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]

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

1. What plans she has to support councils with house building targets.

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

The Government are supporting local planning authorities to facilitate the delivery of more high-quality, well-designed homes, but we know that capacity is a problem with councils and that is why we have also announced a £46 million package of investment to support capacity and capability in local planning authorities, including 300 new planners and support to local authorities with delivering their local plans and green belt reviews. We will also make changes to planning fees so that councils can recover the costs of planning applications.

[Gregory Stafford]

In Waverley and East Hampshire, housing targets from this Government are doubling. When my constituents move into those homes when they are built, the infrastructure and services are simply not there. By “services”, I do not mean a phalanx of civil servants to help them move house; I mean the schools, play areas, supermarkets and road networks. Will the Secretary of State come to my constituency of Farnham and Bordon to see where we need that infrastructure, so that she can understand the implications that her housing targets have for my community?

[Angela Rayner]

We know that we need infrastructure as part of our planning reforms and the mandatory housing targets that we have put forward, and this Government will make sure that that infrastructure is there. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it was his Government who allowed speculative housing developments, who failed to meet their housing targets and who left people without the houses they desperately needed.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have a number of schemes for social housing in Cornwall that rely on the affordable homes programme that ends in 2026. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there will not be a gap in the provision of funding so that the provision of those homes can continue?

[Angela Rayner]

We have set out another £500 million for the affordable homes programme and we will set out further requirements as we get to the spending review.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

The increase in housing delivery that the Secretary of State is committed to requires a 50% uplift across the board in housing numbers, yet according to the House of Commons Library, urban and major conurbations have seen an increase of 17% while mainly rural areas are seeing an average increase of 115%. How is that fair?

[Angela Rayner]

The shadow Secretary of State will know that our mandatory housing targets were based on affordability and were introduced to ensure that people are able to get the houses they desperately need. His Government removed the mandatory housing targets, we saw speculative development, and they failed, year on year, to deliver the housing that this country desperately needs. We are going to deliver the houses where they failed.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

2. What steps she plans to take to reform the leasehold system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to help improve housing standards in the private rented sector.

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

We will deliver on our promise to transform the lives of millions of renters through our landmark Renters’ Rights Bill, which will make renting fairer, more secure and more affordable by banning no-fault evictions, ending bidding wars and extending Awaab’s law to protect private tenants. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it was disgraceful that the Tories decided to play politics last week and tried to vote down this vital Bill, which would have denied renters the protections they deserve.

[Chris Webb]

Recent data shows that 75% of private rented sector properties in Blackpool have damp or mould, leaving tenants to suffer unacceptable conditions. I welcome the Renters’ Rights Bill, which will introduce a decent standard for homes in the private rented sector. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that councils have the resources they need to enforce those standards?

[Angela Rayner]

I am sorry to hear of the experience of many of my hon. Friend’s constituents. Most private landlords provide a good service to their tenants, but for the few landlords who fail to take reasonably practicable steps to keep their properties free from serious hazards, local councils will be able to issue fines of up to £7,000. That will allow local councils to target their enforcement effectively on the small minority of irresponsible and criminal landlords.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Late last year, Bradenham parish council in my constituency contacted me, concerned that the National Trust, which owns a high number of rental properties in the village, is leaving them empty and not putting in new tenants to avoid the burdens that the Government are placing on landlords. Does the Secretary State agree that there is a balance to be struck here, and what advice can she give areas such as Bradenham, which faces being an empty village?

[Angela Rayner]

The Government have taken action. We will ensure that empty homes are brought back into use. We make no apologies for asking that homes are of a decent and safe standard. People should be able to live in their homes without the risk of hazards that are dangerous to their health.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

In my constituency, one of the big challenges for the private rented sector is the need to house families who are in temporary accommodation. It is very often a five-year tenancy; sometimes it is longer. Such families really should not be in these sorts of homes, which are often overcrowded, leading to damp and mould, whatever the best intentions of the local authority that housed them. In order to improve standards across the board, will my right hon. Friend pledge to ensure that we are pushing for much-needed affordable social rented housing, so that those tenants can move into it, and other private tenants can move into these homes, which will then be improved?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is right: 160,000 children and families were in temporary accommodation at Christmas. We need to build the social and council homes that we desperately need so that people have a home for life, and stop local authorities spending huge sums of money on temporary accommodation that does not help the life chances of those young people.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

During the last Parliament, I visited a family in Stanton Hill in Ashfield who lived in a private rented property. It was disgraceful: the property had damp, electrical problems and flooding. Not only was the property covered by the landlord licensing scheme; the landlord was the leader of Ashfield district council. Will the Secretary of State please remind council leaders that if they or their councillors rent out private properties, they should be held to a higher standard?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman highlights an issue across the board: we do not have decent homes standards. We want to introduce them in not just the social rented sector but the private rented sector. We have seen far too many situations where tenants are too frightened to come forward with mould, damp and health issues in their properties. We have to ensure that those standards are upheld. It does not matter who it is or where it is; people should have safe, secure homes.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

10. What steps she has taken with Cabinet colleagues to increase the supply of affordable housing.

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

Our plan for change sets out that the whole of the Government are committed to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. The previous Government failed to take social and in particular council housing seriously. I am determined to put right that wrong. We have already taken decisive steps, including an injection of £500 million into the affordable homes programme, our consultation on the rent settlement and reforms to right to buy. We will set out more details in the spending review.

[Deirdre Costigan]

After 14 years of Conservative Government, Ealing council has thousands of families waiting for a council home and has an affordable housing programme that it does not have the money to deliver. A report from Southwark council released on Sunday found that 71% of councils will have to delay or cancel house building projects. Will the Secretary of State look at ways to finally make local councils’ housing budgets sustainable so that we can build the affordable homes that my constituents in Ealing Southall desperately need?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Since taking office, we have set out a series of measures to support councils to increase their capacity, confidence and motivation to invest in new homes. We are providing £450 million to councils to house some of the most vulnerable in society through the local authority housing fund, as well as injecting an additional £500 million into the affordable homes programme to deliver 5,000 new homes. We are helping councils borrow from the Public Works Loan Board at a reduced cost until the end of 2025-26.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

We need a steady supply of affordable homes as well as homes in the private rented sector. Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), it is easy to sound morally righteous while demanding ever higher standards, but if the housing market is wrecked, ultimately it will be the tenants who pay. Will the Secretary of State answer my hon. Friend’s question and tell us how she will ensure that the private rented sector remains investable so that tenants have somewhere to live?

[Angela Rayner]

A balance has to be struck. People needs homes that are safe. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that they do not want to provide homes of a decent standard? The majority of landlords provide that decent homes standard, and it is a few who do not. Where they do not, they need to be held accountable.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

13. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on using local growth funding to help increase economic growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)]

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

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

No one in Britain today should face the cold and indignity of having to sleep in a doorway, so the Minister for Homelessness and Democracy, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), has today announced the tripling of the rough sleeping winter pressures fund. This will ensure that as many people as possible have access to a safe roof over their head and a warm bed to sleep in.

[Frank McNally]

Safety experts have raised concerns about 95 high-rise blocks and nearly 300 other buildings in Scotland found to contain high pressure laminate panels. Shockingly, eight years on from Grenfell the Scottish Government have spent less than 10% of the £97 million received from the UK Government for dealing with cladding in 2020. Does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government have dragged their feet on this for far too long and must act now to make these buildings safe?

[Angela Rayner]

I agree that remediation has been too slow. This Government are laser-focused on speeding up the remediation of dangerous buildings, and I encourage the Scottish Government, for which this is a devolved matter, to increase their efforts, as we are, to up the pace of remediation in Scotland.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that everyone should be treated equally and be seen to be treated equally before the law, including planning law?

[Angela Rayner]

I do not know where the shadow Secretary of State is going with this, but yes, I think people should be treated equally.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Great. Why, then, is it that the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have all intervened in the planning application for the Chinese super-embassy, overriding the wishes and concerns of local residents, the local planning authority, the Metropolitan police, the security services and, most likely, the incoming US President?

[Angela Rayner]

These are live issues, but the security of our country and nation always comes foremost, and that is always what this Government think of first.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

T2. Constituents of mine in High Green were told that a social housing repair project for their home would take 12 weeks. The project has now been ongoing for 64 weeks, with contractors leaving the works in a disgraceful condition. I welcome the Government’s boost to the building of more social housing and the extra £350,000 of homelessness funding announced for Sheffield this week. How does the Minister plan to empower local authorities to ensure that contractors deliver social house building and repairs to a high standard and on time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. At Teignbridge district council, I oversaw the commencement of council house building for the first time in 30 years. Will the Secretary of State meet me and others to discuss what can be done to make it easier for other councils to build more council homes?

[Angela Rayner]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for that work. We want councils to be able to contribute to council housing. I will happily get the Housing Minister to meet the hon. Gentleman.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s tripling of the emergency housing budget, but one of my constituents is about to be made homeless because debt incurred as a teenager means that she is not eligible for social housing. Are the Government willing to look at that? I am sure that they do not think that debt should be a reason for homelessness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, there are 160,000 children in temporary accommodation, and in many cases the definition of “temporary” is being stretched to breaking point. Does she agree that the Government’s homelessness strategy needs to look specifically at the outcomes for children who have experienced long-term or repeated spells in temporary accommodation?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree. That is why we have an inter-ministerial group—we are determined to tackle homelessness. This is not just about children in temporary accommodation; it affects every single aspect of their lives and outcomes. With our opportunities mission, we are determined to give every child the best possible outcome.

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

The New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill—the sunshine Bill—received a sunny disposition from all sides of the House among the private Members’ Bills we debated on Friday. In the upcoming uprating of building regulations, will the Housing Minister confirm that solar generation will be part of the requirements for all new houses?

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

In Scotland, we have record levels of children living in temporary accommodation without a home to call their own. Some 10,000 children have been left homeless on the SNP Government’s watch. The SNP is taking Scotland in the wrong direction. Does the Secretary of State agree that Scotland needs a new direction and a Scottish Labour Government in 2026?

[Angela Rayner]

Yes.

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

Suffolk has a huge flooding problem. Part of the problem has been driven by overdevelopment in low-lying rural areas. In her steps to reform the planning system—as well as building more houses, which I totally accept we need to do—can the Secretary of State promise to force councils and developers to properly account for flood risk, ensure that developers are held accountable to residents when developments are badly impacted by floods, and ensure that housing targets favour homes built in dense urban areas?

Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 2 report.

We will never forget the 72 lives lost as a result of that fateful night seven years ago, or the family, friends and neighbours they left behind—some of whom are with us today in the Public Gallery. I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to them. It is thanks to their awe-inspiring tenacity that we have got to where we are today. Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report laid bare the truth of what happened. That day of truth must now lead to a day of justice. They have waited too long for both, and justice delayed is justice denied. There must be full accountability for the failures that led to the biggest loss of life in a residential fire since the second world war. The Metropolitan police will continue to have our full support as they carry out their independent investigation.

What we do know from Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report is that this tragedy was entirely avoidable. The bereaved survivors and the immediate community will have to live the rest of their days with the knowledge that they and those dearest to them were so comprehensively failed. The report makes for the most shocking reading, shining a light on the systemic failures over decades. Those who manufactured and sold building products; the British state; the local council; the tenant management organisation; the London Fire Brigade—every single institution failed to recognise and protect the residents of Grenfell. Reading the report, I was disgusted by the extent to which profits were put before people and by the systemic dishonesty of some of the manufacturers, which had catastrophic results. The families were not listened to—everyone dismissed their concerns.

The No. 1 priority of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. On the day that the report was published, the Prime Minister apologised to the families on behalf of the British state for the catalogue of failures that led to the disaster. He committed to respond to all 58 of the inquiry’s recommendations within six months. To the bereaved families, the survivors, those in the immediate community and those who are with us in the Chamber today, I reiterate that apology and that commitment. As the Prime Minister said, bigger change is needed. We need system change—reform of a system that is not delivering the safe homes it should deliver—but where we can start to make immediate change, I will not wait, and neither will the Government. We are boosting the collective efforts to make homes safe, expecting leadership and action from industry, enforcing against landlords where necessary, and providing support so that leaseholders and residents can get on with their lives.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I commend the Deputy Prime Minister on her words—they are the words of us all in this House. We welcome those words and the constructive way in which they have been implemented today.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that action will be taken to hold to account those companies that are guilty? Secondly, when it comes to the findings of this report, will the Deputy Prime Minister share with the devolved Administrations everything that is being put in place? There are lessons to be learned everywhere. To the Deputy Prime Minister’s left and right are two of her Ministers, the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) and for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), who have conveyed that commitment in the past. It would be good to have it on the record from the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was speaking to families of the bereaved earlier, and I made sure to reiterate that, while this Chamber might not be full, I think I speak on behalf of the whole House when I talk about making sure we continue to learn the lessons of Grenfell. As for working with the devolved Administrations to learn those lessons, that is absolutely important. We have seen other fires internationally, across Europe—some of the survivors and the families have told me this. It is not just here, but abroad too, that people are in this situation, and we need to make sure that we continue to keep our residents safe here.

I can announce today that we have published our response to the emergency evacuation information sharing plus consultation, which provides details of our new residential personal emergency evacuation plans policy to improve the fire safety and evacuation of disabled and vulnerable residents in high-rise and high-risk residential buildings. Under those proposals, residents with disabilities or impairments will be entitled to an assessment to identify necessary equipment and adjustments to aid their fire safety and evacuation. Fire and rescue services will also receive information on vulnerable residents, in case they need to support their evacuation. We have committed to funding next year to begin this important work by supporting social housing providers to deliver residential PEEPs for their tenants. Future years funding will be confirmed at the upcoming spending review, and statutory guidance has been updated to provide for evacuation alert systems in all new blocks of flats over 18 metres. This means that, with our most recent move to provide sprinklers in all new care homes—strengthening protections for some of the most vulnerable—we have now addressed all of the recommendations made by the Grenfell inquiry to the Government in its phase 1 report.

The Prime Minister and I, and the rest of this Government, are determined that industry will deliver real change. As the Government, our role is to ensure that that change is delivered—a generational shift in the safety and quality of housing for everyone in this country. We now need leadership from industry to step up the pace on cultural change across the construction sector, but more crucially, we need a cultural shift that is about empowering people so that we put people and safety first, not profits. That is what needs to change. It is in that spirit, inspired by the Grenfell community’s incredible strength and tireless campaigning, that we will continue to push industry to deliver the necessary changes. Let me be crystal clear: we will be holding industry to account as closely as we need to. I know that Members across this House share my desire that this report be a catalyst for change.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way on the point about industry’s responsibility. It is right that social housing tenants and leaseholders should not have to bear the burden of rectifying these buildings. Individual developers and the development industry have been financially held to account, at least to a significant degree, but the one part of industry that has got completely away with it so far is the product manufacturers. So far, they have not been asked to pay anything towards rectifying the buildings, and as the Grenfell inquiry showed, they are responsible for a lot of the problems. Will my right hon. Friend indicate what consideration is being given to a scheme to make sure the product manufacturers pay their fair share of the costs?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are continuing to see what measures we can take, and I have taken nothing off the table. I am working with my officials to make sure that those who are responsible are the ones who pay, not taxpayers.

Important progress has been made since 2017. Fire and rescue services are better trained and better prepared for large-scale emergencies, improvements have been made to local authority building enforcement, and a poor culture among tenant housing associations is being tackled through regulation. However, we must go further. If you speak to those who live in unsafe buildings, it does not feel like there has been progress—it does not feel like progress to them. They still feel trapped, powerless in the face of a system that is not designed for them, so this Government are acting.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

As my right hon. Friend has just said, many of my constituents feel very trapped, so I welcome the acceleration of action. However, does she have any timeframe—or will her Department be working up a timeframe—for when that action will have an impact on constituents? Some of mine will be facing bankruptcy because of the challenges they have been facing. I should declare for the record that I am a leaseholder.

[Angela Rayner]

The absolute deadline we have put forward as part of our remediation acceleration plan is 2029, but we want to go much further. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), and I have met with developers and others, and we continue to push really hard on this issue—it has been one of our No. 1 focuses.

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

I commend the Deputy Prime Minister on the way she is introducing this debate. There is another group of people who I do not think have been properly considered yet: those who have lost their property, or could not remortgage it or sell it at the market rate, because they had cladding issues. My constituent Crawford Wilson invested his life savings in a property, unaware at the time that it had cladding problems. This meant that he could not secure a remortgage and could not sell it for anything like the market value. It was finally repossessed, and he lost hundreds of thousands of pounds as a result. What advice could the Deputy Prime Minister offer my constituent, and what is she going to do to try to ensure that that situation is put right?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which shows how the damage caused by the organisations that cladded those buildings and their systemic failures have had a real impact. That is why, since we were elected in July, my No. 1 focus has been trying to make sure that those buildings are safe and that remediation takes place. Seven years on is far too long for those buildings to still be unsafe, and later in my speech I will come on to some of the issues we are trying to resolve, including the people who are paying exorbitant insurance rates at this time.

Seven years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, thousands of people across the country still live in homes with unsafe cladding. The toll that this has placed on thousands of people is, I know, intolerable, with the financial worries, the impact on mental health and the lives put on hold. People have been unable to plan their futures, and may fear going to sleep in case something happens in the night, as it did in June 2017. This is a scandal. It permeates every aspect of the lives of those who live in unsafe buildings—buildings bought or rented in good faith—and it is completely unacceptable.

People must be and must feel safe in their homes, and we are taking a major step towards that with the statement laid in the House today. Our remediation acceleration plan sets out our ambitious measures to fix buildings faster, identify those still at risk and ensure that residents are supported through the remediation process. We are committed to getting homes fixed faster through the remediation acceleration plan. We aim to do that remediation by 2029 at the latest on all residential buildings of 18 metres or over with unsafe cladding, through a Government-funded scheme. By the end of 2029, every residential building of 11 metres or over with unsafe cladding will either have been remediated or have a date for completion, or the landlord will be liable for severe penalties.

We will introduce new legal obligations on landlords to remediate unsafe cladding, with severe penalties, including sanctions for inaction. We are backing this up with new funding and new guidance for regulators to drive remediation forward. We have a plan to tackle the remediation needed in the social sector to support social landlords to ensure that their stock is safe. The building safety levy and developers’ repayment of Government funds will ensure that the cost of fixing these buildings does not fall on the taxpayer. Above all, we will take measures to protect residents and leaseholders, who are the innocent parties in this, during remediation. This is our plan, and the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley, will be able to share more of its details at the end of this debate.

Developers must play their part in accelerating remediation. They have already committed to fix or pay to fix unsafe buildings at an estimated cost of more than £3.4 billion, but progress has been too slow. Works have started in fewer than half of developers’ buildings known to be unsafe. That is why we have agreed a new joint plan with developers to accelerate remediation and improve the experience of residents, which we are publishing today. For the first time, developers are committing to achieve ambitious stretch targets to assess all their buildings by July 2025, and to start or complete remedial works on all their unsafe buildings by July 2027. To meet these stretch targets, developers will need to more than double the pace at which they have been assessing buildings and starting remediation work so far this year. Already more than 25 developers have signed up to the plan, bringing more than 95% of the buildings that developers need to remediate into scope, which is encouraging.

We are often reminded just how crucial decisive action to replace unsafe cladding is. Just last week, a fire at the Quadrangle building in Greater Manchester, a building that was remediated in 2021 through the ACM private sector cladding remediation fund, thankfully did not turn into an emergency situation. If the building had not been remediated, that situation could have been much more serious. To keep residents safe in their homes until remediation work has been carried out, we are extending the waking watch replacement fund until the spring of 2026. I will confirm the long-term plans at the end of the next spending review.

Too many leaseholders in buildings that need remediation face unaffordable insurance premiums, and this cannot continue. I can confirm that from today we will start working with insurers to consider whether, for the duration of the remediation programmes, the Government might support industry to reduce fire-related liabilities to lower the high insurance bills that leaseholders face. As part of our commitment to minimising unfair costs to leaseholders, I can also announce that we are tackling the problem of the unfair charges from those managing buildings insurance, and we have launched a consultation on that today.

I want the message to go out loud and clear that we expect the industry and those who build and maintain our homes to lead the way in creating a culture that puts the safety of residents first. Money is available to make buildings safe, but, incredibly, some landlords are still failing to act. Through their inaction, they are preventing homes from being made safe. It is outstandingly neglectful and a dereliction of responsibility. We will not stand for this any longer.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State may be aware that my constituency has the highest number of high-rise buildings in the entire country. My constituents want reassurance on whether the scope of penalties and sanctions for landlords that do not comply and do not follow the remediation acceleration plan will include preventing them from expanding their portfolios and continuing to build in the manner they are, thus ensuring accountability and that the harms they have caused are not reproduced.

[Angela Rayner]

I have been very clear with developers by asking why somebody would want to purchase a home from a developer that is not seen to be taking action on remediation. That is why we have got many of them round the table to sign up to this acceleration plan. I do believe that they want to remediate this problem. It has been too long and things need to change. We are clear that there will be consequences for landlords for failing to act. With the support of Parliament, we will put in place legislation to ensure that they do.

The London borough of Tower Hamlets recently became the first local authority in England to successfully obtain a remediation order, and I expect to see many more in the future. To ensure that regulators can act, we will provide £33 million in the next financial year to local authorities, fire and rescue authorities and the Building Safety Regulator, so that they can tackle hundreds of cases per year. We will provide a further £5 million to the recovery strategy unit to increase its capacity to act. Let me be clear that this includes, where necessary, pursuing landlords in the courts. The industry must act now to fix the thousands of unsafe buildings that must be made safe. It must take seriously its obligations to remediate buildings and to design, construct and maintain buildings safely.

If you own an unsafe building or you are a landlord who is not fixing a building, this Government will make sure that you do, and we will propose legislation to ensure that you do. There can be no more delay, no more excuses and no more obstruction. To make the change that this Government and the Grenfell inquiry demand, we must build effective services that command public trust and confidence, and that are fit for the 21st century. Those who flout their responsibilities will have nowhere to hide. We will take direct action to hold to account those who are failing to meet their obligations. That is why we have committed to a system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime, and why we will consult on robust sanctions, penalties and liabilities against manufacturers.

I can update the House that we have made good on our pledge to write to organisations identified by the inquiry for their part in this tragedy. Organisations will hold different levels of responsibility, but I can announce that we will publish guidance early next year to support the first set of decisions that will stop the most appalling companies from being awarded Government contracts.

As I have said, the system itself needs reform. Statutory guidance on building regulations covering fire safety and building design is now subject to continuous review by the Building Safety Regulator, but I want to go further. I can announce today that I have asked the regulator to undertake that a fundamental review of the building safety regulations guidance will be produced, updated and communicated to the construction industry, because we must get this right.

[Mr Betts]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way once again. To go back to the issue of the product manufacturers, I am really pleased to hear what she says about Government contracts for the worst offenders, but will she consider giving guidance to local authorities and other public bodies, such as the NHS, to make sure that they are also aware of the need not to award contracts to these companies?

[Angela Rayner]

Yes, I am happy to look at that issue. The spirit I am trying to get across is that we have to have a cultural shift, and everyone has to play their part in ensuring that that happens. I am willing to look at anything the Government can do to make it happen.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is making an excellent speech, and I wholeheartedly welcome the measures she has announced. In my constituency, one challenge is that, sadly, there have been some poor examples of workmanship—or workpersonship —and some sloppy building that has opened up residents to a risk of fire: poorly built compartmentalisation, fire safety walls not built properly, gaps, the use of wood where wood should not have been used—that sort of risk. Will she ask her officials to look into such matters, and for better guidance to be provided?

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Cladding is one element of what many tenants face with unsafe buildings, and we are looking at how we can strengthen measures to ensure that action is taken. Some local authorities have already started to take enforcement action, and I have pushed hard to ensure that we continue to do that. If a building is unsafe, people should not have to live in it, and it should be dealt with as quickly as possible.

We are bringing local authority leaders and Ministers together through the new leaders’ council to work through these issues. I thank them all for their engagement today, including our mayors. The resilience review announced in July will continue to bring together the devolved Governments, local leaders and experts to consider where things are working well and where there could be improvements, to ensure that the UK is prepared for the risks we face. We must work with those in industry to ensure that buildings are safe, to raise professional standards, and to create a culture that puts the safety of residents first.

Fire and rescue services need to do more to develop high quality leadership, and support learning and professional excellence. We are carefully considering the inquiry’s recommendation to establish a college of fire and rescue. We expect all firefighters to have access to the vital education and training they need to save lives, and to be the best they can be. Culture and integrity in fire and rescue services are vital. Poor culture, a lack of integrity and bad practice can risk public safety, as was highlighted by the Grenfell inquiry. That is unacceptable and a culture change must begin immediately.

Our response to the Grenfell inquiry report must be a watershed moment not just for safety and quality, but for a new vision of housing that gives every resident a voice and the respect that they deserve—a change in culture that truly empowers people. As I said earlier, the failure to do that with Grenfell residents, who repeatedly raised concerns and were repeatedly ignored, stands out starkly. Everyone deserves a warm, decent home. They also have the right to be treated with dignity, and to have access to redress when things go wrong. That includes the millions of people living in social housing, which is why we have introduced a stronger set of consumer standards that applies to all registered social landlords. Routine inspections of large landlords have already started, and the Regulator of Social Housing has published the first set of judgments.

Many landlords must do more to improve the quality of their buildings and communicate better with their tenants. When it comes to quality and tackling unacceptable housing conditions, we will legislate to introduce Awaab’s law in the social rented sector as soon as possible, setting a requirement for landlords to investigate and repair serious hazards with specific timeframes. We will also extend Awaab’s law to the private rented sector through the Renters’ Rights Bill. We will bring forward regulations to set standards for the competence and conduct of staff in the sector, and enable residents to request information about their landlords through new access requirements that will apply to housing associations. We will monitor the new regime and its effectiveness closely.

While we are doing more to raise the bar for social landlords, we are also empowering tenants and giving them a seat at the table, relaunching our communications campaign on how people can raise complaints, and extending that work so that all residents know their rights and can hold their landlords to account. To hear at first hand what matters most to social tenants, this week my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Housing and Planning will join our relaunched social housing residents panel. Changing the culture in our social housing system will take time, but those are important first steps.

In conclusion, the reforms I have set out are about much more than new regulation and legislation. Indeed, the Grenfell inquiry made it clear that those things alone are not enough, and that nothing less than a shift in culture that puts people and safety first, not profits, will do if we are to turn the page on the shocking failures exposed by the Grenfell report. Accelerating the pace of remediation and empowering tenants are important steps in the right direction, because no matter who someone is or where they live, a good life starts with a safe, secure, decent home and a strong community. We owe it to the Grenfell community, and everything they stand for and have fought for, to make sure that everyone can count on that. To the Grenfell community I say this: we will continue to work with you to build a fitting and lasting memorial. This Government will support you now and always, in memory of the loved ones who were lost so tragically.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Kevin Hollinrake.

Building Safety

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Written Statements

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

More than seven years after the Grenfell Tower tragedy, too many buildings in England still have unsafe cladding and the speed with which the problem is being addressed is far too slow. Only 30% of buildings identified in England with unsafe cladding have been fixed, with potentially thousands to be identified. As the remediation process drags on, residents continue to face distress, uncertainty and rising costs as they wait for action. This situation is completely unacceptable and must change.

For the first time, we have set firm targets for this important work. By the end of 2029 all buildings 18 metres and above with unsafe cladding in a Government-funded scheme will be remediated, and all buildings 11 metres and above with unsafe cladding will either have been remediated or have a completion date, or the landlords will be liable for severe penalties.

To drive this progress and ensure we meet these targets, I am today publishing our new remediation acceleration plan which sets out decisive measures so that buildings with unsafe cladding are fixed faster, remaining buildings still at risk are identified and residents are supported throughout the process. The remediation acceleration plan will be deposited in the House Libraries.

Many of the highest risk buildings are known to us. We must ensure they are urgently fixed. We intend to introduce new legal obligations on landlords to remediate unsafe cladding, with severe penalties, including criminal and civil sanctions for inaction. We also intend to provide further powers and resources to regulators so that bad actors are held to account.

We recognise the power of collaborative working and will drive co-ordination between regulators including through empowering metro mayors to lead local acceleration plans. Work is already under way with mayors being supported to play a new crucial role in driving remediation progress by leading local remediation acceleration plans alongside partners in local government, and this Government are determined to support and work effectively with mayors and combined authorities, who know their areas best, to deliver for residents.

Our plan sets out measures to accelerate cladding remediation in the social housing sector. From April 2025, we will also increase funding for social landlords applying for Government remediation funding so that remedial works can start sooner. We will work with social housing providers and regulators to agree a long-term strategy for social housing remediation, to be announced in spring 2025.

We are also publishing a joint plan that commits developers for the first time to stretch targets to assess all of their buildings by July 2025, to start or complete remedial works on 80% of their buildings by July 2026, and on all their unsafe buildings by July 2027. To meet these targets, developers will need to more than double the pace at which they have been assessing buildings and starting works so far this year. At least 28 developers have already endorsed the joint plan, covering over 95% of the buildings that developers need to remediate. We welcome the commitment that developers have made.

Developers have also agreed to expedite their work with social landlords to resolve contributions they should make towards works to make social sector buildings safe. This will mean that remedial works on affected social sector buildings will start sooner.

We will also ensure that the burden of paying for fixing historical building safety defects does not fall on leaseholders or further burden taxpayers. We intend that the building safety levy will come into effect in autumn 2025 and will be charged on all new eligible residential buildings in England. The levy will raise around £3.4 billion for remediation and help to ensure that those who are responsible for the building safety crisis help pay to put it right.

There is a long way to go to be confident that all buildings with unsafe cladding have been identified. Those responsible for their buildings’ safety are failing to come forward to make their buildings known. There is a requirement to register buildings above 18 metres, but there is currently no single register that records all relevant buildings, and so identifying these buildings is a complex task. Through this plan we intend to introduce new legislation to drive action from those responsible for their buildings’ safety by tightening building assessment requirements and to create a comprehensive building register so that all relevant buildings can be more quickly identified.

However, we cannot wait for this change to start to make progress. We expect to have reviewed 175,000 Ordnance Survey building records for potential buildings at 11 metres in height and above by the end of March 2025. Through this approach, we expect to have reviewed 80% of the 11 metre-plus building stock, contacting responsible entities for those we believe might have a cladding risk concurrently, with plans to increase this to over 95% by late 2025.

We will share data with metro mayors, combined authorities and local regulators so that, when required, they can take action locally to ensure buildings are identified and remediated quickly. Residents who believe that their building may be unsafe can report this to regulators, or directly to us through the “tell us” tool.

This Government are clear that much more needs to be done to better protect blameless residents. All remediation projects should adhere to and evidence their compliance with the code of practice for the remediation of residential buildings.

We will introduce new measures to support residents with the costs they face.

This includes new shared ownership guidance allowing leaseholders to sub-let their properties at market rates so that they are no longer penalised for issues that are no fault of their own and an updated process to limit the number of valuations that shared owners have to pay for when selling their homes. Social landlords continue to have the option to buy back homes where shared owners are unable to sell due to building safety issues.

Buildings insurance premiums are unacceptably high for too many leaseholders in buildings with fire safety issues. The Government will therefore work with insurers to consider whether, for the duration of remediation programmes, Government might support the industry to reduce fire-related liabilities in order to reduce the high insurance bills leaseholders are facing. We are also launching a public consultation on the introduction of a fair and transparent fee for leaseholders to pay to those who manage insurance for their buildings.

This Government have already reopened the waking watch replacement fund which has provided alarms in 346 high-risk buildings. We estimate the fund has saved affected leaseholders on average £172 per calendar month and it has played a role in preventing residents being evacuated from their homes. We are extending the waking watch replacement fund until the end of the next financial year, and will confirm long-term plans at the next stage of the spending review to protect leaseholders from costs while they wait for remediation to take place.

Finally, we are taking several actions that address criticisms the Grenfell inquiry report made of the manufacturers of cladding and insulation products. This includes action towards preventing the most egregious companies, found to be part of the horrific failings that led to the Grenfell Tower tragedy, from being awarded Government contracts. It also commits to system-wide construction products reform, including proposals on liabilities, robust sanctions and penalties against manufacturers.

The remediation acceleration plan marks a pivotal moment in addressing the building safety crisis in England. We are taking decisive steps to fix buildings faster, identify all buildings with unsafe cladding, and ensure residents are safe and protected. We will work tirelessly to this end with resident groups and industry. I will provide an update in summer 2025.

[HCWS274]

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

16. What steps her Department is taking to increase the supply of social housing.

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

We will deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. The last Government’s affordable housing programme is expected to deliver only between 110,000 and 130,000 homes, although when it was published in 2020, the ambition was for 180,000. Labour is fixing that. The Chancellor announced in the Budget an immediate one-year cash injection of £500 million into the affordable homes programme to deliver 5,000 new social and affordable homes.

[Paulette Hamilton]

Many of my constituents in Birmingham Erdington are worried about the deteriorating quality of social housing. What work is being done to ensure that housing stock is maintained to the highest standards, so that tenants can live in the safe, high-quality housing that they deserve?

[Angela Rayner]

I know that housing quality has been a particular issue in my hon. Friend’s constituency. All social housing tenants deserve to live in a safe, decent home. We will bring forward Awaab’s law to the social rented sector, setting new time limits for social landlords to fix dangerous hazards. We will shortly consult on minimum energy efficiency standards and a new decent homes standard. We will direct the Regulator of Social Housing to introduce a new competence and conduct standard and an access to information requirement.

[Jessica Toale]

There are 2,151 families across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole on social housing waiting lists, many in unsuitable temporary accommodation. What steps is the Department taking to unlock development sites in densely packed constituencies like mine, so that the council can meet its housing targets, and families can get the safe and secure housing that they deserve?

[Angela Rayner]

We have consulted on changes to the national planning policy framework to maximise development on brownfield land, and we have invited views on proposals for a new brownfield passport, which will provide more explicit guidance on how the potential of land in urban areas can be maximised. We intend to publish updates on the national planning policy framework by the end of this year.

[Douglas McAllister]

In Scotland, 242 people died while homeless last year. Those deaths are a travesty for our country and a damning symbol of Scottish Government failure. My local authority of West Dunbartonshire declared a housing emergency this year. Does the Secretary of State agree that as we head into winter, it is more urgent than ever that the Scottish National party Government finally take action, deliver a fair deal for councils, build more affordable social houses and offer every Scot a safe, secure home?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue; 242 people dying is absolutely horrendous. We face an acute housing crisis. While housing and homelessness are devolved, I urge our Scottish counterparts to grip this issue. I completely agree that he gives a damning example of the crisis in Scotland. Every single homeless death is a tragedy. That is why a sufficient supply of affordable housing and joined-up support services are essential, as we will make clear in our upcoming inter-ministerial meetings with our Scottish colleagues.

[Gregor Poynton]

I have another question on the SNP’s failure on housing, because it is so bad. Scottish figures show that new build starts are falling in all sectors, and are at their lowest level since 2013. Private sector new builds are down 20% since 2022. For social housing, the figure is even worse: they are down by 30%. This is devastating the opportunity for families across my constituency to get a home of their own. The SNP has the largest funding settlement in devolution history. Will it use that to properly fund the social rented sector?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the housing crisis in Scotland, where too many families are waiting for too long for a safe and secure home. I completely back all the brilliant work that my friend the Scottish Labour leader is doing, and I know that the choice will be stark for people in Scotland in May 2026; it will be between a national Labour Government delivering for the working people of this country, and a clapped-out and failing SNP Government north of the border.

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

Given that the Secretary of State’s avowed goal is to create more social housing, can she explain to the House why Labour-controlled Thanet district council is seeking to build a large housing estate on the outskirts of Birchington-on-Sea, on prime agricultural land? There is little demand for those houses, and little provision of social housing. Can she have a word with the leader of Thanet council?

[Angela Rayner]

In our new national planning policy framework, we have set out how we are protecting agricultural land, but we have also set out the fact that our country faces a housing crisis. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency does not have a crisis, because it is everywhere.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Over the last 10 years, under the previous Government, £500 million of taxpayers’ money was handed out to second and holiday homeowners in Cornwall alone, while only half that amount was spent on social housing for first-time need. Meanwhile, there is a massive backlog of shovel-ready social housing development that has planning permission and is ready to be delivered, but is caught by construction inflation. Surely the Government can add the dots to resolve the problem—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The houses could have been built by now.

[Angela Rayner]

I really hope so, Mr Speaker; that is the plan. We are taking steps through the new national planning policy framework, and we have new mandatory targets for local authorities. We have also allowed local authorities to keep their right to buy receipts. The Government are taking a number of measures to ensure that we get the homes that we so desperately need, and I am determined to get to that 1.5 million figure.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s warm words about improving affordable housing availability. Does she agree that the affordability of housing is closely related to the bills that people have to pay—energy bills in particular? Will she ensure that all new social housing from this stage forward is built to the highest possible standards of energy efficiency, to save people’s bills?

[Angela Rayner]

Again, we have been looking at how we build safe, secure, energy-efficient homes that bring down people’s energy bills. The previous Government saw energy bills go up really high. We are introducing Great British Energy so that we can bring bills down, and are building the homes that people desperately need.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I am sure that the House agrees that affordable housing is important. However, my experience in Leicester South is that all too often it is provided in new developments, as homes for shared ownership or as similar housing products, which are out of reach for the poorest in my community. What my community really needs is more social rented houses. What is the Secretary of State doing to promote the construction of social rented homes, as opposed to other affordable housing products?

[Angela Rayner]

I agree with the hon. Member that we need more social homes. That is why we have been putting more into the affordable homes programme. We have made it absolutely clear that under section 106 notices, which he mentioned, homes need to be affordable; that is why we have put affordability tests in the NPPF. We want to ensure that people have those homes, and we want to build the next generation of council and social housing—and we will.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

We can see that after just five months, the Government’s target of 1.5 million new homes lies in tatters. The National Housing Federation says that the Government will miss their target by 475,000 without more grant—last week the Housing Minister said the same—and now Labour-run South Tyneside council says that the plans are “wholly unrealistic”, with other Labour councils agreeing. Is it not time for the Government to admit defeat, come back with a deliverable plan and provide the sector with the certainty that it needs to deliver more social homes across the country?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member has forgotten that his Government failed to meet their housing targets every single time. The Government are committed to building 1.5 million homes over this Parliament. Under the Tories, house building plummeted as they bowed to pressure from their Back Benchers to scrap local housing targets. We are bringing back mandatory housing targets. The Chancellor has put more money into the affordable homes programme, and we will build those homes. The hon. Member does not know my history and how I work.

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

3. What recent progress her Department has made on planning reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)]

10. What consultation her Department has undertaken with staff on the decision to close six offices.

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

My Department has set a workforce and location strategy that proposes to retain 16 of the existing 22 departmental offices. This will result in six offices closing over the next two years. Staff engagement on the announcement is ongoing, and consultation on implementing the strategy is beginning this month. My Department will continue to engage with the trade unions and consult with them before the office closure proposals are finalised and implemented. The Department will not make any compulsory redundancies and will continue to help the colleagues and staff affected to work effectively in their roles.

[Mary Glindon]

There has been a drive across Government Departments to increase the number of hours that civil servants spend working in the office, but the proposed closure in Newcastle means that staff working and living in the area who cannot work from home will face a 40-mile commute to the office in Darlington. Can the Secretary of State assure me that there will be an equality impact assessment before any decision is made, to ensure that the needs of those with protected characteristics and caring responsibilities are fully considered?

[Angela Rayner]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am a big advocate of flexible working and making sure that we support our colleagues. The Department prepared an initial equality impact assessment in advance of the announcement of the location strategy, which will be developed during the consultation with the staff and the trade unions to inform the mitigations that will support the staff who are affected.

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

Many of us fought very hard to ensure that the Department had a location in the city of Wolverhampton, and I think that all of us, on both sides of the House, recognise how important it is to get civil servants out of London and right across the country. How is the Secretary of State looking at developing and growing the base in Wolverhampton as part of her wider strategy?

[Angela Rayner]

The strategy will create a more coherent office estate that enables stronger office communities and transparent career pathways for progression, and we will continue to be represented across each of the regions and nations of the United Kingdom.

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

11. What steps she plans to take to reform the leasehold system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

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

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

Today I published our remediation acceleration plan, a step change in our response to the building safety crisis. Without decisive action, the risks and the hardship of unsafe cladding could be with us until 2040. That cannot go on. The plan sets out how we will fix buildings faster, identify remaining buildings that are still at risk and ensure residents are supported through the remediation process.

[Mr Charters]

I recently heard from a constituent with three young children who has applied for over 80 properties, but is still waiting for social housing. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to speed up the planning process specifically for social housing?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need for more social housing. We have committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, and I have proposed changes to the national planning policy framework to support that. We have also announced additional funding for the affordable homes programme.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

At whose request did the Secretary of State call in the planning application for the Chinese super-embassy?

[Angela Rayner]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. Despite him being on the Opposition Benches, we seem to have a lot in common: we both came to Parliament in the 2015 intake, represent constituencies in the north and think the Tories deserved to lose the last general election. We take planning decisions in the normal way.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I used to have ginger hair as well! May I give the right hon. Lady the answer to my question? It was the Foreign Secretary. In opposition, the now Home Secretary warned that the Chinese Government are “attempting to influence Parliament”, and trying

“to interfere in our democracy and undermine our security.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 667.]

Those risks are all heightened by this development. Are this Government so desperate to counteract the disastrous Budget and their own growth-wrecking trade union Bill that they are now willing to override national security, national interests and the sensible concerns of their Home Secretary by kowtowing to the Chinese Government?

[Angela Rayner]

We have got record investment into the UK through our international business summit. I am proud of our Employment Rights Bill, which is pro-worker and pro-employer. It will reward good employers and put money back into the high street. This Government take national security very seriously and will continue to do so.

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

T2. Given that the mayoral council and leaders’ councils are being contemplated as part of the English devolution Bill, what steps is the Deputy Prime Minister taking to ensure that Cornwall’s voice is heard in Westminster, after being subsumed for far too long?

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

Most parties in this House, representing a collective total of 500 MPs, agree that first past the post is damaging trust in politics, and 64% of the public would like to see change. Does the Secretary of State agree that a national commission for electoral reform could address that, as recommended by the all-party parliamentary group?

[Angela Rayner]

No.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

T7. After 14 years of cuts to local government, we see the consequences across council areas, including to my council of Medway, which suffered a 91% cut in direct support grants, coupled with a financial inheritance that according to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy was “grave”. Will the Minister agree to meet me and Medway council colleagues and finance officers to discuss the support available after 14 years of austerity cuts by the Conservatives?

Deputy Prime Minister

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Written Corrections

[Helen Morgan]

Shropshire’s farmers have been suffering from flooding following 18 months of incredibly wet weather, topped off last Wednesday by a month’s worth of rain in 24 hours. They were not eligible for the farming recovery fund, and a freedom of information request by Farmers Weekly found that only £2.1 million of that £50 million has been handed out to farmers. Will the Government consider extending the eligibility of that scheme so that we can keep farmers going when they are deluged by floodwater?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am really sorry to hear the plight of Shropshire farmers. We inherited the flood defence programme in disrepair, and thanks to 14 years of mismanagement and failure, communities are unprotected and families and businesses are forced to pay the price. We launched a flood defence taskforce to turbocharge the delivery and co-ordination of flood defences, and we are investing £1.5 billion this year to scale up flooding national resilience. I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a meeting with the Minister.

[Official Report, 23 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 276.]

Written correction submitted by the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner):

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am really sorry to hear the plight of Shropshire farmers. We inherited the flood defence programme in disrepair, and thanks to 14 years of mismanagement and failure, communities are unprotected and families and businesses are forced to pay the price. We launched a flood defence taskforce to turbocharge the delivery and co-ordination of flood defences, and we are investing £1.25 billion this year to scale up flooding national resilience. I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a meeting with the Minister.