Black History Month

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate marking Black History Month, and I thank the Minister for opening the debate with a speech so powerful that it gave me the chills. I do not think that is because I might have caught a cold off her on Monday, although that may be the case.

In my maiden speech, I talked about how the story of my home city, Bristol, cannot be disentangled from the UK’s shameful and immoral history of colonialism and slavery. That is a history that we cannot and must not turn away from. Bristol merchants financed over 2,000 slaving voyages between 1698 and 1807. These ships carried over 500,000 enslaved Africans from Africa to face slave labour in the Americas. This shameful trade is an ongoing stain, and it is why my party backs slavery reparations. Since 2020, we have supported the idea of a UK Government-backed all-party parliamentary commission of inquiry for truth and reparatory justice, aligned with the United Nations frameworks, to address the legacy of the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and colonialism. I am proud to say that my city also backs that call following a motion brought by my former colleague, Green Councillor Cleo Lake, five years ago. This is work that I hope to continue to push on as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations.

The UN’s declaration earlier this year, which said that the trafficking of enslaved Africans is the “gravest crime against humanity” and called for reparations as a

“concrete step towards remedying historical wrongs”,

is therefore very welcome. I hope this strong UN stance will encourage the UK Government to mark Black History Month by acknowledging the inhumane crimes that Britain inflicted on African people for centuries, and the ongoing impact of those crimes on the global south today.

My constituency, Bristol Central, is home to a blue plaque at the Seven Stars inn in Redcliffe that marks how Thomas Clarkson, an anti-slavery activist, together with the landlord of the Seven Stars, collected testimonies from sailors in 1787 that were used as evidence in Parliament. These statements played a role in the passing of the Slave Trade Act 1807, which eventually led to the end of the transatlantic slave trade.

Fast-forwarding 150 years, we have already heard extensively today about the 1963 Bristol bus boycott, which was a landmark moment in race relations in the UK. On the same day that Martin Luther King gave his famous “I have a dream” speech in the US, the Bristol Omnibus Company agreed to end its racist hiring practices following a successful boycott campaign. As we have heard, the boycott was widely cited as a turning point for racial justice in the UK and ultimately led to the Race Relations Act 1965.

Bristol’s more recent history saw 15,000 Black Lives Matter supporters gather in the city in 2020 and the toppling of a statue of Edward Colston, a 17th-century slave trader who is believed to have transported about 80,000 men, women and children from Africa to the Americas between 1672 and 1689. That statue, in its damaged state, is now displayed in a glass case in the M Shed Museum, in my constituency, where it is surrounded by some of the placards held by protesters on the day it was toppled. Bristol city council’s culture team say this about the exhibit:

“This is not erasing history, this is recording history. History isn’t something that can remain static and preserved—that moment was history in action.”

Those words feel particularly salient to this debate, because in celebrating those people in our communities whose contributions are all too often unseen, we are—as Cherron Inko-Tariah MBE, the editor of Black History Month UK Magazine, puts it—also writing history. We are making the history that we want recorded, and keeping it alive. To that end, I want to give a special shout-out to one of the many people making black history in Bristol today: the first lord mayor of Bristol to come from the Somali community, Councillor Yassin Mohamud. Yassin brings his experience as a refugee, his experience as a member of the black and minority ethnic community, and his work representing one of Bristol’s more deprived areas to the role of lord mayor. As he said shortly before taking up the post, his focus is on unity

“to bring people together, to celebrate the diversity and strength of our city, and to ensure that every community feels recognised and valued.”

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am enjoying listening to the hon. Lady. I do not agree with everything she has said, but I will touch on that if I catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Lady extend her tribute to the current Lord Mayor of Bristol to my noble Friend Lord Rees of Easton in the other place, who has set an amazing example as a black leader in local government?

[Carla Denyer]

I will indeed. The now Lord Rees, who was the first black mayor of Bristol and one of the first in Europe, also featured in my maiden speech, and I recognise the great contribution that he made to our city.

Finally, I want to highlight the campaign launched last year for Bristol to become the UK’s civil rights capital. The fact that two Members from outside Bristol have already told the story of the city’s pivotal role in British black history supports the case for that very strongly. The campaign brings together academics, business leaders and politicians, including Lord Rees. I will quote directly from one of the campaign’s lead organisers, Julz Davis. He said:

“Bristol has never waited for permission to lead. This city has shown the country what change looks like. Activism has always been the lifeblood of systemic change here.”

Black History Month is a much-needed chance to remember the importance of systemic change and how many people are making that change happen. To quote Cherron Inko-Tariah again:

“There is still so much we do not know. So many stories waiting to be uncovered. So many names waiting to be spoken. So much history waiting to be reclaimed, recorded and shared.”

That potential is very alive in this Chamber today, in my home city of Bristol and across our communities, and I look forward to continuing to work cross-party to help realise it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Equalities (Satvir Kaur)]

It is an honour to close today’s debate. I thank the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith for opening the debate and for everything she has done in a personal capacity and in her time here to champion our diverse communities. I thank everyone from across the Chamber for their heartfelt, powerful and thought-provoking contributions. It is rare for this Chamber to come together in this way, and I am pleased that it has done so over an issue as important as this one.

I know that Black History Month can at times be viewed as tokenistic, but it is only tokenistic if we allow it to be. I agree that we should mark the 40th anniversary, and that this should be a regular item of Government business. As we heard from the contributions this afternoon from Members who represent communities across our country, Black History Month is an incredible opportunity to honour our diverse communities, pay tribute to the huge contribution they make to our cities, towns and neighbourhoods, and celebrate the success stories that inspire people like me every single day—stories too often left untold.

This month’s theme is “Honouring Our Communities”, and I thank Members for doing just that. We pay tribute to trailblazers like Dr Allan Minns, the first black mayor in the UK, who was elected over 100 years ago in rural Norfolk; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for telling us his story. We pay tribute to Paul Boateng, the UK’s first black Minister; our first black Serjeant at Arms; Councillor Faduma Mohamed, the Mayor of Ealing; Lord Rees from Bristol; and Yassin Mohamud, the current mayor of Bristol.

[Carla Denyer]

Lord Mayor.

[Satvir Kaur]

The Lord Mayor of Bristol.

We pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who has been mentioned several times in the debate, as the first black woman elected to Parliament. I remember sitting next to her when she became Mother of the House and feeling incredibly emotional. We pay tribute to John Okungbaiye, about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) spoke passionately, as she did about others who have contributed in her constituency. As there is an ongoing love-in for my hon. Friend, I just want to add to it. There is a real sisterhood in Parliament, and I have felt that so strongly with my hon. Friend; I thank her for her friendship, support and encouragement. I feel as though the resilience she oozes is slowly seeping into my veins, so I thank her personally for that.

We pay tribute to Eric Huntley and the others who were spoken about passionately by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan); Harvey De Pass, from Reading, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey); and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), for being the first female black Minister in this country and for everything she has done to champion this cause. I pay tribute to the Government’s Race Equality Engagement Group members, who as we speak are all in Liverpool with the Minister for Women and Equalities discussing how we go further in making more meaningful change. I thank Baroness Doreen Lawrence for generally being an inspiration to us all, but also for chairing the group and bringing it together.

Housing Costs: Government Support

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend anticipates what I shall go on to say. One of my main messages concerns the impact of the 2024 housing allowance freeze; the Government will not be surprised by that—I gave the Minister advance notice of my questions. The allowance is supposed to be set at the 30th percentile—in other words, 30% of properties available on the market should be below the housing allowance. However, certainly in places like Cornwall, we are talking about it being the minus-30th percentile, effectively, because in areas like mine the local housing allowance is 30% below the lowest-cost available rental property in the marketplace. The 30% is relevant, but sadly not in the way that is required.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Member for his important speech. In my constituency, only 2.3% of rental homes are affordable with local housing allowance—a far cry from the 30% that it is meant to be. Of course, that means that many more families, including families with children, are forced into rent arrears, poverty and homelessness. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, introducing rent controls would reduce the cost of unfreezing local housing allowance by more than £1 billion by 2030. Does the hon. Member therefore agree that the Chancellor should introduce an emergency brake on rents as well as unfreeze local housing allowance at the Budget to address the gross distortion, inequality and unfairness in the housing market?

[Andrew George]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I will come to the extremely difficult decisions that any Government need to make about how this policy adds up with the available resource. Certainly, if one wants to avoid driving private landlords out of the market altogether, one has to form an understanding of how the market works. I entirely agree with the principle of what the hon. Lady is saying, and I will come to how we can how we can pay for these things. That is a very difficult question, which Opposition politicians generally avoid, instead asking for more money, while not necessarily explaining where they will get it from.

My primary message is that current Government policy is not working. It is driving the poorest into debt, food banks, homelessness and, in many cases, sadly, destitution. I have a number of questions for the Minister, which I sent to him in advance. If the Government know that a person’s private rental is bound to be at least x, why in my area of Kernow West, when the Valuation Office Agency assesses these factors, is the benefit level set at x minus 30% to 40%? That leaves people in the kind of poverty I described in the two cases I mentioned earlier. Have the Government reviewed the adequacy of the present methodology for LHA calculations, and are Ministers confident that the present arrangements do not risk tipping families and individuals in areas of high-priced private rental accommodation into rent arrears and potential destitution?

I understand that the Valuation Office Agency collects the rental data from landlords to determine the LHA, but how accurate and up to date is that data? Is the VOA using historical cases, where people have been living in accommodation for a very long time, and where the data would not reflect the price of that accommodation were it to come back on to the market? The Government need to answer many questions about this issue. I know the Minister is sympathetic.

One example was raised with me by Citizens Advice Cornwall. A family in Penzance consisting of either a couple or a single parent with two children of different sexes, one of whom is 10, meaning the children need separate bedrooms, would technically require a three-bedroomed house. Local housing allowance states that they can have a maximum of £812.76 per month. According to Rightmove last night, the lowest price for a privately rented three-bedroomed house in the Penzance area, a few miles away in Marazion, is £1,800, making a gap of £987.24 per month for that family. I could go through a large number of cases, but I do not have time now.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am not going to resile from the fact that we want to build more homes, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have a housing crisis, and we absolutely need to build more homes across the country. However, we are agreed on the principle of brownfield first. Our argument is simply that that should be done through policy, as we do across all aspects of the planning system from local authorities—it is far too rigid to be put on the face of the Bill. We have strengthened the national policy framework to deliver that policy intent, which we hope will reassure and satisfy Members of both this House and the other place.

Briefly, Lords amendments 36, 155 and 90 seek to remove provisions from the Bill relating to local authority governance and executives. The Government continue to hold a strong preference for executive models of governance, and in particular the leader and cabinet model, which is already operated successfully by 80% of councils.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress.

For that reason, we cannot accept the amendment from the other place. The Government’s provisions are intended to bring greater clarity and consistency to local authority governance across England. We have heard and responded to the genuine concerns of Members in this Chamber and noble Lords in the other place about certain aspects of this policy. Members will recall that on Report in the Commons the Government brought forward their own amendment to allow councils that have recently adopted the committee system following a council resolution or referendum to continue with those arrangements until the end of the moratorium period. We believe that this strikes the right balance, so we do not think that the amendments are necessary.

Lords amendments 37 and 91 require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy for parish governance in England. Let me put on record that we absolutely see the important role that parish and town councils play, and we are clear that they will have a role within the neighbourhood governance system that we will roll out through clause 60. We do not think that the amendments are necessary. We are committed to ensuring that, through an amendment in lieu, neighbourhood governance structures can include town and parish councils. We are also pleased to commit to updating the existing community governance review guidance to reflect examples of good practice for local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin]

When it comes to brownfield-first development in my constituency, there is an area in the town centre where we could deliver homes, but that is prevented by the fact that we do not have the money to progress at pace with the necessary flood alleviation scheme. We will be voting to support Lords amendment 26 —we need to keep the provision in the Bill.

Local government structures are perhaps the clearest example of how democracy itself is not being devolved by the Government. Our Lords amendment 36 would allow local authorities to determine their own governance structures. Instead, the Government insist on imposing a single model from the centre.

[Carla Denyer]

Green-led Bristol city council received glowing peer review from the Local Government Association this month, specifically noting how moving to a committee system has strengthened democratic engagement and transparency. It also, by the way, enables cross-party co-operation, and an honourable mention goes to the local Lib Dems in Bristol. Does the hon. Lady agree that if independent, non-political reviewers can see the benefits of a committee system, the Government should not be imposing the more tribal, less co-operative leader and cabinet model on councils?

[Zöe Franklin]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. We saw how the previous Labour Government imposed the cabinet structure on councils up and down the country. True devolution puts the power of choice of local governance methods in the hands of local people and, therefore, an approach that does not allow local councils to change to that committee system is the wrong approach and is not devolution. The Government cannot simply claim to devolve power while denying local areas the ability to keep the system they have chosen or wish to choose. I ask the Minister to clarify whether councils will be able to stay as a committee system and whether she will consider allowing other councils to change to the committee system should the local council team and local people wish to do so.

Lords amendment 37 would introduce a national strategy to support and expand parish and town councils. The Government say that that should be left entirely to local decision making, but this is not about removing local choice; it is about whether communities are even given the opportunity to understand what a parish council could mean. Without a national strategy, there is no direction, support or momentum to expand parish governance.

I have seen the power of parish councils in my community and constituency. Parish councils give residents a direct voice. They ensure that development works with communities, not against them. At a time when councils are becoming larger and more distant, parish councils keep power close to the people. One of the most compelling things about parish councils is that, where they have a local neighbourhood plan, 25% of the community infrastructure levy goes directly to the local community. Outside parish councils, that figure drops to 15%, which is held centrally.

Housing, Communities and Local Government

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Written Corrections

[Steve Reed]

People deserve to feel proud of their neighbourhoods. Pride in Place is central to our plan to make that happen. We have now committed £5.8 billion to almost 300 areas and begun to set up neighbourhood boards so that local people can decide for themselves how that money is spent.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Muslim people across the country face intensifying, dehumanising and often violent racism every day. Now that we have a definition, I am desperate for the conversation to move towards action. How quickly will the Government now move from definitions towards a clear and funded road map for action, including proper monitoring and accountability?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is right to call for action, and I agree with her point. We will now engage in a review of how best to disseminate the definition, and put it into action so that it makes a difference to people’s lives. There is £5 million of new funding in the report, but Departments across Government will have sources of funding that also can be used to disseminate the new definition.

[Official Report, 9 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 91.]

Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government:

Social Cohesion Action Plan

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The Government are intending to bring into force and fully utilise the powers available in the Online Safety Act 2023. By doing that, we think we can tackle some of the worst online sources of disinformation and hatred that are being spread around to sow division in our communities.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Muslim people across the country face intensifying, dehumanising and often violent racism every day. Now that we have a definition, I am desperate for the conversation to move towards action. How quickly will the Government now move from definitions towards a clear and funded road map for action, including proper monitoring and accountability?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is right to call for action, and I agree with her point. We will now engage in a review of how best to disseminate the definition, and put it into action so that it makes a difference to people’s lives. There is £5 million of new funding in the report, but Departments across Government will have sources of funding that also can be used to disseminate the new definition. We are committed to appointing an anti-Muslim hostility tsar, who can advise and be a critical friend to the Government in doing the work that we need to do. We will engage widely across local government, schools, universities, broadcasters, the NHS and others to agree on how we can best utilise the definition in order to support the Muslim community.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

There is a lot of evidence to back that up. The phrase passes me by, but there is a sphere of influence that Iran wanted to put in place through Iraq and Syria, with Hamas and Hezbollah as its proxies to run things, and we have debated in this Chamber so many times the malign influence of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the proscription of that body that that is undoubtedly true.

We have tolerated things for too long. We tolerated streams of cars along Marylebone Road, many years ago, beeping their horns and claiming that the Jews should be murdered and the women should be raped. That did not get the crackdown that it needed. On the flipside—I will not go over this again, because we know what happened—we see West Midlands police deciding that it was far easier just to ban Israelis. Let us remember that the fans were not all Israelis; there were plenty of British citizens who are fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv who wanted to go to that football match. Rather than protecting the laws that fans who go to a country should respect, people in authority thought, “It is far easier just to stop them.” How did we get to that point? For an easy laugh, we decided, “The Jewish community is so small, and there are lots of people who hate it, so it is easier just to say, ‘You can’t come’.” That is shameful.

I have given notice that I am going to name the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). When he led the Labour party—a great and highly respected political party in our country, with much history —I am afraid that he gave a safe space to antisemitism. I praise the Prime Minister for the action he took in driving antisemitism out of the Labour party.

I look around, and I look at the agitation of the councillor I have named and of the people associating themselves with some political parties, and I say this: it is the responsibility of the leadership of the Green party to follow the example of the Labour party in how it addressed the creeping in of antisemitism into its party. I am not saying that it is the policy of the Green party to be antisemitic—I am not saying that at all—but it must address the issue far more seriously than it has done, because I see a repeat of the years from 2015 to 2019.

As I bring my comments to a close, I want to mention the actions of Leeds city council. The protests that take place in Leeds are one thing—the police give permission, and we have powers in place so that when there is hate speech and laws are broken, people can be arrested and prosecuted—but West Yorkshire police has made it clear to Leeds city council that when protesters want to use its land, it should charge them rent. The reason West Yorkshire police wants that is that it attaches an organisation to what is happening. Leeds city council has refused to do that; it is giving permission to bodies to protest, but it is not using the system, which is in place, to charge for the use of land. West Yorkshire police has said that it will be able to crack down on hate speech, violent speech and incitement to violence if it has somebody held accountable. That accountability on its own may temper what is happening.

There was a speaker called Dr Rehiana Ali—quite frankly a vile individual—at one of those rallies, and she called for the targeting of the Jewish schools in Leeds. That has nothing at all to do with the war in Gaza. Schoolchildren—let alone British citizens or anybody, quite frankly, who is not running the Israeli Government—have nothing to do with the actions of the Israeli Government. That is antisemitism as raw as it gets, but it was difficult to bring her to justice, because it was difficult for West Yorkshire police to be able to prosecute directly. I believe that the Met Police prosecuted in the end.

Let me finish on a point about Sudan, Iran and the Russians in Ukraine. The one thing that they all have in common is that they are not Jewish. That shows the level of antisemitism in this country. If we are dealing with a Jewish community, people think, “Let’s whip up a mob. Let’s say what we like. Let’s watch authorities like West Midlands police stand back and think it is easier to just stop the problem happening.” The road to hell is paved with alleged good intentions.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me on what course I can take when a Member of this House repeatedly uses speeches to misrepresent members of the public, who are not able to be present to speak for themselves?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The hon. Lady will be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair. At any point, she would have been able to seek to intervene on the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke).

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is an honour to be here, representing my Dwyfor Meirionnydd constituents and Plaid Cymru, to remember, first, the 6 million Jewish children, women and men murdered in the Holocaust, and also the millions more murdered in the Nazi persecution of other communities, which many other Members have mentioned.

I hand my greatest congratulations to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on his excellent introduction, and to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). We will bear in mind those words:

“history is someone else’s story; memory is my story.”

Of course, there has also been reference to our history in the United Kingdom. When we look abroad, it is very important that we know what has happened here.

As we commemorate the victims of the Holocaust, we remember other atrocities: the Holodomor in Ukraine, and genocide against the Armenians, and in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. Forgive me, but that is not, and cannot be, an exhaustive list. There have been, there are and there will be other crimes of genocide. We cannot comfort ourselves by presuming that these events are consigned to history.

The convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide is the treaty that criminalises genocide. The definition is deliberately narrow:

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

We know that this is happening now, and that it will happen in the future. We need international bodies and the rules-based order to hold people to account for genocide, to define it, and to take criminal steps as necessary. We know that we need that, because we can look back and learn that from history.

In the noise and confusion of present events, we are required to call out genocidal actions, wherever and by whomever they are committed. It is our duty to be the watchdogs warning against genocide, be it in Myanmar against the Rohingya Muslims, in China against the Uyghur Muslims, or in Gaza against the people of Palestine.

The International Court of Justice is, as we speak, deciding on the application of the convention of genocide to Myanmar. This decision will be of immense significance in relation to forced displacement and Myanmar’s military attacks on the Rohingya. If the Court rules that mass deportation was a motive, not a defence, for genocide, that may become a precedent for a similar ruling against the Israeli Government; it is important that that is said today.

The theme for International Holocaust Memorial Day this year is “Bridging Generations”. It is a reminder that the responsibility of remembrance lives on through not only survivors, but their descendants, and all of us. It is also a reminder of our fragile link to the Holocaust. A 2026 study from the Claims Conference shows that approximately 196,000 Jewish holocaust survivors are still with us. They are a living testimony to the horrors imposed by Nazi Germany, and a lesson from history to never repeat those horrors. They are also ageing. The median age of Jewish holocaust survivors is 87. By preserving the link with our past, we can ensure its retelling. It is vital that we keep listening to and sharing their testimonies, so that future generations can understand how distortions of truth can lead to the greatest crime of all: genocide.

The manipulation of truth is a vital component of genocide. The Nazis played on prejudice and stereotypes to scapegoat and dehumanise people they regarded as subhuman. The Nazi regime also practised a propaganda of deception by hiding details about the “final solution”; there were press controls to prevent the public reading statements by the allies condemning Nazi crimes. One booklet printed in 1941 glowingly reported that in occupied Poland, German authorities had put Jewish people to work, built clean hospitals, set up soup kitchens, and provided Jewish people with newspapers and vocational training. The authority of the written word and the broadcast word was abused to manipulate the truth.

[Carla Denyer]

The right hon. Member is giving a most powerful speech. On her point about false narratives, I wonder whether she agrees that it is so important to distinguish between legitimate criticism of the actions of a state, and hate directed towards people because of their religion. It is worrying to have heard remarks in today’s debate—a debate on the Holocaust, of all things—that seemed to blur the line between those two things.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I agree with my hon. Friend. She, like me, will have constituents who are subject to high, unfair ground rent charges and, in some cases, to escalating ground rent charges, particularly those that are inflation-linked. People across the country see those ground rent charges stack up to significant amounts and they will benefit from the cap once it is implemented. We estimate that the cap on ground rents will take approximately 12 months to introduce after Royal Assent, but that is all subject to parliamentary timings. If, as in the past, there is cross-party support on this issue, we can all work together to ensure that the Bill makes speedy progress.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Leaseholders in Bristol Central are being ripped off. I am disappointed that the Minister and the Government will not enforce peppercorn ground rents immediately, although a £250 cap is an improvement and the movement towards commonhold is really welcome. However, there are big problems for leaseholders that are still unaddressed. Will the Minister please commit to tackling the soaring insurance premiums that have left homes unmortgageable and leaseholders trapped, unable to sell and move in the wake of the cladding scandal?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I detected an unusual amount of support in that question from the hon. Lady, which I welcome. On the specific issue of insurance charges, again, there was a consultation on switching on some of the provisions in the 2024 Act that relate to insurance commissions. I am more than happy to write to her to set out further detail, but we need to bring those into force and it remains our commitment to do so at the earliest opportunity.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Renters have waited long enough: this Bill is overdue, and it is time to deliver. The Conservatives had their chance. They promised reform, then watered it down. The Renters (Reform) Bill gathered dust while tenants were left to suffer, so Liberal Democrats absolutely welcome this Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill. But let us be clear: this Bill must hold firm in protecting the rights of tenants. My inbox is overflowing with experiences that should shame us all: families sleeping on the floor, windows that whistle in the wind, homes riddled with damp and mould, and tenants harassed by landlords to intimidate them out of their homes. This is not just about comfort and health; it is about dignity, justice and fairness.

Energy efficiency must be front and centre. Too many renters are living in homes that make them sick and are paying through the nose to heat them. Fuel poverty is a national scandal, and the Bill has a role to play in ending that. While the spotlight is on private renters, we must not forget those in social housing or in homes owned by institutions. They deserve the same rights, protections and standards.

I want to talk to Lords amendment 39 and Ministry of Defence housing. It is outrageous that the families of those who serve and who risk their lives for us are denied the legal protection that others will enjoy. These families are often uprooted, isolated and left behind while loved ones serve abroad or at sea. Yet they are told that they do not qualify for the same decent housing standards as everyone else. I have met families and service personnel around the country and even around the world through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and one of the issues most frequently cited by those thinking of leaving the armed forces is their housing. Too many of their homes are below par.

The Government say that most MOD homes already meet the standard—fine, then what is the harm in giving these families the legal right to decent housing? If the homes are good, the law will confirm it. If they are not, that is why we need the law. Let us be honest: many tenants, whether in military housing, Church estates or country manors, are afraid to speak out. They are afraid to challenge their landlord and lose their home. Rights must be for everyone, accessible without fear or favour.

The Government claim that councils cannot access the homes for security reasons, but I am sure the Minister will know, as do those of us who have military homes in our areas, that most family homes are not behind the wire. For those that are, there are solutions. We must find a solution and ensure that these families have the same rights. No one should be denied decent housing because of who they work for. I want to address the attempts to water down the Bill.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

We in this House all know that some landlords use the excuse of selling up to evict tenants only to re-let at a higher price. Does the hon. Member agree that Lords amendment 18, which would shorten that re-let period from 12 months to six months, would severely undermine one of the main aims of the Bill—to end no-fault evictions—by making it disappointingly easy for landlords to evict on just that basis?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point and saving me the trouble of doing so. Absolutely, landlords give excuses that are perhaps not all they seem to be.

I have heard from tenants who are terrified of being evicted under section 21, with landlords rushing to act before the law changes and evicting with absolutely no excuses. I have heard from renters who feel like they are in a David and Goliath battle.

Lords amendment 11 is an attempt to treat pets more harshly. The proposers of the amendment have it wrong. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said, tenants with pets are good news for landlords: research shows that their landlords are better off by £3,800 over 12 years thanks to lower vacancy rates and marketing costs for their properties. I would be a landlord who happily took pets.

Amendment 26 requires a criminal standard of proof for a civil matter. In my mind, that is not justice but obstruction. Last week, I met the housing ombudsman service. It told me that one in five calls that it deals with are from people it cannot help: private renters, people in new builds and people in conversions. The system is broken and the scales are tipped too far from our tenants. The Bill must fix that. We need one ombudsman, one law, one standard, one rule: wherever someone lives, if their home is owned by someone else and it is not up to scratch, they should be able to challenge it, get it fixed and live in a decent home. Housing is not just bricks and mortar; it is the foundation of everything else—health, education, family and work. Every renter deserves a home that is safe, warm, and fair.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Carla Denyer Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

The Renters’ Rights Bill does contain measures that mean that renters can challenge unfair rent hikes. The previous Government said many times that they would do something about section 21 no-fault evictions but they did not. Our Renters’ Rights Bill will ensure that we end those evictions, which are causing so much harm to my hon. Friend’s constituents and many around the country.

Our devolution revolution is well under way, with others queueing up to join it. This what we committed to in our manifesto, and we are delivering it through this Bill. Crucially, the Bill will make devolution the default for how the Government do business, with new strategic authorities having powers to pilot and request new functions and Government having a duty to respond to certain requests. It will mean that we can deliver devolution further and faster.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

On devolving the ability to run pilots, and following up on the point made by the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), Bristol city council—including Labour councillors—voted cross-party to have the power to pilot rent controls. Recent figures show that typical private renters in my constituency spend 45% of their income on rent. That is not sustainable. This Bill could offer the opportunity for that pilot—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Interventions have become far too long. There are many Members in the Chamber who wish to contribute, which the Secretary of State might think about before she takes more interventions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a long-standing advocate for child protection, and I pay tribute to her campaigning on these issues. We share her determination to do what is right for the victims and the survivors. We recognise that no sum of money can ever fully compensate for the horrors they have experienced. We are committed to funding efforts to tackle child sexual abuse in the future and support survivors to rebuild their lives—that is why we will make it easier for victims to make personal injury claims through the civil courts by removing the three-year time limit—and we are redoubling funding for therapeutic support services.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

This Refugee Week is an opportunity for the House to show solidarity with those fleeing war, persecution and oppression. Compassion and welcome are core British values, but for decades the Home Office has been undermining those values, as my new report “No Way Home” shows, by treating migration as a crime rather than making it work for our communities and for newcomers. Will the Deputy Prime Minister read the report and consider its recommendation to remove migration from the responsibilities of the failing Home Office?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I will commit to reading the hon. Lady’s report, because it is important that we take all information on these issues. We inherited an asylum system under exceptional strain, which costs up to £9 million a day. We will end the use of hotels through suitable self-sufficient accommodation for asylum seekers, minimising the impact on local communities, and we will protect and support asylum seekers while demonstrating value for taxpayers.