Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Angela Rayner and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The effects of the Birmingham bin strike have been declared a major incident, they are a national embarrassment, and with 21° temperatures forecast for later this week, they will become a public health emergency. While Labour Members in Birmingham are busy campaigning for an airport in Pakistan, the Secretary of State is unwilling to visit the city or take on Unite. Is that because of the tens of millions of pounds that her party receives from Unite, or, indeed, because of the £10,000 that she received for her own election campaign?

[Angela Rayner]

I thought the shadow Secretary of State was better than that, but heigh-ho.

This is a local dispute, and it is right that the negotiations are led locally. We have made it clear that both parties should get round the table, and I am pleased that that happened on Sunday and talks continue today. Birmingham city council did declare a major incident last week; we expect the rubbish to be cleared, we expect the parties to get round the negotiating table, and we expect this to be sorted out.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady still has not explained why she has not visited the city to look at this issue at first hand.

The right hon. Lady’s manifesto sets out the issue of preserving the green belt. In this very House, she said that she would transform grey-belt land such as wasteland or old car parks, but also that she would protect the green belt. In its report accompanying the spring statement last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility stated that most of the additional homes delivered—up to 500,000, according to her—will be built on the green belt. Is it not the case that she has conned the public with her grey-belt policy, and that she has unintentionally misled this House?

[Angela Rayner]

I thought the hon. Member was going to do better, but he did not. The Minister for Local Government was in Birmingham on Thursday, and I am always happy to visit Birmingham. It is a great city and has always been a fantastic place, and I have probably been there more times than the hon. Member has. Under the Tories, the number of homes approved on green-belt land increased nearly tenfold since 2009, so I will not take any lectures. We have said that we will develop on brownfield sites first, and we are taking action to make sure that we deliver the homes and infrastructure that people need. He could learn a lot from me.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Angela Rayner and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Angela Rayner]

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

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

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

[Angela Rayner]

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

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report

Debate between Angela Rayner and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Angela Rayner]

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

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

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

English Devolution and Local Government

Debate between Angela Rayner and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Angela Rayner and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Angela Rayner and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.