused, has been granted for a battery energy storage system on the green belt in Walsall?

[Angela Rayner]

I will not comment on individual projects, but we have been clear about nature recovery and protecting our natural spaces, as set out in the Bill. That is how we will put talk of newts and nutrient neutrality behind us and get Britain building, while stopping the pointless pitting of nature against development.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

The problems caused by the previous Government’s failure to tackle nutrient neutrality mean that north Cumbria faces significant house building issues. I strongly welcome the Bill’s provisions on the nature restoration fund. Will the Department work with the local authority to develop mitigation schemes that will get house building going in north Cumbria in the interim?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that long-standing issue. The Government are already engaging with the local authority in her area. She is absolutely right: for too long the previous Government were not listening. In the other place, and when I was in opposition, we tried to work with them on these issues and they refused.

The Bill is our reform to mark a new era for Britain. We are turning the page on the years of defeatism and decline in which this country of extraordinary talent and capability was held back by a system that was hobbled at every turn. With these landmark reforms, we are not just putting more money into the pockets of working people and strengthening communities; we are taking a major step forward to secure our country’s future for the long term. We are getting Britain building again, getting growth going and paving the way for national renewal. This is real delivery and real change to transform the lives of millions of people for years to come. I commend the Bill to the House.

Point of Order

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I am sure that his comments have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I assure the House that no one has had a preview? The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is coming to the House. Of course, we regularly consult stakeholders, but no one has had a preview before the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Secretary of State for that point of clarification.

Bills Presented

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57

Secretary Angela Rayner, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Ed Miliband, Secretary Heidi Alexander, Secretary Steve Reed, Secretary Jo Stevens and Secretary Ian Murray, presented a Bill to make provision about infrastructure; to make provision about town and country planning; to make provision for a scheme, administered by Natural England, for a nature restoration levy payable by developers; to make provision about development corporations; to make provision about the compulsory purchase of land; to make provision about environmental outcomes reports; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 196) with explanatory notes (Bill 196—EN).

Sentencing Council (Powers of Secretary of State) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Robert Jenrick, supported by Mrs Kemi Badenoch, Rebecca Harris, Dr Kieran Mullan and Helen Grant, presented a Bill to provide that the Sentencing Council may not issue sentencing guidelines without the consent of the Secretary of State; to give the Secretary of State the power to amend sentencing guidelines prepared by the Sentencing Council before they are issued; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March, and to be printed (Bill 197).

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

12. What steps she plans to take to ensure that new housing developments have adequate access to primary health services.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

Through the revised national planning policy framework, this Government have strengthened the existing system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide the necessary infrastructure that communities expect and deserve, including health services. We will robustly hold developers to account for delivering on their obligations, and we will support local planning authorities to do so.

[Chris Coghlan]

Westvale Park in my constituency is a new housing development of 1,500 homes. Its residents have been waiting seven years for a GP surgery, and the existing GPs cannot expand their capacity. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can ensure that Westvale Park gets the GP surgery it has been promised, as well as the other associated infrastructure and primary healthcare services for new developments across my constituency?

[Angela Rayner]

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, which is why this Government have said that infrastructure must come as part of our 1.5 million homes. The Housing Minister will be happy to meet him.

[Ben Maguire]

Cornish house prices far exceed local wages, and in areas such as Rock and St Minver, 40% of houses are second homes. Meanwhile, more than 3,000 homes are set to be built in towns such as Bodmin by 2030, but the only GP surgery building is currently running at 150% capacity, despite a new building having been promised for years. Will the Secretary of State please ensure that national planning guidance mandates that primary care and education infrastructure is put in place before developments are started, preventing developers from later breaking their promises?

[Angela Rayner]

Again, I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, this Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that we get that infrastructure and that development is a truly plan-led system. The policy framework is meant to do that, and we intend to consult on future policy changes—including a set of national policies for decision making—this spring.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Last week, the Government produced new guidance about building on green-belt sites, particularly the golden rules about having sufficient infrastructure in place for health, education and transport. At the request of the Planning Inspectorate, Sheffield now has to provide sites in the green belt to hit its housing targets. Will the Secretary of State make arrangements for the Housing Minister to meet the leader of the council and local MPs to discuss how those arrangements can be delivered, and liaise with her colleagues in other Departments to ensure that: the resources are available to enable that to happen?

[Angela Rayner]

I can do better than that: the Housing Minister is going on Thursday.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

When new housing was built in Mickleover under the last Government, residents were promised time and again that they would get a new GP surgery, but it never happened. What can this Government do to ensure that when new homes are built, residents have the GP access they need?

[Angela Rayner]

Again, I totally sympathise—I think this is why people have resisted some of these planning applications a lot of the time. That is why our Government are absolutely committed to ensuring, through the revised national planning policy framework, that infrastructure, including GP surgeries, is available when new housing is built.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

We know that through the section 106 agreement progress, the planning system is very good at levying funds for new NHS facilities, but NHS Property Services has not always been effective at building those facilities out on time. What assurance can the Secretary of State give the House that across Government there will be an appropriate focus on ensuring that NHS Property Services delivers the facilities that planning has secured?

[Angela Rayner]

The shadow Minister is absolutely right—it was his Government who did not do enough in this area. We have said that we will strengthen section 106 planning obligations, and we have also set up a unit within my Department to ensure that we hold developers to account and work across Government to ensure that infrastructure is built.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

2. Whether the number of houses recommended by the new towns taskforce will be in addition to the housing targets set in the national policy planning framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Satvir Kaur (Southampton Test) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

In a written ministerial statement on 21 November, the Government committed to taking steps to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end and to reinvigorate commonhold to make it the default tenure for new flats. Today marks the first step in the transition, with the publication of the “Commonhold White Paper”, which sets out the Government’s proposal for how a reformed commonhold model will operate, based on the recommendations of the Law Commission.

[Satvir Kaur]

The last Government’s disastrous changes to permitted development rights saw over 100,000 office and retail units converted into unsafe and unsuitable homes. In Southampton, they have left people living with office wires still hanging from the ceiling. Some have no windows, and others’ homes are no bigger than a car parking space. I welcome the Government’s excellent progress on renters’ and leaseholders’ rights, but will my right hon. Friend go further and confirm when permitted development rights will be reviewed, tighter regulations imposed and, where necessary, unsafe conversions banned?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. We acknowledge that there has been criticism of some homes delivered through permitted development rights—particularly those that enabled commercial buildings such as offices and shops to change use to residential—and the Government are committed to keeping development rights under review.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Help to Buy helped 350,000 young first-time buyers and the stamp duty discount helped 640,000 first-time buyers get on the housing ladder with discounts of up to £11,000. Both are now scrapped. Is the Secretary of State pulling up the housing ladder behind her?

[Angela Rayner]

It is staggering that the shadow Secretary of State says that, given that so many people now cannot get housing because his Government failed to meet their housing targets. We will have a mortgage guarantee scheme and we will build 1.5 million homes so that young people and other people can get the houses that they deserve.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I will try again. The Government’s manifesto promised to preserve the green belt. Then grey belt came along, which was supposed to be a few garage forecourts. Now it turns out that grey belt will mean 640 square miles of green belt—the size of Surrey—are to be built on. Is this simply another broken promise?

[Angela Rayner]

I will also try again. Under the Tories, the number of homes approved on greenfield land increased nearly tenfold since 2009. Labour will be strategic in grey belt release, and we will have a brownfield-first policy.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

T2. Many families in my constituency live in new housing estates where the developers have made their profits, sailed off into the sunset, and left the roads and services in an unacceptable state and unadopted. What steps might the Government be able to take to push local authorities like Northumberland county council into action to accept their responsibilities and adopt those estates?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

On 8 February, the Court—a grade II listed landmark in Chorleywood in my constituency—burned down in mysterious circumstances. I met the three local councillors—Councillors Cooper, Hearn and Reed—on Friday to discuss the matter. I am not asking the Secretary of State to comment on this specific case, but will she confirm that where listed buildings are destroyed without permission, there should be a presumption that they are rebuilt brick by brick to how they were before the destruction?

[Angela Rayner]

I am sorry to hear about that particular case, and I am happy to meet the hon. Member to get the details; absolutely, listed buildings are an important part of our landscape.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

T8. At nearly every single one of my advice surgeries, leaseholders in Stratford and Bow have told me appalling stories of disrepair, high service charges and no accountability from management agents, after years of broken promises of reform by the Conservative Government. I am pleased about today’s announcement on leasehold reform for new builds, but will the Minister assure my constituents about what concrete action will be taken for existing leaseholders?

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I rise to gently follow up on a critical request for urgent help that I made in November. In September 2023, Kirklees council temporarily closed Dewsbury sports centre for safety reasons due to reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. The centre remained closed until 5 November 2024 when the council unilaterally decided to permanently close the centre without investigation. I raised the issue with the Secretary of State for DCMS and have written to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for assistance. Will the Deputy Prime Minister facilitate an update for me on the issue?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member makes an important point around safety and RAAC in our public buildings. We are absolutely committed to do all we can, despite the legacy given to us by the previous Government. I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris).

Islamophobia: Definition Working Group

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

The Government have established a working group to provide a definition of anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia, chaired by the right hon. Dominic Grieve KC.

The group will advise the Government on how to best understand, quantify and define prejudice, discrimination and hate crimes against Muslims. Details of the group’s terms of reference and membership will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Incidents of anti-Muslim hate crime are at a record high in England and Wales, and the group’s work will support wider efforts to tackle religiously motivated hate crime, delivering on the Government’s plan for change mission for safer streets.

Alongside drawing on their own expertise, members will engage widely to ensure the definition accounts for the variety of backgrounds and experiences of Muslim communities across the United Kingdom.

The group’s proposed definition will be non-statutory and will seek to provide the Government and other relevant bodies with an understanding of unacceptable treatment and prejudice against Muslim communities.

The group’s proposed definition must be compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of speech and expression—which includes the right to criticise, express dislike of, or insult religions and or the beliefs and practices of adherents. This work will support these important freedoms, ensuring that they are preserved.

The Government will continue to work with communities and other partners to heal the divisions of recent years and renew our country together. The working group announced today is an important step in that mission.

[HCWS487]

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

This Government accept that the final report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry must be the catalyst for long-lasting systemic change. All Members of the House, past and present, will have shared my anger over its shocking findings. The inquiry chair, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, and his dedicated team uncovered damning evidence of political, corporate and individual failings going back decades. These led to the loss of 72 innocent lives, 18 of them children, on that terrible night in June 2017. It was a deadly betrayal and a national tragedy that must never happen again. I repeat today what the Prime Minister said in September to the bereaved families, the survivors and those in the immediate Grenfell community, some of whom are with us today in the Gallery: on behalf of the Government, the British state and those responsible, I am very sorry.

The inquiry report made 58 recommendations, of which 37 were directed at the Government. The Government accept the findings of the report and will take forward all the recommendations. Our response published today addresses each in turn and goes further, to set out our wider reforms of social housing and the construction sector. As we make these vital changes, we will publish quarterly reports on progress and update Parliament annually. The Government are open to scrutiny and will remain accountable for their actions.

We will prioritise residents and protect their interests, make sure that industry builds safe homes, and provide clearer accountability and enforcement. To have anyone anywhere living in an unsafe home is one person too many. That will be our guiding principle, and it must be that of anyone who wants to build or care for our homes. That will be an important part of the legacy of Grenfell.

For nearly eight years, despite their pain, the bereaved, survivors and members of the community have campaigned with determination, not wanting anyone to suffer as they have. It is fair to say that the building system we have today is not the same as the one that was justly criticised in the report—the one we had leading up to the tragic events of 2017. But it is also clear that there is still much more to do, so I can announce that we will create a single construction regulator and a chief construction adviser. We will set out our detailed plans later this year.

I am accepting the recommendations to professionalise fire engineers and assessors, to licence principal contractors and to review the role of building control. Where standards are clear and industry has clarity and certainty on how individuals and firms must behave, it encourages investor confidence. This will improve the safety of residents, and support the construction industry and our mission to deliver economic growth.

We have pledged to build 1.5 million homes over the Parliament to tackle our country’s acute housing crisis, as part of our plan for change to improve the lives of people across the country. It is vital that these future homes, as well as existing homes, are safe and of high quality, and I welcome how some parts of the industry have stepped up to lead the necessary change in culture and approach.

But lest we forget, Sir Martin found that just about every institution and organisation charged with keeping the tower safe and protecting those who called it home failed. His most devastating conclusion was that every single death was avoidable. The inquiry uncovered serial incompetence and negligence, complacency and inaction, and blatant dishonesty and greed. The organisations that failed included the Government and regulators; the Department I now lead, which failed to act on known risks and ignored, delayed or disregarded matters affecting the safety of life; and the manufacturing companies, including Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex, whose products were used to refurbish the tower. The report found that they acted with systemic dishonesty as they mis-sold and marketed them. Their disgraceful mercenary behaviour put profit before people and exploited the regulatory regime to evade accountability, with fatal consequences. To my disgust and their shame, some have shown little remorse and have refused even to help fix the building safety crisis that they did so much to create.

Companies must be held to account for their role in Grenfell. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office is announcing today that she will use new powers under the Procurement Act 2023 to investigate Arconic, Kingspan, Saint-Gobain as the owner of Celotex at the time and other organisations. I expect swift, decisive action and will ensure that progress is reported.

But we must do more to make sure that the right rules are in place. To this day, critical gaps persist in how construction products are regulated. Only with rigorous reform will we transform the culture that allowed the tragedy to happen. To achieve that, we are also publishing today a construction products reform Green Paper. It will help us to cut out the rot in the sector and allow competence to take root. Safety will come first and a culture of responsibility will prevail. We will celebrate those who lead the way, and those who fall short will suffer the consequences. In the future, rogue companies will be held to account. Our Green Paper sets out our ideas for prison time for executives who break the rules and unlimited fines where safety is put at risk. We will do whatever it takes.

Across the sector, there is appetite for change. That change is overdue, and we will lead it. I pay tribute to the enduring resilience and resolve of the bereaved families, the survivors and the members of the immediate community. Their campaigning has seen new legislation passed, which members of this Government supported, that has made our public realm more secure. Everyone is safer thanks to the Building Safety Act 2022, which set new standards for the construction of residential buildings in England. The Act introduced the Building Safety Regulator and provisions for high-risk buildings. All people living in flats now know that the entrance doors, external walls and structure of their homes are in scope of fire risk assessments thanks to the Fire Safety Act 2021. There are new duties for owners and managers of buildings and blocks of flats. The Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 ensures that landlords are held to account.

I have challenged the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to demonstrate how it has changed by becoming an exemplar landlord and local authority. I will be keeping a close eye on its progress, and we will listen to its tenants to assess whether it has succeeded.

We are pushing ahead with the remediation acceleration plan to fix all buildings around the country that still have dangerous cladding, and where building owners fall short, we will act. We are introducing regulations to improve the fire safety and evacuation of disabled and vulnerable residents in high-rise and higher-risk residential buildings. As of 1 April, ministerial responsibilities for fire functions will move from the Home Office to my Department, in line with the inquiry’s recommendation that we bring responsibility for fire safety into a single Department.

People and their safety are front and centre of our inquiry response, but there remains a stark and terrible reality: the bereaved, the survivors and members of the Grenfell community are still waiting for the justice they need and deserve. Justice must be done. The ongoing Metropolitan police investigation is among the biggest it has ever undertaken, and the Met has the Government’s full support. In September, the Prime Minister rightly said that this tragedy poses questions about what social justice means in Britain today, and whether the voices of working-class people, those with disabilities and those of colour are ignored and dismissed. I am here to say that we will not be that country. We will be a country where decent housing, security, safety and peace of mind are shared by all and are not just the privilege of a few.

The lessons of the inquiry should not have taken a tragedy to unearth. We will honour the memory of those who lost their lives by bringing about meaningful change in their name—change that will make life better for everyone. We are under no illusions about the scale of the task at hand. The responsibility to deliver lasting change is the privilege of leadership. That will not be done by Government alone, but we will put our voice and power in the service of the cause that the Grenfell community has continued to fight for nearly eight long years. Together we will bring about the transformational change that the people of this country deserve. It is with that admiration for the spirit of the Grenfell community and the determination to honour it that I commend the statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

May I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement and the Government’s response to the phase 2 report?

I echo the Deputy Prime Minister’s sentiments, which are shared across the House. The tragedy of Grenfell, which claimed 72 innocent lives—54 adults and 18 children—will always remain a scar on our national conscience. I thank Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his team for their work. I join the Deputy Prime Minister in offering my deepest apologies to the bereaved, the survivors and the Grenfell community for the failures that led to that horrific night in June 2017—we all remember where we were that night. I also thank them for their constant and constructive campaigning.

The inquiry’s findings—decades of systemic failure, dishonesty and negligence—are a damning indictment of successive Governments, regulators and industry. The Government’s response, with its acceptance of all 58 recommendations, is a step forward, and I welcome the commitment to action. The creation of a single construction regulator, the appointment of a chief construction adviser and the consolidation of fire safety functions under one Department are long overdue reforms. So too is the focus on professionalising fire engineers and reforming the construction products sector, which the inquiry exposed as riddled with systemic dishonesty from firms such as Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex.

The Green Paper on construction products reform is a promising start, but it must deliver real accountability. Unlimited fines and prison sentences for rogue executives and, where appropriate, Government officials, cannot remain mere rhetoric. Ambition must be matched by urgency and scrutiny. Nearly eight years have passed since Grenfell, yet thousands still live in buildings with unsafe cladding and other fire safety defects. Although I welcome the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has accepted the majority of the recommendations, why has she not accepted the inquiry’s recommendation for a single regulator to oversee the testing and certification of construction products, leaving that instead with conformity assessment bodies? I remind her that the Building Research Establishment, which is itself a conformity assessment body, was strongly criticised for its conflicts of interest.

The remediation acceleration plan is welcome, but its targets of assessing all buildings by July 2025 and completing works by 2027 relies heavily on developers stepping up voluntarily. What actions will the Deputy Prime Minister take if they do not comply? Will she work to deliver solutions for non-qualifying leaseholders and those at risk as a consequence of other fire safety defects? This House needs concrete assurances that no resident will be left behind. I question the phased approach to implementation stretching beyond 2028. Justice delayed is justice denied. The Grenfell community has waited long enough for change. Why must they potentially wait another parliamentary term for full delivery?

What discussions has the Leader of the House had with parliamentary colleagues on the establishment of a public inquiries Joint Committee to monitor the implementation of public inquiry recommendations? What is the timetable for the new publicly available record on all public inquiry recommendations since 2024? On social housing, the extension of Awaab’s law and new standards are positive, but the Government must go further to address the inquiry’s wider lesson. Residents’ voices were ignored. Tenant empowerment must be more than a panel or a campaign; it needs legal teeth to ensure landlords act on concerns swiftly.

Justice demands accountability. The Metropolitan police investigation has our full support, but the pace must quicken. Those who profited from cutting comers or were criminally negligent must face consequences—not just fines but criminal charges where evidence allows. Grenfell must be a watershed—a legacy of safety, transparency and respect for every resident. I make our clear commitment to work with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government, on a cross-party basis, to meet that promise.

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his comments and the way in which he makes them. I hope genuinely that we can work together to continue this piece of work. I recognised in my statement the work of the previous Government, through the Building Safety Act and other measures, and we will continue to work in that vein.

I hope that the shadow Secretary of State recognises some of the work that we are already doing. We have brought forward a significant amount of legislation on social tenancy, on empowering tenants through the Renters’ Rights Bill, on protecting leaseholders, and on our remediation acceleration plan. The Government will deliver those legislative changes as soon as parliamentary time allows. The legislation commitments are detailed in the plan. That includes creating certainty on buildings that need remediation and on who is responsible for remediating them; making obligations for assessing and completing regulation remediation clearer, with severe consequences for non-compliance; and giving residents greater control in situations of acute harm where landlords have neglected their responsibilities.

The shadow Secretary of State asks about a single construction regulator. We accepted that recommendation in principle, but the single regulator will deliver the functions recommended by the inquiry, with two exceptions to avoid conflicts of interest: setting the rules for construction products and policing its own compliance. We will consult on the design of the regulator in the autumn.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

Today is yet another long, exhausting day for the loved ones of the victims of Grenfell, who are still having to fight for justice nearly eight years on. I welcome the Secretary of State’s response and look forward to the Select Committee’s scrutiny of the Green Paper and the proposals for the single construction regulator.

If we are honest, however, what the Secretary of State has outlined will not tackle the root cause of the systematic ignorance of tenants’ concerns—that toxic stigma at the heart of our social housing sector. What steps is she taking to ensure that tenants have a voice in the social housing sector and are shown respect when they raise concerns for their families?

We must never forget that 41% of the victims of Grenfell were disabled. That figure underlines the collective failure of the system to protect those in need. The Government’s commitment to residential evacuation plans for disabled people in high-rise buildings is a welcome step forward, but I would be grateful if the Secretary of State clarified how the Government intend to make residential personal emergency evacuation plans—PEEPs—enforceable if the responsible person fails to identify the vulnerable resident. I am also pleased that funding has been allocated for that in the social sector, but in reality disabled people live in all types of housing. Will she commit to ensuring that disabled people in the private rented sector have the same access to evacuation plans as those in the social sector?

None of the families present in the Public Gallery should have to be here. The tragedy in 2017 happened in the holy month of Ramadan, and as we approach Ramadan this week—a time that should be dedicated to reflection, healing and togetherness—too many families are still fighting for justice. No family member present should have to spend their time demanding accountability when they should be focused on recovering from their trauma. I pay tribute to them for their tireless efforts, and pledge to continue to be a voice for them in their fight for justice without any more delay.

[Angela Rayner]

I know that my hon. Friend, as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, is committed to the rights of social housing tenants. As she outlined, the social housing system has not been fit for purpose, and those failings contributed to the Grenfell tragedy. We are driving up standards in social housing through stronger regulation and enforcement measures, strengthening tenants’ voices and improving access to redress. Those reforms will ensure that landlords are held accountable for the quality of the homes and services that they provide.

At the heart of the new regulatory regime is the requirement for all landlords to treat tenants with fairness and respect. Social landlords are required to understand and provide information and support that recognises the diverse needs of their tenants, including those arising from protected characteristics and language barriers. The Government will lay regulations as soon as possible this year on the social housing provider funding made available for residential PEEPs. We will direct the regulator to set standards on the competency and conduct of staff to ensure that tenants are treated with respect.

At a national level, we have extended the social housing residents panel to help ensure that tenants’ voices and experiences inform policy development. We will keep a new regulatory system under review. We will evaluate its effectiveness by 2028 to ensure that it is delivering the improvements we need. We will set out further measures to strengthen residents’ voices in the long-term housing strategy later this year.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Liberal Democrats stand firmly with the many bereaved family members, as well as the immediate community, friends and neighbours, as they mourn the 72 people, including children, who tragically lost their lives in 2017. Any steps regarding changes to the building will be a deeply personal matter for that community, and I know that the Secretary of State will approach any decisions about the future of the building with due respect for the local community, survivors and victims. We therefore welcome the Government’s decision to work with the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission to design a memorial, and we urge the Government to approach the discussion with respect and sympathy for those who suffered, as I am sure the Secretary of State will do.

As we approach eight years since the Grenfell fire, Liberal Democrats are concerned that there are still thousands of people in the UK living in buildings with dangerous cladding. The Grenfell inquiry provided a detailed look at the facts leading up to the night of 14 June 2017, including looking at the underlying causes of the fire, where mistakes were made, the condition of the tower and the responses of the public and the emergency services. On the recommendations to the architectural profession, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I am a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects.

There are lessons to be learned by ever authority in the land. We recognise that the previous Government provided funding to start the process of dealing with cladding, which is slowly being allocated, but it is now time to accelerate that vital work to make all buildings safe. We are concerned that too many developers and building owners are passing the cost of remediation work on to tenants and leaseholders, which puts many at serious financial risk.

Liberal Democrats endorse all 57 recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry phase 2 report by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, including the creation of legally enforceable orders to remediate premises so they are safe, on pain of criminal sanction. However, we need to take further steps to guard against commercial interests overriding safety, as they did in both the testing of materials and the enforcement of building regulations. We would like to see more done to ensure that commerciality will not, shockingly and disgracefully, override interests of safety ever again.

It is time to invest in our housing stock so that the cladding is dealt with. It is time for justice for the victims and for all those living in unsafe housing. Lib Dems stand ready to work across parties to do achieve that.

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Member for his commitment and support in taking forward the recommendations that came from the inquiry. I thank him for his comments about ensuring that we take decisions about the future of Grenfell in the most sensitive of ways. I absolutely agree with him, and I am committed to taking the next steps respectfully and carefully with the community. I continue to support the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission as the community choose a design team to work with them on designing a memorial.

I agree that it is a priority for us to work at pace because the work is urgent. We are working as quickly as we possibly can. Some of the inquiry recommendations are wide-reaching and some will require further work, including public consultation, before they can be delivered. However, where we can work quickly, such as with the machinery of Government change—moving responsibility for fire to my Department—we are committed to doing that.

I hope the hon. Gentleman heard my words on the acceleration of remediation and our action plan. As I hope was reflected in my response, I agree entirely with his comments about commerciality not taking precedent or having any control over safety. Safety must come first and this Government are committed to that.

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

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her statement today and the Prime Minister for his statement on 4 September, which made it clear that the lessons from Grenfell are central to this Government’s missions. Today is another painful step towards truth, justice and change for the bereaved families of the 72 people who lost their lives at Grenfell, the survivors and the community in my constituency of Kensington and Bayswater, many of whom have joined us today. I pay tribute again to their strength and resilience.

The fight for justice, now nearly eight years long, will continue after today, and every day, until we have criminal prosecutions and true accountability for those responsible, including those companies referenced in the inquiry report. I know the Government have looked seriously at the inquiry recommendations, and I welcome the commitment to meaningful change across all of them, but too often recommendations from public inquiries fail to be implemented. Indeed, if the lessons from previous fires had been learned, including at Lakanal House in 2009, then lives would have been saved—this was avoidable. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure me that the Government will consider a strong oversight mechanism to ensure accountability for implementing what has been set out today, so that it lasts beyond any one Government and leads to real change?

Will she also provide further detail on how she plans to ensure accountability for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, given their culpability before, during and after the fire? The council’s culture desperately needs to change and there needs to be an improvement in the quality of services in our community today.

[Angela Rayner]

I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way he has constructively challenged and worked with us on behalf of his constituents. I know this report has great personal significance for his constituents, and I pay tribute to his dedicated work as an advocate in calling for truth, justice and change for the Grenfell community.

I agree that robust oversight of the Government’s implementation of the response is essential for this, and for all public inquiries. The system needs to be improved and we are taking forward the inquiry’s recommendations on oversight. We will create a publicly accessible record on gov.uk of recommendations made by public inquiries since 2024, and we will consider making that a legal requirement as part of a wider review of the inquiry’s framework.

On the Grenfell inquiry recommendations, my Department will publish quarterly progress updates on gov.uk until they have all been delivered. We will report annually to Parliament to enable Members to scrutinise our progress and hold us to account.

On my hon. Friend’s comments about the council, the council failed in some of its most fundamental duties to keep residents safe, to listen to their concerns and to respond effectively when disaster struck. The council was right to apologise, but it is clear that more must be done. I have welcomed the council’s commitment to improvement and culture change, and I have set my challenge to the leader of the council to ensure that those improvements are a reality felt by the council’s residents. I will continue to engage and keep an eye on that progress.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. All our thoughts are with the victims and their families. I know the Secretary of State will keep us up to date about the permanent memorial. However, the big failure that she has not spoken about was the testing regime for the products that were put on Grenfell, and on buildings up and down the country. Firms deliberately cheated the testing regime system, so products were signed off as safe. Will she undertake to overhaul safety mechanisms and the testing regime for products, so that buildings, both the ones we have already and those built in the future, will be safe for the residents who live in them?

[Angela Rayner]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. The Government are committed to a system-wide reform of the construction product regime, ensuring that we address the significant gaps that the Grenfell inquiry and the independent review of the construction product testing regime have exposed. The construction products Green Paper that we have published today is a significant step forward towards a construction products regime that has public safety at its heart. I hope we can continue to work across Government and across the House to ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose for the future.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State go a little further than she did in her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell)? It is good that she will have a publicly accessible record of recommendations. Will she commit to what the charity Inquest and many others have asked for, which is a national oversight mechanism—a body that collates, analyses and follows up on the recommendations of inquiries and inquests? Otherwise, there is a real danger that these recommendations and others will gather dust on the shelf.

[Angela Rayner]

I heard directly from members of the Grenfell community their call for the Government to introduce a national oversight mechanism. We recognise that this goes wider than Grenfell and that it is an important issue for other communities and families, such as those affected by covid-19 and the blood scandal. We are considering that in the year ahead as part of measures to strengthen public inquiries, and the Government will listen to the views of the affected families as part of that consideration.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

The Grenfell fire was an appalling tragedy, but it also threw a blanket of uncertainty over countless residents in many of our constituencies who are trapped in cladded properties. When I hear the Deputy Prime Minister talk about a new regulatory regime and change, I confess I feel very nervous that any changes to the regulatory regime will throw further uncertainty over those who are still trapped in their homes. Can she assure the House that any move she makes will not create further uncertainty about the standards to which buildings need to be remediated? I also highlight the case of my constituents in Harold Wood, who had their buildings assessed by a fire risk assessor who was subsequently struck off. Those people, who thought they were going to be released from that terrible stasis, are now back to not knowing where they stand, so will she please look into those concerns?

[Angela Rayner]

I hope that what we are announcing today will bring clarity to the system. One of the things that came out of the phase 2 report was about the system being disjointed. Bringing clarity will hopefully ensure that people understand what they are meant to do—what their legal obligations are—and that we expect them to do it; if they do not do it, there will be serious consequences.

I also point to the remediation acceleration plan. I completely understand that many people are still in buildings that are unsafe, which is unacceptable. That is why this Government are taking action. On the Harold Wood case, I am happy for the hon. Lady to meet the Building Safety Minister about that.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her important statement. The people of Grenfell were treated badly because of who they were, what they looked like and how much they earned. We say that 72 people were killed in Grenfell, but the police are holding ashes for which they have no name. Nobody should have to go through this; the families should never have to go through this. This should never happen again. Does she agree that, as well as the chief executive officers of the companies, all the people in the council who treated the residents badly and did not listen to them, because of what they looked like, must be held accountable? Everybody needs to be held accountable.

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. At the heart of the new regulatory regime is the requirement that all landlords treat their tenants with fairness and respect, and take action so that the services they provide have fair and equitable outcomes. Social landlords are required to understand and provide information and support that recognise the diverse needs of their tenants, including those arising from protected characteristics. That has not been so in the past, and, if I am honest, it does not feel like it is the case today when I speak to residents of the community. That is why I have pushed the council in that particular area and why this Government are bringing forward legislation that says we respect people. Whether they are social tenants or private tenants, they deserve a safe and secure home and to be treated with dignity and respect.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement, and the moves towards centralised regulation and improved safety generally. Does the report not serve as a single act of shame for this country? As she just said, it reveals that the safety and quality of social housing has been considered to matter less, because the people who live in social housing have been considered to matter less. Should that point of view, which has been in place since the decline in building standards in the 1960s, not be a matter of deep national repentance?

As the Deputy Prime Minister seeks to tackle that, has she spoken to or is she continuing to speak to her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? There is a cost to making sure that we build to a high standard, as we did immediately after the war, while also expanding the number of social rented homes, particularly in parts of the country where build costs are more expensive, such as London and the Lake district.

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he articulated that point. I am still dismayed to this day by archaic attitudes towards people in social tenancy. I was a social tenant for a very long time and grew up in a council house. The issue is the way that these people were treated, especially after this report. I ask anyone who works in social housing to read the report—or at least the executive findings, if they do not want to go through the chapters that I went through. Sir Martin outlines the horrifying way that people were treated. That is a shame for our country, and we must do better. Hopefully, the legislation we are bringing forward will bring about a cultural change.

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that social housing should be of high quality, safe, affordable and warm, and this Government will continue to ensure that. Safety will not be compromised in our building 1.5 million homes; nor will building 1.5 million homes compromise our ability to bring up to standard homes that are not up to standard. We have all seen the reports, and we have all seen on television programmes that show people still living in damp, mouldy properties. That has to end.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I also welcome the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister. The people in my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham stand shoulder to shoulder with the people who lived in Grenfell Tower, who have suffered hugely. The pain is still felt throughout the whole community. I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) highlighting again the culpability of the local council and the contractors. I know from my own experience that there is much for the council to do to improve its respect for, and the way it deals with, people living in social housing.

I pick up on the point made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) about disabled people, 15 of whom died in Grenfell Tower because they had no personal emergency evacuation plan. I, like her, welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to introducing regulation to improve the fire safety and evacuation of disabled and vulnerable people, but when will we see the details? Will those regulations apply to all disabled residents, wherever they live? What legal weight will they have? Can we be absolutely sure that everything is being done to ensure that disabled people have the evacuation plans that they need in order to escape in the event of a terrible fire, such as that at Grenfell?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since taking office, we have ensured that all the outstanding phase 1 recommendations were fully considered and responded to. The Government announced on 2 September 2024 that a residential PEEP policy would be taken forward, and we also committed funding for it. The Government will lay regulations as soon as possible, and social housing providers funding will be made available this year.

This policy aims to improve the fire safety and evacuation of disabled and vulnerable residents in high-rise and higher-rise residential buildings in England by providing residents who have disabilities and impairments with a person-centred risk assessment that identifies appropriate equipment and adjustments. It aims to aid their fire safety and evacuation by ensuring that there is a residential PEEP statement that records what vulnerable residents should do in the event of a fire, and records information for fire and rescue services, in case they need to undertake evacuation. We will continue to keep that under review.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I refer the House to my declaration of voluntary interests. I commend the Deputy Prime Minister for the sensitivity with which she is approaching the issue, both with families and in the House today. As she knows, mediation efforts with residents of Grenfell are being led by Lord Neuberger and others. I genuinely believe that mediation is of massive value in this situation. I realise that much of this is in the legal sphere, but can she and the Government commit in any way to supporting those mediation efforts?

[Angela Rayner]

It is absolutely right that we look at all options, and I am happy for the right hon. Gentleman to take that matter up with the safety Minister as well. We want to continue to support the community, who have been through so much. I visited the site and met the headteacher of the school; children who were not even born when the tragedy happened are still suffering the effects of the trauma today. We are committed to supporting the community, the bereaved and the survivors for as long as it takes.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her response to the report on the Grenfell tragedy. Flats in a large leasehold block in my constituency were given a B2 EWS1 certificate by Adam Kiziak of Tri Fire Ltd. He and Tri Fire are now being investigated for potential malpractice by the Institution of Fire Engineers. One of my constituents, a leaseholder in that block, told me that they do not know whether their certificates are valid, or whether their problems can be remediated through the building safety fund. They do not even know whether their block still has a safety issue, and that is quite apart from the fact that those needing to move cannot sell because mortgage lenders will not lend. How and when can leaseholders such as my constituents get the assurances they need, including the assurance that no more fire inspectors will be allowed to get away with what Adam Kiziak did?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very important question, and I am sorry about the situation that her constituents find themselves in. I understand that the relevant professional body is investigating that case, and it would be wrong of me to comment on the specifics, but we are working to encourage mortgage lenders to act proportionately, in order to provide support to leaseholders and buyers in buildings with EWS1 certificates that mortgage lenders are not accepting. Where a building is in a remediation scheme or the leaseholder is protected by the Building Safety Act 2022, we expect the 10 lenders that have signed the industry cladding statement to honour that statement and not require the EWS1. If my hon. Friend wants to speak to the safety Minister about that case, I am sure he would be happy to meet her.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement. I particularly welcome the Government’s acceptance of the recommendation on professionalising and regulating fire engineers and assessors, not least because five years ago, in the Committee on the Fire Safety Act 2021, I tabled new clause 2, which would have created a public register of fire risk assessors. Had my new clause been accepted, we might have been able to avoid the developing scandal of the issuance of potentially fraudulent EWS1 certificates by Tri Fire, which could have a devastating impact on thousands of leaseholders, including some in my constituency. In the light of those concerns, which have been raised both in the media and in the Chamber today by Members from all sides of the House, can I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to convene a meeting for all MPs whose constituents are affected, and does she agree that it is time that the police investigated those reports?

[Angela Rayner]

Let me expand my invitation: I am sure that the safety Minister would be happy to meet the hon. Lady. We will legislate to make it a mandatory requirement that fire risk assessors are competent to perform their critical role, and are certified against approved standards by a certification body accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. The Government are supporting an industry-led British standard for fire risk assessors; that standard is currently being drafted, and once it is completed, that will create a single, clear definition of competence against which certification and qualification should be mapped.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Our thoughts today are obviously with the Grenfell survivors, and the family and friends of those who died. I thank my right hon. Friend for her comprehensive response to the inquiry report. I think I agree with everything she said, but I seek one point of clarification, and there is one area in which I will push her to go a little further, if I may.

First, as my right hon. Friend said, it is really important that we respect and value social housing tenants and treat them equally. Will she give social housing tenants access to the building safety fund on equal terms with private leaseholders? Secondly, the testing of products by construction manufacturers has been a disgrace for many years. They have gone from one testing house to another until they have found one that passes their products. Those products could come on the market, having had several failures and one pass. Will my right hon. Friend pick up a cross-party recommendation made by the Select Committee in the last Parliament—the recommendation that the results of every test done on a construction product be made public, whether the result was failure or a pass, so that we can all see the real strength of products, and whether they are fit for purpose, before they are put on buildings?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I am certainly happy to look at that recommendation. We accepted in full all the recommendations that the phase 2 report came out with; that is an important baseline, but I am happy to look at what more we can do.

Turning to social housing, we will set out plans in the autumn Budget to give councils and housing associations the rent stability that they need in order to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, while also ensuring appropriate protections for existing and future housing tenants. We will bring forward details of future Government investment in the forthcoming spending review, and we will keep that issue under review.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Leaseholders listening to the Deputy Prime Minister’s very comprehensive statement will have heard her mention the role of developers in remediation for blocks covered in inadequate and dangerous cladding. Can she explain in more detail what happens when developers have defaulted in some way and are no longer in existence, and freeholders then seek to visit the costs of remediation on the innocent leaseholders? I think the legislation covers those situations to some extent, but it would be helpful if the Deputy Prime Minister provided more detail.

[Angela Rayner]

Those freeholders will get access to the cladding remediation scheme. We are really clear that building owners must fix their buildings—there is no doubt about that—and there are already legal powers to force landlords to act. We will make them do so quicker and give them a harder bite, but we also recognise that in some situations, that will not happen. That is why the cladding remediation scheme is available.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is right to say that progress has been made on building safety, but that we need to go much further. As she knows, fire and rescue services have already made huge improvements in this area, through both new equipment and improved processes, but we must roll out stronger national standards across the fire and rescue sector. What progress is being made on establishing a national college of fire and rescue?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The recommendations of Sir Martin’s phase 2 report were very clear, and we are taking them forward. We intend to launch a consultation this summer on the college of fire and rescue, including its proposed functions and structures. Delivering a college will require careful planning and investment, as well as legislation to ensure that it has the necessary legal foundations. We are also considering funding models as part of the spending review.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I welcome everything that the Deputy Prime Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members have said, but there is a fatal flaw that has still not been raised. Speaking as someone with 30 years’ experience in the real estate sector, I urge the Deputy Prime Minister and her officials to focus on the single staircase. The 2009 Lakanal House report recommended that fire suppression systems—sprinkler systems—be installed retrospectively in buildings above six storeys. That is the best way to save lives, and I think we need to look at that recommendation again for existing buildings. Future buildings above six storeys can still be designed with a single staircase until 2028; I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to say that that is too long.

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to this debate, and for his expertise in this area. The approved document B is now subject to continuous review by the Building Safety Regulator, which has already taken steps regarding this matter, and a wider review of building safety regulations will be undertaken. We will consider what action is needed on all resulting recommendations.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State and her team for their work on the Government’s response to the inquiry. Having spent my life in the construction sector, I can tell the House that fixing construction products is incredibly challenging. I really welcome the Green Paper published today, because we have to get that right.

I have two questions for the Secretary of State. First, could she confirm that the new regulator and adviser will work with Government and industry bodies, including the Construction Leadership Council? It is co-chaired by the Minister for Industry and Mark Reynolds of Mace, and has already done some brilliant work on building safety. Secondly, could she set out a bit more clearly what teeth the new regulator will have to tackle dodgy developers and cowboy builders, big and small?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and yes, those bodies will work together. That is what we want to see. We have granted funding and support to the Building Safety Regulator and the Health and Safety Executive to improve the support that is offered, and we will continue to do that. The bodies will have teeth. We will be looking at what further legislation we may need, but we expect action to be taken where there are issues and where things have been highlighted. When action is not taken, we expect there to be consequences.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her commitment to the inquiry’s recommendations and her commitment to systemic change. Picking up the thread from two Government Members on an oversight mechanism for state-related deaths, I was shocked to discover that it is nobody’s job to track recommendations from prevention of future deaths reports and make sure they are enacted. Those have relevance for victims of huge tragedies such as this, but just as much for individual tragedies, such as that of one of my constituents. I have a private Member’s Bill on that proposal. Will the Deputy Prime Minister meet me to talk about this idea in detail and how it can be enacted?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the oversight mechanism. I think I have addressed some of that and the wider issues, not just in terms of this inquiry, but all the inquiries that we have had. There have been far too many inquiries into tragedies, in the sense that these scandals and tragedies should not happening in the first place. We are committed to looking at oversight mechanisms, and I have detailed the oversight mechanisms I expect from my Department and the recommendations from Grenfell. I am happy for her to share that information with my Department, and I will take those considerations into account.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

My thoughts today are with the survivors of the Grenfell Tower disaster and the 72 families who are still mourning the loss of a loved one. I pay tribute to their immense dignity, as they continue to fight for justice.

I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s clear commitment to implement all of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s recommendations. I have constituents living in blocks with fire safety issues. Those are often not cladding-related issues, but issues identified as part of the wider scandal in the construction industry uncovered by fire safety inspections post-Grenfell. In some cases there have been terrifying fires in these blocks, leaving residents feeling unsafe and leaseholders trapped in unsellable flats, as building owners and construction firms argue over who is responsible for the fire safety defects and fail to resolve the issues. Can the Deputy Prime Minister therefore say, as she moves forward to implement Sir Martin’s recommendations, when she would expect my constituents to have a clear plan, with a timescale attached to it, for the remediation work needed in unsafe buildings? Where is the accountability in the meantime?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that, nearly eight years on from the tragedy of Grenfell, it is completely unacceptable that people are still living in unsafe buildings. I respect and pay tribute to what previous Governments have done. That legislation has enabled authorities to take action, and we have been supporting them in making sure that action is taken. Our remediation acceleration plan will also outline how we can ensure that those responsible for remediating buildings, whether that relates to fire safety or any other defects, are held accountable, so that we can take those actions and get that remediation done as quickly as possible. I do not want it to take another eight years before people are living in safe and secure homes. I expect to do it as quickly as possible, and action is already being taken.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for what she said today and how she said it. I hope that the families of the survivors of Grenfell Tower have heard what she had to say and find some reassurance in the acceptance of all the recommendations. I have residents in my constituency who are trapped in just the latest chapter of the fire safety scandal. These residents have EWS1 forms similarly signed off by the now notorious fire safety engineer Adam Kiziak. They find themselves unable to sell their properties or remortgage. Even more fundamentally, they do not know whether they are living in a dangerous building. Neighbouring buildings, built at exactly the same time and that have been signed off or had their EWS1 forms produced by a different fire safety engineer, have already been stripped of their cladding.

I am incredibly grateful to hear that the Government have accepted recommendations 15 and 16 and that they are looking at a professionalisation of the fire safety industry, greater regulation and a commitment to greater recruitment. We know that those are some of the issues that have underpinned the EWS1 scandal. I urge the Deputy Prime Minister and her team to think about emergency measures. It cannot be right that we just overlook the EWS1 forms that people already have, because people do not know whether they are living in safe buildings. We have to fundamentally and rapidly reassess the safety of those buildings to allow them to be sellable or remediated again.

[Angela Rayner]

I refer back to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes): I absolutely accept that people should be in safe and secure homes. The Government remediation funds have a robust audit process in place to assess the quality of fire risk assessments of external walls. The audit process ensures that assessments carried out for buildings in our remediation funding programmes meet the appropriate standards. Where those standards are not met, we will take action to ensure that is addressed.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

The report from the Grenfell Tower inquiry is utterly scathing about the role of central Government and their obsession with deregulation. The drive to scrap so-called red tape was a key failing, which led to such a terrible incident and the avoidable loss of life. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm to the House that that approach has been ditched in relation to policies concerning fire safety, building safety and the construction sector?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that just about every system failed, as I outlined in my statement. Everybody needs to understand what led to what happened on that night in Grenfell. Action has been taken, and the regulatory system is not the same as the one in place back in 2017. There have been a number of Acts of Parliament, which have meant that there is more instruction and more legal requirements for building safety. We will continue to update that, and we have legislation going through at the moment in Parliament to hopefully deal with social landlords and give renters more protection, too. We know there is much more for us to do, and I hope that we will continue to work across the House to put safety at the heart of everything we do. The legacy of Grenfell should be that we take notice and do not just say warm words at this Dispatch Box, but take the action needed to protect people.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

First, may I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for bringing the report forward and the Government for accepting all its recommendations? I echo the points from around the Chamber that our thoughts today are with the survivors and the families of the victims. As is often said, justice delayed is justice denied. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please give a timeline for when the companies mentioned—Arconic, Kingspan and Saint-Gobain or Celotex—and the testing firms, which covered up these failed results, will face justice for their dishonesty and mis-selling, which so tragically contributed to the deaths of 72 innocent residents?

[Angela Rayner]

I echo what the hon. Gentleman says about where all our thoughts and sentiments are today in the Chamber. I spoke about justice being delayed, and it is awful that people still have not got justice and are fearful that they will never receive justice. The police have said that this will take time. This is one of the largest and most legally complex investigations ever conducted by the Metropolitan police, with more than 180 officers and staff dedicated to it. We will continue to support them in their important work. The police have recently confirmed that they have everything they need to do that work, and we will continue to support their efforts. I spoke in my statement about procurement and making sure that we can do something on construction products. My hon. Friend the Building Safety Minister is taking that forward.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

In my constituency, tenants in social housing are regularly treated as second-class citizens, and it is a shame and a stain on our society that that is so. Many of my constituents are desperately worried about cladding remediation following the terror of Grenfell. The Scottish Government received about £97 million from the UK Government for remediation, but it was confirmed later last year that virtually none of it had been spent for that purpose.

This year I sent the Scottish Minister responsible a detailed set of questions about progress. I asked how many high-rise buildings—buildings at least 18 metres in height—with aluminium composite cladding had been identified, how many of them had been identified as requiring remediation, and how many had been remediated. My questions continued, but not one of them was answered with data or numbers. These are people’s homes, the homes of mums and dads and children. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the Scottish Government must get a grip on this topic, and will she undertake to provide such advice and assistance as her Department is able to supply?

[Angela Rayner]

As my hon. Friend has said, this is a devolved matter, but I am happy to work with the Scottish Government. I hope that they have looked at what we are doing in respect of the remediation acceleration plan, and also at the reforms that are under way to drive up standards in social housing through stronger regulation and enforcement measures, strengthening tenants’ voices and improving their access to redress. My hon. Friend is right to raise these issues, and I hope that the Scottish Government are following in our footsteps and will continue to learn from the legacy of Grenfell so that people in both Scotland and England can feel safe.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for, in particular, her comments about the way in which residents were treated. There have been strong recommendations for a review of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. My former role involved listening to and trying to support the many local community organisations that were dealing with the enormous gaps in the humanitarian response that had been left by the local authority; the problems continued for weeks. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us when we will hear about the timing and the format of that review of the Act?

[Angela Rayner]

We have looked at the Civil Contingencies Act and also at the category 1 training, and we have said that we accept what has been said and will take action. We will work with local partners in scoping progress for local authorities in regard to the training, and we are working with all other Departments to ensure that we can do that as quickly as possible. I commend the hon. Lady for her comments about social housing tenants. Having listened to what has been said by Members on both sides of the House in support of their constituents, I hope that those outside the House have been listening as well.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for her continued commitment to securing justice for the victims of this terrible tragedy. I had the opportunity to meet some of the victims’ families, and I commend their bravery. Let me also pay tribute to my constituent Rod Wainwright, who was one of the first responders on that dreadful morning. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to do more to support those in our emergency services—such as Rod and his colleagues, who were also victims of this terrible tragedy—and that we should join my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) in hoping and praying that we never have to see an event like this again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I too pay tribute to Rod and his colleagues. Not long after my appointment as Secretary of State, there was another fire in the borough of Barking and Dagenham. The same first responders went out again, and the trauma and the fact that they put themselves in harm’s way without question or fear are a testament to the work that they do. We owe them a debt of gratitude, and we also owe them the ongoing support that the Government continue to provide.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her statement, and for the update on phase 2. I think we are all encouraged by her commitment to ensure that those responsible are held accountable under the law of the land, and also to ensure that safety is improved.

Last December, the Government embarked on plans to ban the firms involved in the Grenfell fire from public procurement. That is a welcome step, but what further steps can be taken to make all firms involved in building works liable for ensuring that all materials and other products are fit for purpose? Lessons must be learnt for the future from this awful tragedy.

May I also ask the Deputy Prime Minister to share the conclusions of the report with all regional administrations, especially the Northern Ireland Assembly, so that safety can be improved throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and we all gain?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend the building safety Minister was in Northern Ireland yesterday. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should all work together to improve safety. We must ensure that the Building Safety Regulator, and what we have put in train, produce the results that we need. Hopefully this will be a clearer path, clarifying what people’s legal obligations are and making it plain that if they do not do what they will be expected to do, there will be absolute enforcement of the rules.

Grenfell Tower

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

I want to provide the House with an update on the Government’s work with the Grenfell community and on my decision about the future of Grenfell Tower.

Supporting the community

Learning the lessons from the Grenfell tragedy and ensuring lasting change are key priorities for the Government. In his statement to this House in September, the Prime Minister (Keir Starmer) committed to supporting the community now and always, and to building a legacy of change in their name.

I am committed to supporting bereaved families, survivors and immediate community, and working to ensure that we never see a repeat of the tragedy. Since my appointment, I have valued hearing directly from the community about the issues that matter to them.

Grenfell Tower

I am responsible for Grenfell Tower and for making a decision about its future. I understand that this is a deeply personal matter for those affected, and I am keeping their voice firmly at the heart of this decision making.

I would like to update the House that over the last week I have met bereaved families and survivors, and residents in the immediate community to explain my decision that Grenfell Tower will be carefully taken down.

Listening to the community

I have reached this decision after listening carefully to the community, and I am grateful to everyone who has shared their personal stories and views, especially bereaved and survivors.

In November last year, I explained to families that I would listen to their views and make sure their voices were heard, as well as consider expert information before making a decision on the future of the tower in February.

From November I offered bereaved and survivors the opportunity to meet in-person in North Kensington and Whitehall, or online, at different times and individually when families felt more comfortable with this. I have also spent time with representative groups, residents’ associations, schools and faith leaders. I am grateful to everyone who shared their view—whether directly with me, with the Minister or officials—and especially to the bereaved and survivors.

The tower was the home of the 72 innocent people who lost their lives, and of survivors whose lives were forever changed. It is clear from conversations it remains a sacred site. It is also clear that there is not a consensus about what should happen to it.

For some, Grenfell Tower is a symbol of all that they lost. The presence of the tower helps to ensure the tragedy is never forgotten and can act as a reminder of the need for justice and accountability. Being able to see the tower every day helps some people continue to feel close to those they lost. For others it is a painful reminder of what happened and is having a daily impact on some members of the community. Some have suggested that some floors of the tower should be retained for the memorial, others have said that this would be too painful.

Expert advice

I also considered independent expert advice. Engineering advice says that the tower is significantly damaged. It remains stable because of the measures put in place to protect it but even with installation of additional props, the condition of the building will continue to worsen over time. Engineers also advise it is not practicable to retain many of the floors of the building in place as part of a memorial that must last in perpetuity.

Taking the engineering advice into account I have concluded that it would not be fair to keep some floors of the building that are significant to some families, while not being able to do so for others and knowing that, for some, this would be upsetting.

How the tower will be taken down

The Government are committed to taking the next steps respectfully and carefully. There will be continued support for, and engagement with, the community throughout the process.

In the coming months, the Government will confirm the specialist contractor that will develop a detailed plan for taking the tower down. The work will be led by technical experts with specific health and safety responsibilities and will include a methodology that includes environmental, health and safety measures and a detailed programme of work. The views the community have shared already will inform the plans. The Department will continue to work with them, for example on arrangements to pay their respects.

There will be no changes to the tower before the eighth anniversary. It will likely take around two years to sensitively take down the tower through a process of careful, progressive deconstruction that happens behind the wrapping.

We continue to support the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission as the community choose a design team to work with them on designing a memorial.

I will ensure that parts of the tower or materials from the site can be carefully removed and returned for inclusion as part of the memorial, if the community wishes.

The Department has regularly consulted the Metropolitan Police, HM Coroner and the Grenfell Tower inquiry to ensure decisions about the site do not interfere with their important work in pursuit of justice and accountability. The Police and HM Coroner have again recently confirmed they have everything they need.

Continued commitment for the community

My commitment to the community continues. I will ensure bereaved families, survivors and residents continue to have opportunities to speak with me and the Building Safety Minister on issues that matter to them most.

[HCWS440]

Improving Social Housing Quality and Strengthening Tenant Voice

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

Alongside our commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, the Government are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing.

The Government recognise that many social housing landlords provide safe and decent homes to their tenants, ensure they receive services that meet their needs, and act quickly to resolve complaints.

We appreciate the vital role that providers of social housing play, and we commend those who strive continuously to ensure they are fulfilling their core purpose and are treating their tenants with fairness and respect. We remain committed to working in partnership with the sector to improve the quality of life for those living in social housing across the country.

However, it is not in dispute that far too many tenants still live in homes that are not well managed or maintained and often struggle to secure adequate redress. English housing survey data makes clear that in 2023, 7% of social rented homes had a damp problem and 4% had hazards rated at the most dangerous category 1 level. It is imperative that we take action to address this indefensible situation.

This statement sets out the next steps the Government intend to take to clamp down on damp, mould and other hazards in social homes by introducing Awaab’s law to the social rented sector. It also updates the House on other measures we will introduce in due course to drive up the safety and quality of social homes.

Awaab’s law

I wish to pay tribute once again to the parents of Awaab Ishak, Faisal Abdullah and Aisha Amin. They have tenaciously and courageously fought to secure justice, not only for their son but for all of those who live in social housing.

Awaab’s law is vital legislation that will empower social tenants to hold their landlords to account using the full force of the law if they fail to investigate and fix hazards within their homes within set timescales. It will also allow tenants to access the housing ombudsman if their landlord does not adhere to strict timelines for action.

While progress is also dependent on a more fundamental change in the culture and values of social housing providers, Awaab’s law will play an integral role in ensuring that all social landlords take complaints about hazards seriously; respond to them in a timely and professional manner; and treat tenants with empathy, dignity and respect.

Over 1,000 responses to the consultation on Awaab’s law were received from social housing landlords, social housing tenants, industry experts and members of the public. The Government thank everyone who took the time to respond for their constructive engagement on this critical policy.

We have carefully considered all the responses submitted to the consultation and have been working closely with campaigners, social housing tenants, and social landlords to ensure the implementation of this landmark reform will be effective, proportionate and of lasting benefit to social housing tenants. We will publish shortly the full Government response to the consultation alongside further detail on Awaab’s law and guidance to support implementation.

The Government will bring Awaab’s law into force for the social rented sector from October this year. We intend to act as quickly as possible to bring all relevant hazards within the scope of new legal requirements, but to ensure its effective implementation we will implement Awaab’s law through a phased approach.

This sequencing will allow us to apply the protections that Awaab’s law provides to damp and mould earlier than would be the case if we sought to apply it to a wider group of hazards from the outset. It will also provide for an initial period of testing and learning to ensure the reform is being delivered in a way that benefits social tenants and secures the lasting legacy that Awaab Ishak’s family have fought so hard for. As we progressively extend the application of Awaab’s law, we will continue to test and learn to make sure the new legal requirements are operating effectively.

While we believe a phased approach is the best means of putting in place a law that works, we appreciate fully that both social landlords and tenants want clarity and certainty about when all hazards will be covered by Awaab’s law. The proposed phasing will be as follows:

From October 2025 social landlords will be required to address damp and mould hazards that present a significant risk of harm to tenants, within fixed timescales. From the same point in time, they will also have to address all emergency repairs, whether they relate to damp and mould or any other hazard, as soon as possible and within no longer than 24 hours.

In 2026, requirements will expand to apply to a wider range of hazards beyond damp and mould. The hazards we expect to extend Awaab’s law to in this second stage of implementation include excess cold and excess heat; falls; structural collapse; fire, electrical and explosions; and hygiene hazards.

Then in 2027, the requirements of Awaab’s law will expand to apply to the remaining hazards as defined by the HHSRS (excluding overcrowding). The full list of hazards can be found in schedule 1 to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005.

It is important to stress that the phased approach to introducing Awaab’s law set out above in no way means that social landlords have any leeway when it comes to meeting their existing duties to address dangers to health and safety present in their homes before Awaab’s law is fully implemented.

Awaab’s law establishes timeframes for social landlords to act. It will also be enforceable through routes such as the housing ombudsman and, ultimately, the courts. However, social landlords already have a duty to keep their homes fit for human habitation and free of category 1 hazards and to remedy disrepair. The Government expect those duties to be met. Social landlords must ensure that their homes meet the decent homes standard, and it is critical that they take action as quickly as possible to resolve any issues of concern in the homes they let and to guarantee the safety and comfort of their occupants.

We intend to lay regulations in Parliament to implement Awaab’s law on the basis of the sequencing outlined above as quickly as possible and will work to provide the sector with clarity and the necessary time to prepare ahead of the damp and mould requirements coming into force in October. Precise timings on the commencement of each phrase will be set out in those regulations.

Transforming social housing and putting tenants at its heart

Every social housing tenant deserves to live in a home that is decent, safe and secure and to receive a high-quality service from their landlord. However, it is also critical that tenants have a strong voice and that more is done to build trust and transparency between landlords and tenants.

Change is already under way. Having listened and heard both the Grenfell community and the family of Awaab Ishak, we are acting on the lessons so painfully learned from these entirely preventable injustices.

Since April 2024 a new consumer regulatory regime has been in force for social housing. The regulator of social housing now proactively seeks assurances that registered providers are meeting the outcomes set by consumer standards and it has stronger powers to hold social landlords accountable for providing quality homes and services to their tenants.

The consumer standards not only require landlords to provide an effective, efficient and timely repairs, maintenance and planned improvements service, but also to take tenants’ views into account in their decision-making and give tenants a wide range of meaningful opportunities to influence and scrutinise their strategies, policies and services.

Alongside this, the Housing Ombudsman Service now has stronger powers and greater capacity to ensure social tenants have faster and easier access to redress when things go wrong, and that landlords take appropriate action when the ombudsman finds evidence of mismanagement.

In the coming months we will bring forward further reforms designed to drive up standards across social housing to build greater trust and transparency between landlords and tenants. The Government will:

Consult on a new decent homes standard and minimum energy efficiency standards, to ensure tenants’ homes are made safe, warm, and free from disrepair;

Legislate to require social landlords to carry out electrical safety checks at least every five years, as well as mandatory appliance inspections on all electrical appliances that are provided by the landlord;

Introduce new access to information requirements for private registered providers, so tenants can request information about the management of their homes, to support them in holding their landlords to account; and

Set new standards for the competence and conduct of staff, to ensure tenants are always treated with dignity and to support the creation of a thriving, professional and skilled social housing workforce.

We are also taking powers through the Renters’ Rights Bill to extend Awaab’s law to the private rented sector. We will be consulting in due course on how to apply Awaab’s law to privately rented homes in a way that works for the sector and is fair and proportionate for tenants and landlords.

Lastly, we must make sure that tenants’ voices are heard. We already have a range of initiatives in place including our social housing resident panel and our Four Million Homes tenant education programme and Make Things Right communications campaign, which supports tenants to better understand and exercise their rights. The Government are exploring what more might be done to strengthen tenant voice so that tenants can speak for themselves on a more equal footing with other interests and can more effectively influence policymaking and regulation.

[HCWS423]

English Devolution and Local Government

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

With permission, I would like to update the House on devolution in England and local government reorganisation.

The No. 1 mission of this Government is to unlock growth in our regions and put money back in the pockets of working people. Every one of our proud towns and cities has a vital contribution to make to growth, but for all the promises of levelling up, when the rubber hits the road, Governments’ first instincts have been to hoard power and hold our economy back. Since I launched the devolution White Paper in December, I have been overwhelmed by the excitement from communities wanting to join the devolution revolution. With the measures I will announce today, if all goes to plan, over 44 million people will see the benefits of devolution, which is close to 80% of the country. That is more progress in a shorter amount of time than under any Government in Britain’s history.

Today, I am delighted to announce six new potential devolution areas that will be part of our devolution priority programme with a view to mayoral elections in May 2026. These places will get a fast-track ticket to drive real change in their area. While devolution can sound techie, the outcome is simple. It is a plan for putting more money in people’s pockets, a plan for quicker, better, cheaper transport designed with local people in mind, and a plan for putting politics back in the service of working people. Today, I can confirm to Members across the House that the places on the devolution priority programme are: Cumbria; Cheshire and Warrington; Greater Essex; Hampshire and Solent; Norfolk and Suffolk; and Sussex and Brighton. Mr Speaker, a seventh area that is somewhat familiar to both of us, Lancashire, is already deciding its mayoral devolution options, and we will look at its proposals in the autumn in parallel with the priority programme.

When I became Deputy Prime Minister, I promised that this Government would change the future of the north of England so that northerners would no longer be dictated to from Whitehall. The programme I announce today will see the north of England covered by devolution, but this programme is for all of England, as is shown by the significant progress in the east and the south. Today, legislation comes into force creating mayoral devolution in Greater Lincolnshire and in Hull and East Yorkshire, which are electing their first mayors this May, as well as foundational devolution in Lancashire and in Devon and Torbay.

Every place can see a benefit from devolution, and we want to move quickly to realise these benefits within the first term of our Government. Whether it is more regular bus services, more affordable housing or the simple fact that local people will have a local champion with regional influence, mayors have a proven track record of delivering growth and higher living standards. But we are clear that where a mayor is not using their powers to benefit their residents, the Government will have the tools to ensure delivery. We will create strong accountability measures in the English devolution Bill to ensure that mayors deliver the housing, transport and infrastructure that their residents need.

But devolution is only as strong as the foundations it is built on. Despite the funding injection from this Government, councils of all political stripes are in crisis. A decade of cuts and sticky-plaster politics has left councils in a 14-year doom loop. That is why we are fixing the foundations of local government by reforming funding and focusing on prevention. I know how vital local government is for achieving our Government missions. I also know that reforming local government means tough choices—choices that the Conservatives were simply too unwilling to take.

Councillors of all types, including district councillors, tell me that the two-tier system is not working, so alongside our wider reforms, this Government are committed to making simpler, more efficient and clearer structures so that residents can access good public services without eye-watering price tags. These kinds of reforms will not happen overnight, but we are determined to deliver fairer funding to end the postcode lottery so that everyone gets the support from public services that they deserve. That is why today I will be issuing a legal invitation to all 21 two-tier areas to submit proposals for new unitary councils. Letters and the accompanying written statement will set out the requirements for these proposals.

New unitary structures will be the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks, but I am clear about the need for flexibility when reorganisation goes hand in hand with mayoral devolution and when it is coupled with ambitious plans for housing growth, so these proposals will be developed with effective local engagement and dovetail with devolution arrangements. I want to reassure Members that this process will involve extensive engagement with local communities and Members of this House.

Turning to the timings of the local elections in May, for certain areas a significant amount of work is needed to unlock devolution and deliver reorganisation. For this reason, some areas requested to postpone their elections until May 2026. The Government’s starting point is for all elections to go ahead unless there is a strong justification for postponement. The bar is high, and rightly so. I am agreeing to only half of the requests that were made. After careful consideration, I have agreed to postpone elections only in places where this is central to our manifesto promise to deliver devolution.

We are not in the business of holding elections to bodies that will not exist, and where we do not know what will replace them. This would be an expensive and irresponsible waste of taxpayers’ money, and any party calling for those elections to go ahead must explain how this waste would be justifiable. To that end, I have agreed to postpone local elections in East Sussex and West Sussex, in Essex and Thurrock, in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and in Norfolk and Suffolk. I have also agreed to a postponement in Surrey, given the urgency of creating sustainable new unitary structures, to unlock devolution for this area. I intend to move to elections to the new shadow unitary councils in all these areas, as is the usual arrangement for local government reorganisation.

We are postponing elections for one year, from May 2025 to May 2026. There is a well-established precedent, as the Conservative party knows all too well. North Yorkshire, Cumbria, Somerset, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire all had their elections rescheduled by the previous Government. I will table the relevant secondary legislation when parliamentary time allows, and local elections will take place as scheduled in all other areas. I make it clear that all two-tier areas should be making plans to move to simpler structures, regardless of election delays. The invitation will be sent to all two-tier areas, with a timetable taking into account that their election has been delayed.

I know that the devolution journey may not always be comfortable for politicians in Whitehall, but it is not supposed to be. After all, we are undergoing a generational power shift from Whitehall to the town hall. We have already seen a huge amount of good will from Labour Secretaries of State who are willing to give up newly won powers for the sake of our towns and cities. The Secretaries of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, for Transport, for Work and Pensions for Science, Innovation and Technology have led the devolution charge, and now the Prime Minister and I ask Members to do the same.

I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for giving me advance sight of it.

Although we support the principle of devolving power to local areas, we are totally against the Secretary of State’s plans to abolish every county council and district council in England, and we are against the unprecedented mass postponement of local elections for at least one year. Today is a very worrying day for democracy in this country.

The Secretary of State is making local government less accountable to the people and more accountable to her. Contrary to her statement, she is not doing away with a two-tier system; she is simply creating a new tier of Orwellian-sounding strategic authorities that are closer to her and closer to Whitehall, for her to use as a pawn to implement this Government’s deeply unpopular socialist agenda.

The reality is that this is delegation, not devolution—not devolution but a clear centralisation. As Dr Andy Mycock of Leeds University set out in his recent paper on the Secretary of State’s plans, there are clear concerns about the potential

“power drain of back-bench local councillors if local government is seen increasingly as a delivery agent.”

Let us be clear that this announcement is a huge upheaval of local government right across the country. This was not a Government manifesto commitment, and the Secretary of State has no mandate for it. These are her choices, and she has put a gun to the head of local councils to force them into a decision with little regard for local people. This is not the invitation she claims in her statement; it is an instruction. No council should be bullied or blackmailed into local government restructuring.

Local government should be local to residents and respect local identities. We have a proud record of supporting devolution and, rather than this top-down approach, we have worked with local people to deliver devolution from the ground up. The Government have tried to claim that they are taking a bottom-up approach—indeed, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution said exactly that on the Floor of the House on 20 January—yet the Secretary of State admits in her statement that

“all two-tier areas should be making plans to move to simpler structures”.

Imposing Whitehall diktat on local people, rather than the locally led approach we followed, is prone to problems, especially when rushed.

How exactly will this restructuring put more money into people’s pockets, as the Secretary of State claims? What evidence does she have that it will mean lower bills for taxpayers? How is this consistent with the Prime Minister’s claim in March 2023 that council tax would not increase by a “single penny” under a Labour Government?

Does the Secretary of State accept that she has no electoral mandate for this huge upheaval? Does she also accept that these changes, which will mean that every single council employee in two-tier areas has to reapply for their job, will have an impact on local services, including planning delays? How will this impact on her plans to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament—a 50% increase on the 50-year record levels delivered by the previous Government?

Councils in areas of the country included in this announcement are carrying very high levels of debt—Woking and Thurrock, to name but two. What support will the Secretary of State give to authorities facing eye-watering levels of debt, and will this debt be written off? What is she doing to ensure that, as a result of today’s announcement, authorities do not embark on reckless asset disposal programmes and spending sprees? Can she confirm that elections will be delayed for a maximum of a year, or is it the case, as we have heard, that elections could be delayed by up to three years?

[Angela Rayner]

I have been very clear that Labour is embarking on a once-in-a-generation project to unlock growth in our regions, and to shift power out of Westminster and into local communities. From the shadow Secretary of State’s response, I cannot quite figure out whether the Conservatives agree or disagree with it.

First, this project will unlock billions of pounds to spend on frontline services, which is why councils have come forward and want to work with us to ensure that we deliver. It will be for local areas to decide whether they apply to the priority programme and respond to the statutory invitation to all two-tier areas. We have made no bones about the fact that we want to see reorganisation so that money and funding go into the public services that need it most.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman talks about money. We have put £69 billion into local authorities, which is a 6.8% real-terms increase. In contrast, there were 23% cuts in the last decade under the Conservatives. He talks about council debt, but it was his Government who pushed councils to the brink. He talks about the impact on local services, and we are working with councils to inject the money and resources they need so that they can deliver for local people. It was his Government who brought them to the brink.

I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about housing targets, because his Government failed to meet their housing targets every single year, leaving us with a housing crisis. He should be apologising for his Government’s record on housing.

We are proud of the work we are doing on devolution. We are proud that we are working with councils. We are proud that we are bigging up the work of our local authorities and, unlike the Conservatives, we will continue to support them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for setting out the Government’s ambitions for devolution across England. I welcome the commitment to putting power into the hands of local communities, so that people feel decisions are being made with them, not to them. We have seen proposals from areas, including Essex county council, that want and welcome some of these changes, and we should respond to them. Some councils will see elections postponed but, again, 19 council areas were expanded under the last Government. The expansion of the mayoral model is welcome, building on the success of the last few years.

On tackling regional inequality, this statement includes parts of the country that, frankly, have been failed by successive Governments. These are major structural reforms to local government, and there are concerns about disruption to services during their implementation. Councils are already seeing this, and it will have an impact on the most vulnerable. Will the Secretary of State ensure that these transition arrangements do not have an impact on the essential day-to-day services on which so many of our constituents rely?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for recognising that local councils and areas have come forward, and that this Government are responding to their requests and working with them. When I became Secretary of State, I promised them that this Government would set a different tone. We will work with local authorities and respect them, regardless of their political colours, and we will deliver for local people.

I also welcome my hon. Friend’s comments on the mayoral model; we have seen how that model has brought positive change to local areas. I acknowledge the concerns raised about capacity and local services. We are ensuring that we work with local authorities to increase support for them, so that this exercise will deliver better public local services for people and will not be to their detriment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advanced sight of her speech, but I am disappointed that we read the list of cancelled elections on social media, well before it was made available to Parliament. How was that allowed to happen?

A key pillar of our democracy is the right to vote, with people making a mark for the person they want to represent them. The Conservative councils that asked for and have been granted the right to cancel their elections have created crises in special educational needs and have let their residents down. The Conservatives should have been kicked out of county halls last May, as they were kicked out of government last summer, but now those councils have been given the right to help design the new authorities. The plan, which also signals the end of district councils, is completely undemocratic.

We welcome the move to mayoral authorities—it is in train and, as a former council leader, I know councils were already working on it—but there is no democratic mandate for the cancelling of councils in ancient cities such as Colchester and Winchester, the previous capital of England. That was not in the Labour manifesto. What active role will those districts have in the co-production of the new unitary authorities? When will those district councils cease to exist? For priority areas such as Surrey and Hampshire, what assurance will the Secretary of State give that the elections will not take place after May 2026? For places that have had their own authority for hundreds or even thousands of years, what support will be provided to develop meaningful town councils with statutory powers, so that the identity of places such as Winchester can be maintained forever?

[Angela Rayner]

I am disappointed when things are on social media first. I respect this House, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have come here at the earliest opportunity to update the House.

On the cancelled elections, councillors in those areas are elected, and we have delayed for reorganisation only under exceptional circumstances, where councils have come forward. As I have made absolutely clear, the delay is for a year, from May 2025 to May 2026. As I stated earlier, I turned down many more councils because I believe that democracy is crucial. There is an active role for district councils. We are working with districts and local authorities to ensure that the consultation period and reorganisation are being done with them, not being done to them. It is incredibly important to stress that.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

May I follow up on two issues? First, following the comments made by the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, while devolution arrangements are being put in place, there is still pressure on councils to deliver existing services. Will the Secretary of State look at some additional short-term funding to help council officials with that process? Secondly, in the longer term, we will need a lot of very good councillors to deliver the new authorities. Will she look once again at reinstating the right of councillors to become part of the local government pension scheme, so that people who often give up financially in order to be councillors do not have to do so in the long term, with reduced pensions?

[Angela Rayner]

We recognise the pressures on councils. We are delivering a real cash increase to councils, with £5 billion more in the settlement. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will be leading a debate on that later today. We recognise that councils had it difficult under the previous Administration, which is why we are working with them. We are giving them real-terms increases to their budgets and we want to see reorganisation that focuses on the delivery of service for the people who desperately need it.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Some of us have been around the local government reform circus on a number of occasions in the past, and I fear that the Secretary of State will find that this piecemeal approach will be disastrous. One of the oldest local government unions in the country, the Federation of Cinque Ports, may heave a sigh of relief, but I suspect that the district, city and county councils in Kent will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. We have one unitary authority—Medway—and two that we thought were going to be unitary authorities, which it now seems will not be unitary authorities, so how can the Secretary of State reassure me that we will not be left with a lot of lame duck local authorities for the foreseeable future?

[Angela Rayner]

First, the right hon. Gentleman cannot be old enough—surely not. I say to him gently that he also cannot have it both ways: he suggests that the reform is piecemeal, but his Front Benchers are suggesting that I am tearing down local democracy, which is just not true. Local areas are coming forward, and we are working with local councils and local areas. I have talked about the real-terms cash injection, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will set out in detail later this afternoon, and about the collaborative way we want to work with local authorities. I do not see any lame duck local authorities out there; I see local authorities, of all political persuasions, delivering vital public services, that have felt absolutely pillared by the previous Government, and now we see a Government determined to change that.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State and her Ministers on the work they have done on this matter, and on the exhaustive consultations that have taken place between MPs, local councillors and stakeholders—no one is being forced on this journey. We in Norwich and Norfolk are happy to be on the express elevator to devolution. After 14 years of austerity and cuts to adult social care and children’s services under the last Government, will the Secretary of State promise us that she will encourage the new local authorities to engage in co-development and co-production of those services, and that they will be taken in-house, so that we can end the privatisation and outsourcing that has ruined those services for so many years?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for recognising the countless rounds of consultation by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution. Dare I say it, his door is always open to all hon. Members to discuss devolution—I once called him “devo-man” at the Local Government Association conference, and I stand by that. There have been significant pressures on adult and children’s services in local government, as Members from across the House have recognised in questions to the Prime Minister and in other debates. I encourage local authorities and local services to see where they can co-design services and support people in their local areas. These measures are not about party politics or what happens here in Westminster, but about the delivery of the vital services that, critically, many people rely on day in, day out.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is proposing to abolish Maldon district council, which covers my constituency, and absorb it within a local authority that will be based miles away, where Maldon’s councillors will be massively outnumbered by councillors from areas with no connection to the district at all. How does that enhance local decision making?

[Angela Rayner]

We are working with local areas using a bottom-up approach to delivering better public services. The right hon. Gentleman’s party pushed local authorities and local government to the brink. He should be apologising, talking to Members on his Front Bench, and getting on board by supporting devolution and local government reorganisation where it delivers for his constituents.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her statement. I am excited that Essex, including Southend, will be part of the priority programme. I am keen that local areas should keep their local identity, so will she give us some assurances on that? With regard to opposition to local reorganisation, devolution and postponing the elections, the Tories on Essex county council are fully supportive of our programme. Will she provide assurances that delaying the elections is right for democracy and for the taxpayer, because it will save funds in areas where local authorities will not exist in several months’ time?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is no point having elections to a body that will not exist in 12 months’ time. That would cost huge sums of taxpayers’ money, which, quite frankly, is not warranted. He is also absolutely right to recognise that the Conservatives in Essex were the ones to come forward. I commend them for that, and for wanting to reorganise and see better services and power put into their local area. On his point about local identity, that will absolutely be the case. I am a Mancunian, but I am also from Tameside. Having a mayor and being part of the combined authority has not stopped Tamesiders being proud of our local area.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Disappointingly, the Heart of Wessex devolution deal was not included in the priority programme, despite the region being well placed to support the Government’s growth objectives and showing national resilience in clean energy, defence, digital technologies and food security. Can the Secretary of State confirm the options available for regions that are not in the priority programme but wish to move at pace to enable them to deliver and benefit from devolution?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Member for recognising the positivity that devolution can unlock for local areas. The deal she mentions was not included in this round because it was not developed enough. However, I urge Members and those local areas to continue to work with the Government because we want to deliver for them and we will continue to make sure we can deliver devolution across the whole of England.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, councils such as Bradford have been cut to the bone. We have lost £350 million—60% of our funding—since 2010, forcing impossible cuts in social care, in homelessness support, and in special educational needs and disabilities services. The reality is that 14 years of Tory failure have resulted in our communities being devastated and our services decimated. Even though additional council tax flexibility has been granted to places such as Bradford, that is no long-term solution. Frankly, it is not fair on residents to have to pick up the tab for 14 years of Tory failure. Will my right hon. Friend confirm how the Government will deliver a long-term sustainable settlement to put councils on a stable financial footing, which must reflect real need?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is right to categorise what the Conservatives have done to local authorities, and it is not party political to say that; many councils of all different political persuasions will say that the way the previous Government went about local government was not to respect them and not to fund them. We recognise the vital public services that local government delivers and we recognise what it does. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will be setting out our plans to give sustainable funding for local government into the future, because we recognise that local government is vitally important and consider its work to be critical to this Government’s mission.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I invite the Secretary of State to publish the evidence that the local government reorganisations will actually, in the long run, save money? There is none, unless she can publish hard evidence. May I also ask her to heed the warnings of the Chair and former Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) respectively—who warn about the disruption of abolishing two-tier local government; that it will be a mess; and that the Secretary of State will have to fund that mess out of central Government funding, because otherwise there will be more cuts in public services to pay for the reorganisation? Which is it to be?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman should speak to his colleagues in Dorset, because they have made savings and they understand what local government reorganisation can deliver. We have seen that up and down the country. His party used to believe in devolution, and we have seen how that can deliver for local areas and we can save money. This is not just about saving money, however; this is about creating devolution and pushing power out of Whitehall into the town halls so that mayors and local authorities can deliver public services that are responsive to local areas’ needs. That is what we are trying to deliver from the bottom up, working with local authorities. The hon. Gentleman should get on board.

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

I will take a moment to thank the many council leaders and staff from across my area who have worked tirelessly to remove barriers and blocks in order to get a deal for Bedford, Luton, Milton Keynes and Central Bedfordshire. Unfortunately—and possibly proving the argument for why we, more than any other, need devolution—those council leaders and staff have come into contact with a Government Department that has not tried to move barriers out of the way, but has instead put them in the way of achieving the devolution deal that we want and we know is needed for our region.

Let me be perfectly clear. We know that this Government want to build 1.5 million homes. In a place that is building more homes than almost anywhere else in the country, we could have contributed to that, but the situation I mention will put some barriers in the way of doing so. In a place with one of the most incredible economies in the country, we could have made a contribution, but we are unable to do so. Can the Secretary of State therefore let us know whether she will look again at whether the Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes offer can move forward, so that we can get the deal in place by 2026?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I also welcome and reiterate his thanks to council leaders who have come forward; I thank them for working with us, and we will continue to do so. The proposals needed further development, but we will work to achieve devolution across the whole of England. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will happily continue to meet my hon. Friend and council leaders to develop their proposals.

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

Under the proposals, Hampshire county council will be scrapped, as will Fareham borough council. Of more pressing concern to residents in Fareham, however, is Hampshire county council’s worrying proposals to close Henry Cort community college, a valuable and popular secondary school, which would disrupt the education of hundreds of local children and families. Given the significant reorganisation to Hampshire county council, is it not right that the proposals should be stopped so that the views of local communities and parents can properly be fed into the process?

[Angela Rayner]

The closure of the community college is nothing to do with local government reorganisation or the work that we are setting out today. I kindly remind the right hon. and learned Member that in the previous 14 years her Government took a sledgehammer to local government, which was hit hard by the cuts. Where there was a 23% cut in the last decade, we have given a 6.8% cash terms increase to local authorities, which will hopefully help to turn the tide against the devastation they faced under her Government.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wholeheartedly welcome the reforms and, importantly, the funding injection, which will help councils to rebuild after 14 years of disastrous Tory austerity. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that her Department will move to longer-term funding settlements for local authorities as soon as possible, giving financial certainty and helping to deliver local services for local people?

[Angela Rayner]

Yes, absolutely. I am really pleased that my hon. Friend welcomes the cash injection to councils. However, I also recognise, and I will say this in the House today, that councils are facing unprecedented pressures on their services. Demand is up and councils have had 14 years of devastation under the Conservatives. That is why we want to work with councils. We recognise the pressures that they are under, and we want to see longer-term funding settlements and to put them on a sustainable footing for the future. That is the difference between this Labour Government that will work with councils and the Tories that cut them.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

I, too, thank the Deputy Prime Minister for ending the uncertainty around the Gloucestershire county council elections taking place this May. Bearing that in mind, will she set out a clear timetable for those two-tier counties such as Gloucestershire as to when they are expected to provide proposals on any wish to change? Will she also confirm that the county council elected in May this year will serve a full four-year term of office?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. On the certainty that he and local leaders have requested, we will set out a timetable and are writing to all MPs and local areas. As I gently said before, we are trying to work with areas. This is not about us pushing down; it is about us working with local leaders and delivering for local people. We will set out that timetable and work with local areas around that.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her commitment to ending the farcical situation that we have had for a very long time in Hastings and Rye. We have two tiers of local government, which means that when a resident comes to me to talk about a blocked drain, I have to ask them exactly where the leaves are. If they are the top of the drain, it is the responsibility of the borough council; if they are below the grill, it is that of the county council. I welcome her commitment to ending that farcical situation and making services more efficient for residents, but as we embark on this process in East Sussex, I ask her to hear the voices of our seaside communities and to make sure that, when we are designing a unitary authority footprint, it is of a size that works for our communities and that allows us to tackle the inequalities that they face. Will she comment specifically on what size this Government may consider for unitary authorities?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and for her contribution about what it is like at local level for people, including in Hastings and Rye, when they have a two-tier system in place. I can reassure her about what we are trying to do in terms of the size of the unitary authority. It is not a hard target. We recognise that certain areas may have different needs. This is a way of progressing, and we will work with local areas to look at what their needs are and then adapt. This is not set in stone—we are not saying, “It must be this.” It is about trying to get an idea of a ballpark figure for the size of the authority, but, obviously, this will be with local areas working with us.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is disgraceful that Eastbourne Conservative councillors have voted for the cancellation of local elections in my town and in Sussex this May, with no consultation, no democracy and no mandate from the people of Eastbourne. They have secured themselves an extra year to squat in County Hall, to press ahead with cuts to Linden Court day centre for people with learning disabilities, Milton Grange for people with dementia, and many more. Does the Secretary of State agree that people who rely on those services would consider the protection of them as an exceptional circumstance to justify the continuation of these elections, not their cancellation?

[Angela Rayner]

I kindly say to the hon. Member that, whether we like it or not, the people of Eastbourne voted for those councillors. We have said that we will facilitate a one-year delay for reorganisation that will deliver for the people of Eastbourne. I do not see this as an opportunity for people to “squat”, or whatever else the hon. Member said. Those councillors were elected and they are doing the job for their local areas, and we will continue to deliver the biggest wave of real-terms cash increase—6.8% or £69 billion—to local authorities to help them deliver services and turn the tide on the years of cuts and failure from the Conservatives.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the Government for the additional moneys to my council, which have gone some way to address the horrendous cuts from the previous Government. I love my city and the people in it, but we have been failed by Governments and councils, leaving us with inadequate housing, job opportunities, transport, education and public services across my city. The council’s decision and hard work to apply and now be on the priority list for devolution is a positive and tangible opportunity for the people of Portsmouth, especially in what I believe has been the neglected northern part of my city. I am not denying that hard work, collaboration and co-operation will be needed across councils and parties and that strong leadership, communication and transparency will be vital to ensure success. We know that local government is at its best when decisions are made by local people, and we have seen the positive changes of devolution. I will do what I can to support my city, but can the Minister confirm that Portsmouth, in moving to devolution, will have both financial and government support to enable it to progress and to meet deadlines?

[Angela Rayner]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on always championing her city of Portsmouth in this place. She has made a valuable contribution since the general election. I can confirm to her that we will be giving financial and logistical support to local authorities as we move towards supporting them in delivering good local services.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before I call the next Member, may I ask people to keep their questions short?

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

I am not as close to what is happening in the hon. Gentleman’s area as he is, but what I will say is that local people have elected their local councillors and it is for them to do that. What we are trying to achieve here is to push power out of Whitehall into local areas and to reform local government so that we can build better public services for local people. I hope the hon. Gentleman will work with us to deliver that for his constituents.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

Getting power out of Whitehall and into the hands of local people will be a game-changer for many communities who feel very distant from this place, but can we ensure that Whitehall, its vested interests and petty rules do not get in the way of more devolution in the west midlands? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sign of how the Conservative party has changed that it now fundamentally disagrees with Lord Heseltine’s view of local government set out some time ago?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend knows local government particularly well because of his contribution for many years before he was elected to this place. We do want to see more devolution across the west midlands. This Government are determined to work with local authorities and local areas to deliver devolution, because we know that people with skin in the game will deliver better public services, which those people rely on.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I am one of the few Scots who are big fans of English devolution. I sort of believe that England can just about survive without the input of Scots like me. The right hon. Lady calls this reform “ambitious”, but it has all the ambition of a hesitant dormouse. Where is the grand Gordon Brown vision of a senate of the nations and regions and the abolition of the House of Lords? The only thing that seems to be going on down there is her stuffing that place full of even more Labour donors, cronies and failed MPs.

[Angela Rayner]

It was the last Labour Government who delivered devolution for Scotland, and we are really proud of our history. I think “timid” is an unfair characterisation. I have never been considered timid in the way that I do my politics. As I set out in my statement, 80% of England will be covered by devolution under these plans. That is a fantastic step forward for all parts of England, and I look forward to continuing to work with Scotland—they have got their devolution, which we delivered for them.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

In Burton-on-Trent, we have a magnificent grade 2 listed town hall that was donated to the town by Michael Bass. It now serves as the headquarters for East Staffordshire borough council. What assurances can the Deputy Prime Minister give me that buildings like this, which are key to our local identity, will be protected as local reorganisation takes place?

[Angela Rayner]

We value local community assets and are bringing forward plans for greater powers, including community right to buy. We will ask all councils to ensure that heritage assets are considered. He will know that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), who is not in his place today, has been doing vital work in this area. If my hon. Friend wants a meeting with him, I will make sure that he gets one.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Labour is cancelling the local elections for antidemocratic reasons—it is as simple as that. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not want to hear it, but it is as simple as that. If the Secretary of State really believes that there is widespread public support in Essex for this devolution process, let us have a referendum to prove it. And finally, if local government is as skint as she says, why is this Government going pay 18 billion quid to Mauritius to rent back a base that we already own? How does that help local government?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I want short, on-point questions.

[Angela Rayner]

It is not Labour that is cancelling the local elections; it is those councils that are asking for the opportunity to do reorganisation. I thought the right hon. Gentleman would welcome the idea of not wasting taxpayers’ money, but maybe I am wrong, and he has had a change of heart.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a Leicestershire county councillor. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement on local government reorganisation. As Leicestershire has applied to go forward in the fast-track scheme, but was unsuccessful, can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the timetable for those other local authorities, so that they can also be included in the devolution revolution and secure long-term benefits for our communities?

[Angela Rayner]

Again, I encourage local authorities to respond to the consultation. We recognise that some will be disappointed that we have not taken their offer forward this time round. Some of them needed a bit more time and development, but we are absolutely committed to deliver that, because I want to see devolution across the whole of England.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for giving my constituents in Reigate and Banstead certainty over the timing of elections; however, many of them will be disappointed. One of my big concerns, which needs to be seriously considered, relates to debt. I am not against unitaries in principle; there are many benefits and advantages to them. However, I have great concerns about debt sitting in other district and borough councils for which my constituents may end up footing the bill. Please can she reassure me that my constituents will not be paying a bill that they did not incur?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member makes a fair comment, and I welcome her appreciation of the certainty that people need. We will continue to work with local areas. I understand that some areas have more debt than others. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will lead a debate later on the local government settlement. We know the difficulties that local councils have faced, and we will continue to have discussions to ensure that the hon. Member’s local area will not suffer detriment because of unitarisation. We want to see positivity for her local constituents.

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

I enthusiastically welcome the statement, and the great quality of consultation and ambition behind it. I particularly welcome what it means for Lancashire. We have been left behind for far too long, so it is wonderful to see the Government prioritising our great county. Full devolution with a mayor, along with local government reorganisation, can unlock our potential, deliver growth, and ultimately put money in our residents’ pockets. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in calling on Lancashire leaders to grasp this generational opportunity?

[Angela Rayner]

Absolutely. I am hopeful that Lancashire will have a mayor by 2026. We will continue to work with local leaders across Lancashire to deliver that, so that my hon. Friend can continue to be proud of his local area and the contribution that it makes to all people of Lancashire, as I am sure Mr Speaker is as well.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

When I speak to residents across Guildford, they raise again and again their fear of the impact of debt, and the particular financial problems that we have in Surrey. Local organisations have raised again and again their worries about how those problems will affect their bottom line, and the funds that they need to serve residents when councils no longer provide services. Will the Minister agree to meet all Surrey MPs to discuss how the Government will address the issues of Surrey’s finances? So far, we have not been involved in those conversations.

[Angela Rayner]

We understand the impact of debt on Surrey, which is why it is in the priority programme. I am happy for the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution to meet the hon. Member and others on this issue. We recognise the difficulty in Surrey, and want to make sure that people across the whole of England can benefit from reorganisation, including her constituents.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Special educational needs and disabilities families in Erewash and across Derbyshire have been broadly let down by Conservative-run Derbyshire county council, as was profoundly shown in the recent Ofsted report. While I firmly believe that reorganisation of our local services will improve SEND services, news of the devolution plans has caused families in my area to worry that reorganisation might mean further disruption to services. Can the Secretary of State reassure me and the many SEND families in Erewash that measures will be taken to ensure a smooth handover between the old authorities and the new?

[Angela Rayner]

I totally understand the concerns that my hon. Friend raises on behalf of his constituents in Erewash, and the situation that Derbyshire county council faces. We put £1 billion into SEND, and we have increased funding for local authorities. We recognise the pressure; I think it is fair to say that SEND comes up significantly in this Chamber. We are working, hopefully on a cross-party basis, to deliver for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We heard only this afternoon during Prime Minister’s questions about families who are really concerned about the lack of services and support, and we will continue to deliver for them.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for finally confirming that elections will go ahead in Devon. However, we had been told that, if we were not selected this time round, devolution would be imposed on us. Will the Secretary of State please give an explanation to my constituents in Exmouth and Exeter East of what that imposition will look like?

[Angela Rayner]

We signed the devolution deal for Devon just this week, and are working to go forward. I welcome the hon. Member’s comments on the certainty that we are delivering. This is the start of a process. We will continue to work with local leaders, including Members of Parliament from across the House who have interests in their local area, to deliver better public services and push power down from Westminster into local areas so that they can unleash the opportunities around transport and skills that we are determined to deliver for the people of Devon.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Conservative-led Gloucestershire county council has a dreadful record. The Care Quality Commission says that adult social services require improvement, children’s services are described as catastrophic, the fire service is in special measures, the health service is failing, local authority schools are crumbling, the SEND system is broken, and do not get me started on the potholes. No wonder the Conservatives on the county council wanted our elections cancelled this May. Will the Deputy Prime Minister agree to meet me and local leaders in Gloucester to ensure that we get the best deal for Gloucester residents from local government reorganisation and devolution?

[Angela Rayner]

Like the rest of England, Gloucester did not fare well when the Conservatives were in power. Councils have faced significant pressures and increases, at the same time as a 23% cut in the last decade by the previous Government. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will happily meet my hon. Friend and other Members on these issues. We are determined to deliver better funding for local authorities, and unlock their potential through the devolution agenda that we have set out.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

The Deputy Prime Minister has talked a lot about additional resources, but they are not being spread evenly. There are significant additional costs to deliver services in the rural areas that I represent, but as well as abolishing the rural services grant, the provisional settlement will give around 40% less spending power per head to rural areas than to urban areas. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that that is not fair, and commit to doing something about it?

[Angela Rayner]

Rural areas will also receive a cash-terms increase; we have given one of 6.8%. We recognise the challenges that local authorities have faced, particularly in rural areas. That is why we have been working with local authorities to turn the tide on the cuts under the previous Government, and invest in our local public services to ensure that they are fit for purpose and can deliver for local people.

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s announcement on devolution in Essex, which both the Conservative leader and the Labour-run unitaries are very supportive of. This announcement is right. It is generation-defining, and will deliver real local democracy. Southend and Rochford, and Essex, will be at their very best when decisions are made by local people who have skin in the game. Does the Secretary of State agree that the benefits of devolution are best achieved where there is strong local leadership and accountability?

[Angela Rayner]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am really pleased that Essex devolution is going forward, and that there has been cross-party support and real collaboration to achieve it. That is the culture change that I wanted to see. As the Secretary of State, that is what I envisage going forward, which is why I will work with all local authorities to deliver for people across England.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I am a strong supporter of genuine devolution of funding and powers, but when the Deputy Prime Minister says that she wants to devolve power from Whitehall to the town hall, my constituents are concerned that it could in practice mean centralising power from local communities to remote county halls. Can she confirm that the Government will not impose huge remote unitary county councils if that is against the wishes of local residents, and how can she justify cancelling local elections when the county councillors last elected in 2021 have no mandate to lead on negotiating changes that are expected to last half a century?

[Angela Rayner]

Again, I have been clear that where there is cancellation, it is for devolution and reorganisation to go forward. I have made it absolutely clear that it will be from May 2025 to May 2026. I cannot be much clearer than that as this Dispatch Box. On devolution and the support for local areas, we are clear that we want to push powers out of Whitehall down into local communities. I want to unlock the potential of local areas and see reorganisation that delivers for local people, and I hope the hon. Member will engage with that given his comments on strongly supporting devolution. Let’s see him get on board and deliver it.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

As we have already heard, Derbyshire county council has a terrible record on delivering SEND services, but it also has a terrible record across everything else, including doing a fire sale of our much-loved community assets and care homes, including the Grange in my constituency, and being ranked the worst council for potholes last winter. The opportunity to give the council the treatment it deserves in May is much welcomed. In contrast, North East Derbyshire district council and Chesterfield borough council have been doing a sterling job. Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure me that the best of our councils will be involved in any reorganisation and that we will take the good forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

Absolutely. We will work with councils to deliver better services: that is what it is about for North East Derbyshire, along with all other areas that are coming forward. I have been in North East Derbyshire and understand the issues around potholes; our Government have been investing in delivery to end the pothole scandal that we saw under the previous Government.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The Isle of Wight council is already a unitary authority. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister is postponing our elections, can she confirm that that will mean the future reorganisation of the council is on the negotiating table? Otherwise, why would she be cancelling our elections?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member will know that the fact that it is an island produces limitations, but nothing has been taken off the table. We want to deliver reorganisation and deliver for the people of the Isle of Wight, and we will continue to work with him, as well as local leaders, to deliver that.

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Nuneaton was recently named the town with the best potential growth in the UK. That is truly an opportunity to transform the lives of my constituents, but it also speaks to the immense challenges we face. For far too long, there have been serious questions about the appalling service level, the SEND crisis, stifled growth and low wages after 20 years of an underfunded Conservative county council that tried to push for a rapid resolution to our devolution. Getting this right is vital. For Nuneaton to achieve that amazing potential requires a full appraisal of all possible options and of the best way forward. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that support will be given in the process?

[Angela Rayner]

Absolutely. I congratulate my hon. Friend on always seeing the potential of Nuneaton, and this Government want to work to release the opportunities there. But we also recognise that the 14 years of Conservative failure have left many councils and local areas without the funding and support they need. That is why we are putting a cash-terms real increase of 6.8% into local government—£69 billion—and we will continue to work with local areas to unleash the full potential of all areas of England.

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)]

Given the Secretary of State’s statement, I remind her that proper functioning democracy costs money. My constituents in Great Yarmouth do not like being represented by unelected councillors, so can she give a copper-bottomed guarantee that the new Norfolk and Suffolk homunculus council will have its elections in May 2026?

[Angela Rayner]

I have been consistently clear on the elections. Elections do cost money, but how can we justify having an election to then have another election within 12 months, which will cost huge sums of money for taxpayers? I gently say to the hon. Member that councillors were elected and that we are working with local councillors to deliver for local people.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

As a councillor for nearly 10 years, I welcome the devolution proposals. As Bournemouth East MP, I backed Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council becoming part of the Hampshire proposal, and so did the BCP Labour group. Frankly, we have closer economic ties and geographic similarities with Hampshire. BCP council voted for a Wessex deal late in the day, and I am disappointed that BCP will not be prioritised for devolution of skills where they could have been under a Hampshire proposal. How can I ensure that my local communities will not be left behind, and will the Deputy Prime Minister secure a meeting for me with the Local Government Minister to put BCP back on the agenda?

[Angela Rayner]

I am happy to facilitate a meeting and, as I said before, the Minister for Local Government is happy to meet with local leaders. We want to see more devolution. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s disappointment on skills. We want to push forward with devolution, unlocking the potential and pushing power down from Whitehall into local areas, and I am sure that his meeting with the Minister will be fruitful.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As the Member of Parliament for Lewes, I put on record my outrage and the outrage of many local people who have written to me about the cancellation of elections in East Sussex in May. As a county councillor, I was present in the chamber last month when we debated the matter, and every single non-Conservative member, including Labour members, voted against it, so to suggest that this has widespread support in East Sussex is just not true. What is the Secretary of State’s justification for giving a Conservative administration that has lost its overall majority and hangs on by the chair’s casting vote a mandate to negotiate a generation-defining deal on behalf of the residents of East Sussex against their will?

[Angela Rayner]

Again, we are working with local areas to deliver devolution. This is about pushing power down to local areas and about reorganisation, and we are working with local authorities to deliver for their local area. I have been clear on the terms to which there was a 12-month delay to those elections to facilitate reorganisation and devolution in those areas. This is not a new phenomenon; it happened under the previous Government. We are turbocharging devolution so that we can deliver for local areas.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend. I also draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In North Warwickshire and Bedworth, my constituents can see the benefits of devolution just over the boundary in the West Midlands combined authority, and I am sure that they want to see those benefits for themselves. I ask her why Conservative-run Warwickshire county council asked to have their elections postponed. Was it because they wanted to avoid public scrutiny of their appalling record on SEND education, on fixing our rural roads and on rural transport? Does she agree that it is better that districts and counties work together to come up with the best solution for residents on devolution, and will she set out the timetable for the second stage of that devolution, so that I can tell my constituents when they can feel the benefits of investment, growth and better transport?

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

As I have said, we will work with all local authorities to deliver devolution. I understand that some areas will be disappointed that we did not take it forward in this priority scheme, but we continue to be committed, and the Minister for Local Government is happy to take that forward. As I said, we will write to local authorities and continue to work with them, so that Warwickshire and her constituents can benefit from that. It would be remiss of me to comment other than to say that a lot more areas came forward to ask for delays to their elections. I am not speculating on the reasons. I have been very clear and narrow in setting a high bar for the cancellation of those elections within a short period of time. That is the right thing to do to go forward and deliver for those local areas.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

What a mess this whole consultation has been. Let’s face it: the councils were going to have to jump or be pushed. As she said in her own statement:

“I will be issuing a legal invitation to all 21 two-tier”

authorities. In the spirit of working with local leaders, would she accept my legal invitation to meet all the borough leaders—cross-party—the MPs and the Leicestershire county council leadership to discuss what our shape would look like when it comes to devolution?

[Angela Rayner]

I have said time and again that we are happy to meet local leaders. We will continue that consultation exercise and we will meet local MPs. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, who is sitting next to me, is always open to those conversations. This is not about telling people what to do from the top down; it is about the direction of travel, which we have made absolutely clear and which the hon. Gentleman’s party was taking in government. We have seen benefits in parts of England. We want to expand that to other areas, working with local leaders and Members, and we are happy to meet on that basis.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

As the MP for England’s most northerly city, and one of five MPs representing the most northern area selected for devolution, I warmly welcome today’s announcement. I keenly look forward to the elections for the Mayor of Cumbria, but my excitement is eclipsed entirely by the fevered speculation and contest that has been under way among Cumbria Conservative association members for several months now. Given that one rumoured member of that association was formerly a Member of this House and racked up hundreds of hours in a second job during his tenure here, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the democratic accountability that she desires for mayors will include a ban on second jobs?

[Angela Rayner]

The Government’s direction of travel on second jobs is absolutely clear. As my hon. Friend knows, I have visited Cumbria and know what a fantastic place it is, and as a northerner, I can attest to the fact that it is even more northern.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

In her statement, the Secretary of State said that local elections in Surrey will be cancelled

“given the urgency of creating sustainable new unitary structures”.

Does she find it perverse that, because of financial mismanagement by Conservatives in Surrey, my constituents will lose their democratic right to vote and remove from power the Conservatives who caused that mess in the first place?

[Angela Rayner]

Again, I acknowledge the situation in Surrey. We have said that we want to work with Surrey to deliver. That is why we are bringing this forward. As I say, it is a short-term delay; democracy comes to us all eventually.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Mayors can make a huge difference to local communities. Indeed, we have seen that in Greater Manchester, where public control of bus services has made a massive difference to residents. I want public control of bus services in Hartlepool, where services are not good enough. Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Conservative Mayor of Tees Valley has ruled out public control of buses? When mayors do not use their powers, what can we do to force them to do so?

[Angela Rayner]

I welcome what Greater Manchester buses have delivered for my constituents in Tameside—better services all round. We want the same for Hartlepool. I gently encourage all Members from the Teesside area to work with the mayor to unleash all the powers I mentioned in my statement, in order to deliver better transport and connectivity. That is how we will unlock growth in all our regional areas, which is what we want to see across Hartlepool, Teesside and the whole of England.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

The Deputy Prime Minister said that this is not a top-down approach, but non-top-down approaches do not start with the issuing of legal invitations. A legal invitation sounds like the kind of invitation my wife gives me to do something around the house—it is not an invitation; it is an instruction that one does not disobey. Many businesses and residents in Fylde are deeply concerned about this. They are represented by Fylde Council and Wyre Council, which have been well run, have kept council tax low and have not racked up debt. Any merger would see them join local authorities that have racked up massive debts and are not running the kinds of services that their local areas want and need. From one proud northerner to another, I ask her to nip up the road, have a pint with me, and meet not the local council leaders, councillors and other MPs, but residents and businesses themselves. They are concerned about this process, and I am sure they would love the opportunity to have a pint with her—or a vodka cocktail, which I believe she enjoys.

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman could not handle my cocktails, but if he wants to buy me a pint, I’m happy to accept. Lancashire has already agreed to come forward with its proposals, and we are working with it. This is not about pushing people. I have made no bones about the fact that I want to see devolution across the whole of England, but we are taking an approach of working with local areas, and I hope that he can see that in the way we have taken these things forward. If his wife is giving him legal notices, I suggest marriage counselling.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. The Cornish people are proudly subject to the Council of Europe framework convention for the protection of national minorities. I respectfully invite the Secretary of State to guarantee that when the devolution Bill is published, it will in no way contravene the letter or the spirit of that European convention.

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend knows that I have met MPs for the Cornish area. I recognise the Council of Europe status and the uniqueness of their area, and I hope that that has come across in our conversations. We will continue to have conversations to ensure that we are acutely sensitive to the needs of the Cornish people, and that we take devolution forward in the way that it is intended: to deliver for people across Cornwall, and to do it with them, not to them.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Voters in Chichester will rightly be disappointed that their right to vote has been stripped away in favour of creating what seems like a rushed unitary authority in just 12 months. West Sussex county council failed to fill potholes, find social care contracts and deliver education, health and care plans in 12 months, so the suggestion that it would be able to deliver a unitary authority is for the birds. Does the Secretary of State really believe that my constituents will get to vote in May next year not just for a mayor, but for a unitary authority, and will their taxpayer money still be used to deliver bold regeneration projects locally, rather than to bail out other areas when the unitary is created?

[Angela Rayner]

This is not a rushed process. Reorganisation is coming because we are working with local areas. The areas in the priority programme were selected for it because they had plans that we felt were credible to achieve within that 12-month programme. We will continue to provide financial and logistical support to ensure that people across the hon. Lady’s constituency feel the benefit of reorganisation. After 14 years of local services being hammered by the Conservatives, they have a Labour Government who are delivering for local people.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is very good news for Norwich and Norfolk and it will allow us to fulfil our potential. Many of my colleagues from Norfolk have spoken. Whatever they think of the proposals, I urge them to work across parties now to get the best possible outcomes for our residents. On growth, Norwich already contributes £3 billion annually to the economy, but we can contribute so much more. Will my right hon. Friend outline the powers that mayors will have, and will she reassure us that cities such as Norwich, which are key drivers of growth, will have their voices heard in this process?

[Angela Rayner]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments, because she talks up what is happening across Norwich and the £3 billion of growth already being delivered there. We want local growth plans to work centrally with Government to deliver opportunities across skills, transport, housing and infrastructure, so that we can deliver for people across Norwich. I welcome the spirit in which she has talked about cross-party working. She puts the people of Norwich first, and that is why she was elected to represent them.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

The Deputy Prime Minister said that new unitary authorities need to be the right size to withstand financial shocks, so will she explain how merging councils that are in severe financial difficulty and just hoping that they get on with it will provide the security that we need?

[Angela Rayner]

As I said, we are working with local areas so that we can deliver local government reorganisation. I have also said that the 500,000 population figure is a guide for efficiency—we recognise that it might vary. We also recognise the financial constraints that councils have faced after 14 years under the Conservatives. That is why we have put a cash-terms increase of 6.8% into councils; it is why we are considering how to give long-term funding settlements, which the Minister for Local Government will outline; and it is why we will continue to support, and the Minister will continue to work on, the devolution agenda.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

This Government have unlocked £2 billion in the funding settlement for local services across the country. Despite what we might hear from the Conservatives in Lys Kernow about £5 million here or there, or grumblings about burning the Prime Minister’s turkey dinner, that is a very welcome boost to Cornwall. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that we end the postcode lottery forever and get local people the services they deserve?

[Angela Rayner]

This is one part of a package, through which we are trying to reverse the decline and decay that we saw under the previous Conservative Government. They made cuts of 23% in a decade, as I say, whereas we have implemented a cash-terms increase for local authorities. Devolution is part of that agenda. We want to see Cornwall continue to thrive; I am glad that my hon. Friend is in his place, and we will continue to work with him to deliver for the people of Cornwall.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for allowing the people of my constituency to vote in the Devon county council elections this year, and I congratulate her on seeing through the tired Tory administration, which was seeking to avoid the voters’ verdict. May I ask her for an assurance that when she sends out her invitation to the two-tier areas, that will include district councils as well as the county council, so that we get a representative view from across the entire area?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Member for welcoming the clarity we have delivered today. As I set out in my statement, we will be writing out to two-tier areas. We want to engage with all tiers in those areas, and the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will continue that work. If the hon. Member wants to meet the Minister at a future date, I am sure the Minister will be happy to meet him.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her statement. Does she agree with me, as Conservative-led Essex county council does, that these plans will make local government in Essex clearer and more efficient, but also more accountable? It will mean that we can finally take to task the people who are to blame for the dreaded potholes that plague my constituency.

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. [Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution chunters that there is more to it than potholes, but there is a serious point here—this is about things like decaying local roads and people seeing that local services have been pulled back over 14 years of the Conservatives taking a sledgehammer to local government. I commend the Conservatives on Essex county council for working with us, because they are putting people first in their local area, which is what we want to deliver. I have tried to say from this Dispatch Box, as I said in opposition, that as a Secretary of State I will always champion local government; I am biased, since I come from a local government background. I know the exceptional work that local government workers have delivered for people in exceptional circumstances, and I commend them for the work they do across local government.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

Lancashire combined county authority has now been established, and my constituents are keen to unleash its potential, creating new jobs and inviting funding and investment into the county. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that the Government will help progress that combined authority into the next phase of devolution?

[Angela Rayner]

That legal order was, of course, signed this week. I commend the hon. Gentleman, other Members and the local leaders for working to continue to put Lancashire on the map—of course, Mr Speaker is always part of that as well. We want to see areas such as Lancashire reach their full potential, because that is our growth mission. As the Prime Minister set out, people have to see that growth in their pockets across the whole of England, and that is what our agenda is about. It is about working with local leaders and Members of Parliament to genuinely unleash the growth potential that we have across Lancashire and the whole of England.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement. One of the points of detail in the statement is that Surrey, where my constituency of Surrey Heath is located, is excluded from the devolution priority programme, yet elections in Surrey have been cancelled none the less. My residents face the prospect of having none of the advantages of being in the priority programme and all of the disadvantages of losing their elections. Can the Secretary of State explain to me and my residents why Surrey has been added on as a kind of addendum to the list that she has provided, and why did it not qualify for the priority programme in the first place?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Member for raising the important issue of the challenges that Surrey faces. That is why we have put Surrey within the priority programme, but we do need a reorganisation first, because it would be a single council, so we would have a single council mayoral area, which is not what the devolution agenda is about. The reorganisation is about recognising the challenges that Surrey faces and working with local leaders to deliver services to local areas. At a later date, we can then look at whether we are able to take that forward, but we do recognise the unique situation that Surrey is in, which is why we have put it in the priority programme.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

In my constituency, we are lucky enough to have a district council that is very well run and very well funded. For that reason, we have been able to preserve, for example, a theatre that is run and owned by the council, which would surely have been lost if it had been exposed to the bottomless pit of SEN budgets and adult social care. I am concerned that the loss of a two-tier system means that our wonderful institutions will be at risk unless they receive some kind of protection. Can the Secretary of State offer us anything for the future when we become a unitary?

[Angela Rayner]

As I have said, local government reform is about supporting local areas and making sure they can deliver good public services. I recognise that areas have faced significant cuts and that it has been a challenge for them to keep local heritage and local community assets, as I said in a previous answer. That is why we are bringing forward other legislation and support to protect those things as well, but we will continue to engage with local areas to make sure that local government reform delivers better services for the hon. Member’s constituents.

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)]

What does the Secretary of State have to say to the 5 million people who have lost their right to vote in this election, who want to vote before this generational power shift and not after it?

[Angela Rayner]

I would say to the hon. Member that they have not lost their right to vote. Their right to vote will be there, but voting in an election for something that is not going to be there—an election that would cost taxpayers huge sums of money—is not efficient, and it is not a way forward. We are working with local, democratically elected councillors to deliver better local services after 14 years of decay and destruction under the Conservatives.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement today, but I want to pull out a few points of procedural process that we will be going through over the next 12 months. First, senior officers will be spending hundreds of hours focusing on reorganisation, rather than on the challenges of delivering frontline services. In response to a previous question, the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned financial support, so will officers’ time be able to be charged back to the Government?

Secondly, we have not heard about local consultation as we go through this process. Boundary changes and boundary reviews will have to be done internally. I have been on a council where I have done those things myself, and that alone took over 12 months to achieve and included statutory provisions for consultation. Also, if we have an election in May 2026, organisations and political parties will need to know what the wards are at an early stage, so that they can do their selection and their approvals. I am sure that Reform will learn about the importance of approval processes in all-out elections.

If there are delays in the processes, what mechanism does the Deputy Prime Minister have for elections to go ahead even without a body in place to be elected to, if she is good to her word that elections will happen next May? Finally, how will she keep the House updated on progress?

[Angela Rayner]

I recognise that senior officers and local areas will be working on this issue—they have been working on it to develop their proposals in the first place, so this has come from those areas. We have committed to financial and logistical support for those areas; obviously, they will come forward with what they need as part of that process, and we are determined to deliver that on a case-by-case basis. There will be local consultation in that process, and as I have said, to get to the point we are at today of approving areas for the priority programme, lots of work has already been undertaken, and there will continue to be consultation as part of that process. The details will be outlined in letters that are sent out. I do not envisage delays in the process. I have been clear about why I have refused delays to other elections, but these delays have been put in place specifically because we believe they can help the delivery of reorganisation for areas, and of better services within a tight timescale.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Dictators, not democracies, cancel elections, and 5.5 million voters in southern England are being denied the right to pass judgment on the performance of their councillors over the past four years—interestingly, in areas where Reform UK is expected to do rather well. In cancelling these elections, the Secretary of State has admitted that she does not know what will replace them, and it seems there is a serious risk, as previously mentioned, of areas not being ready in 12 months’ time. Can the Secretary of State be crystal clear about what will happen in that case: will those elections be delayed by a further year, or will they go ahead in May 2026?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member talks about dictators, but the leader of Reform has not faced an election to get to his leadership position—the only leader who has not.

We are not cancelling elections. I have been clear about the rationale, which is not unique or something that has not been done before. This delay is for reorganisation, and for further devolution so that people in local areas will get more powers from this Government. That is what we promised in our manifesto, and we will continue to deliver for people. I have strict and narrow guidance on which I allowed those areas to delay their elections, and I am confident they will be able to deliver. That is why I refused others. I am acutely aware that we want to ensure that people have a say in their local areas. That is what the devolution agenda is all about: giving local people more say and more powers.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is fair to say that in the streets of Henley and Thame, strategic mayoral authorities were not on the lips of residents during the general election. Health was, however, with the dire situation that the Conservatives left in my constituency. There is still perhaps a crumb of opportunity in this reorganisation regarding realigning authorities with integrated care boards, so that we avoid issues where constituents cannot get services on other borders. Is that being taken into account?

[Angela Rayner]

Although the exact word “devolution” might not have been on people’s lips, change was, which is why we got the mandate we did. The hon. Member talks about health. We put £22 billion of extra investment into our NHS because we recognise the challenges that it faces. ICBs are part of the devolution Bill and White Paper, and we will continue to work to ensure that mayors have a say over what happens.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I thank the Secretary of State for answering so many questions this afternoon—she has been on her feet for some time. I am dismayed by the delay to elections in West Sussex, partly because when the district recently went through a reorganisation of its boundaries, it took nearly two years to complete. Unitary authorities are large entities and this is an enormous task, especially given the scope of what has been announced today for the south and east of England. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the capacity of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to deliver the boundary reviews? Will she expand on the financial support that will be given to councils to ensure that they are able to merge vital public services?

[Angela Rayner]

I hope that my lunch is delayed and not cancelled, Madam Deputy Speaker.

On delaying elections, I have been clear about the high bar that I set. I absolutely understand the enormous task that is faced when looking at reorganisation, which is why we will put extra support in place. I cannot outline exactly what that will be for the hon. Member’s area, because it depends on what is needed on a case-by-case basis. The Government are committed to working with authorities to meet that timetable. I have been clear from the Dispatch Box that we want those elections to go ahead in May 2026. We will be working on that basis, and my Department will be working with local leaders to deliver it, on the basis that they knew the delay was happening.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and on behalf of my constituents I thank her for giving people the opportunity to vote and give their verdict on the failing Conservative-run Devon county council, which has been badly failing our most vulnerable children for the past decade.

Devon is a huge rural area, and there are concerns that if it becomes a unitary it could end up devolving power away from people in a sparsely populated area, and moving the centre of power away from local communities, which does not feel like devolution. Will the Secretary of State clarify what size of unitary authority she will be looking for? Part of Torbay is in my constituency—it is one of the smallest unitaries in the country, with 139,000 people. Will it be allowed to continue as a unitary, or will it be required to be part of a greater whole?

[Angela Rayner]

I recognise that Devon is a huge rural area, and as I have said in previous debates on this issue, we have issued a guide for unitary authorities—it is a guide; I have said that it is not set in stone. I recognise that Torbay is now a unitary, but it also faces challenges and I want to work with local leaders. If they want to expand, we want to facilitate that. We want to deliver—our guiding principle is better public services that are responsive to the needs of local people. I believe that Members across the House want to deliver the same, so hopefully working by working together we can provide the investment that public services have not had for the last 14 years, and deliver it in the right way in the right place so that people feel it is responsive to their local needs.

Local Government Finance Settlement 2025-26

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

Today I laid before the House the “Local Government Finance Report (England) 2025 to 2026” and the “Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2025 to 2026”. Together, the reports represent the final local government finance settlement for 2025 to 2026. I am therefore able to confirm that the local government finance settlement for 2025 to 2026 will grant councils in England access to over £69 billion in funding, which is a 6.8% cash terms increase on 2024 to 2025.

Change will not happen overnight, but this settlement marks the beginning of the Government commitment to rebuild and stabilise local government and run services that taxpayers can rely on. In 2026 to 2027, through the first multiyear settlement in a decade, we will begin introducing an up-to-date assessment of councils’ funding needs and financial resources, allowing local government to plan for the long term and deliver best value for taxpayers’ money. Our consultation on local authority funding reform sets out the proposed objectives and principles of these reforms.

Fixing local government requires tough decisions, and a willingness to seize the opportunities that devolution presents. Tough decisions are needed across local government to fix the broken system we inherited. In December, we published the “English Devolution” White Paper, which offered a priority route to devolution and invited councils to work with us on local government reorganisation, while strengthening existing devolution deals. Devolving powers requires stronger foundations and effective oversight, so as part of our commitment to devolution we also need a fit, legal and decent local government. We therefore issued consultations on local audit reform and strengthening the standards and conduct framework for councils in England, which will restore trust and confidence in local government. Alongside this, unitarisation is a crucial reform programme that will streamline local government and end the two-tier premium paid by taxpayers across the country. We will continue to work in partnership with local areas as we gradually mend the broken system.

I would like to thank everyone who has engaged with our consultation on the provisional local government finance settlement for 2025 to 2026, which ran until 15 January 2025. In total, we received 227 responses. In addition, we have met with colleagues in the House and with council leaders and officers, and we are very grateful for their views on our proposals. The Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution and I have now considered all the representations received and today we can confirm how this Government will support local services, while beginning to put the system back on a sustainable footing.

The Government’s full response to the consultation on the provisional local government finance settlement for 2025 to 2026 has been published.

Final local government finance settlement 2025 to 2026

Our fiscal inheritance means that there will be tough choices on all sides to get us back on the path to recovery, and it will take time. Today’s settlement, alongside the Budget, will deliver over £5 billion of new funding for local services over and above council tax. We have confirmed over £2 billion in grant allocations to councils, including new investments in prevention in children’s social care services. We have guaranteed at least £1.1 billion in funding in 2025 to 2026 from the new extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme, and alongside that no local authority will see a core spending power reduction in 2025 to 2026. We are providing an extra £233 million for homelessness services in 2025 to 2026 outside of the settlement, and £500 million in pothole funding.

The Government are introducing a new recovery grant, worth £600 million. This is the first meaningful step towards funding reform that was not achieved by the previous Government, but it is an interim measure. A full update of the funding system will take longer, which is why we have already published our consultation on the objectives and principles of funding reform from 2026 to 2027.

I am also setting out today that £60 million has been confirmed for long-term improvements over the next year, including empowering mayoral areas leading the devolution revolution and fixing the local audit system to ensure transparency. Further details of this funding will be made available in due course.

Investment in adult and children’s social care services

We are taking action, with both legislation and investment, to rebuild vital prevention services and deliver overdue reforms to children’s social care. The Education Secretary will deliver the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to protect our most vulnerable children and crack down on excessive and exploitative profit making. At the final settlement, I can confirm the Government’s new children’s social care prevention grant will be uplifted to a total of £270 million in 2025 to 2026. This grant will use a new formula, which will allocate funding according to estimated need for children’s social care services. This grant will double settlement investment in preventive children’s social care services to over half a billion in 2025 to 2026.

With this new funding, we can confirm that we will make available up to £3.7 billion of additional funding for social care authorities via the settlement. The funding uplift in 2025 to 2026 includes an additional £880 million allocated through the social care grant. This takes the total funding in the social care grant to £5.9 billion next year.

In all, the Government are providing over £10 billion in grant funding for social care through the social care grant, the children’s social care prevention grant, the children and families grant, the market sustainability and improvement fund and the local authority better care grant in 2025 to 2026.

Employer national insurance contributions and additional measures for local government

At the provisional settlement in December, the Government announced an additional £515 million of support for local government to manage the impact of changes to employer national insurance contributions, introduced at the autumn Budget. Today, I have confirmed allocations worth £502 million to councils in England and £13 million will be allocated separately to mayoral combined authorities, with allocations to follow in due course.

In addition, following representations made during the consultation and in recognition of further increases to internal drainage board special levies and the impact this can have on specific councils’ budgets, the internal drainage board levy support grant will be uplifted by £2 million, taking the grant’s total value to £5 million in 2025 to 2026. We will confirm allocations in due course.

Council tax

The Government are committed to keeping taxes on working people as low as possible and, at the same time, are under no illusions about the fragile state of the sector and the pressures councils are facing to deliver for residents. For too long, councils have seen budgets cut and been forced to turn to excessive tax rises to continue to deliver vital frontline services.

This settlement maintains the previous Government’s policy on council tax increases. As set out in the March 2024 Office for Budget Responsibility forecast, this means a 5% council tax referendum principle, made up of a 3% core principle, and a 2% principle for the adult social care precept. These principles do not force councils to set taxes at the threshold level, and exist to protect taxpayers from excessive increases. When taking decisions on council tax levels, the Government expect all councillors, mayors, police and crime commissioners and local councils to consider the impact on households.

For the vast majority of councils, alongside the Government injection of additional grant funding set out above, these principles will be sufficient to support councils in setting their budgets. But we know that the fragility in the system has left some councils in difficult positions. That is why the Government said we would consider requests from councils for additional flexibility in the council tax referendum principles, where they are seeking exceptional financial support and see increases as critical to their financial sustainability.

The ability to request additional increases already existed, but this Government have been clear that we intend to take a stricter approach that puts taxpayers at its heart. This means avoiding excessively high increases, and only agreeing increases where councils have comparatively low existing levels of tax and plans in place to protect the vulnerable. This has limited the number and scale of additional increases. In particular it has meant the Government have not agreed where councils have asked to increase council tax by a very high amount in a single year or by high amounts in successive years. This is a contrast to the approach recently taken in councils such as Croydon, Thurrock and Slough.

As a result of the 14 years of decline and instability overseen by the previous Government, we know there are large numbers of councils in significant financial difficulty. This financial legacy of the previous Government has resulted in a record number of councils engaging with the Government about support to help them set their budgets, and a record number of these councils asking for additional council tax increases.

Having carefully considered requests from councils, the Government have agreed small increases for six councils. For the 2025 to 2026 settlement, bespoke additional council tax referendum principles will apply for Windsor and Maidenhead borough council (+4%), Birmingham city council (+2.5%), Bradford council (+5%), Newham council (+4%), Somerset council (+2.5%) and Trafford council (+2.5%).

These are difficult decisions that Government have not taken lightly. We recognise the importance of limited increases in helping to prevent these councils falling further into financial distress, but we have been clear this must be balanced with the interests of taxpayers.

We have agreed to a limited number of requests and in all cases have not agreed to the full amount requested. Where we have agreed, it is only for councils with among the lowest levels of council tax and where we expect, even after these increases, residents will still be paying less than the average compared with similar councils. At a national level, even with these increases, the overall increase in council tax is not expected to exceed last year’s.

Following confirmation of these referendum principles, it will be for individual councils to take final decisions on setting council tax in their areas, having reached agreement locally that the increases are necessary to the council’s financial recovery. I have been clear to all councils that they should take whatever steps locally they consider will help to protect the most vulnerable residents from the impact of any additional increase.

The position we have confirmed today is in respect of requests for council tax flexibility. Decisions on councils’ overall request for exceptional financial support will be taken and communicated ahead of local budget setting. As with previous years the Government will publish details of any support once agreed.

Conclusion

This settlement marks a turning point. We have taken the difficult decisions needed to move towards a fairer, cost-effective system. Through the 2026 to 2027 settlement, we will introduce an up-to-date assessment of councils’ needs and resources. These reforms will build on the framework set out in the previous Government’s review of relative needs and resources, originally the fair funding review, which was not implemented. Alongside this, we will reset the business rates retention system, as the previous Government committed to do, but again did not implement, so that authorities are fairly rewarded for new business rates growth. The Government will also reduce the number of funding pots, giving councils more flexibility to focus on priority outcomes. We also confirmed at the provisional settlement in December that 2025 to 2026 would be the final year of the new homes bonus in its current format, and that Government will consult in the first half of 2025 on detailed proposals for arrangements beyond 2025 to 2026. These reforms will be implemented in partnership with the sector, and we are currently inviting views on our approach through the local authority funding reform objectives and principles consultation, which closes on 12 February.

This written ministerial statement covers England only.

[HCWS413]

Integrated Settlements

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

Today, I am pleased to announce that the Government have published details of the integrated settlements for Greater Manchester combined authority and West Midlands combined authority for the period covering the financial year 2025-26.

The Government’s primary mission is to drive economic growth and raise living standards. This can only happen if local leaders have the right tools to deliver for their residents and businesses. As set out in the English Devolution White Paper, we must rewire England and end the hoarding in Whitehall by devolving power and money from central Government to those with skin in the game. Above all we need to free mayors to direct funding to where it delivers the best outcomes and value for money.

These historic integrated settlements are the first of their kind and will consolidate funding across more than 20 different funding streams covering housing, regeneration, local growth, local transport, adult skills, retrofit, and employment support. This will give mayors greater flexibility when spending devolved funding and empower them to make the strategic policy decisions necessary to foster growth and deliver better value for money and outcomes for their residents.

Over the coming weeks, we will work with Greater Manchester and West Midlands to agree the outcomes that they will use these settlements to deliver, and which will form the basis of the single accountability framework, replacing the complex and fragmented reporting processes that have existed to date. As part of this framework, these authorities will have flexibility to move funding between policy areas, helping to deliver better value for money and improved outcomes for citizens.

The English Devolution White Paper set out our intention to extend the benefits of the integrated settlement to more areas. The Government are already working rapidly to bring these settlements forward for mayors in the North East, Liverpool City region, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire mayoral combined authorities from the ’26-27 financial year. The Government are also exploring how the settlement policy could be applied to the Greater London Authority.

[HCWS405]