Planning and Infrastructure Bill

David Mundell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Absolutely. Because of the nature of the constituency I represent, I know that chalk streams are extremely important and should be protected. They are our national inheritance, and we are their custodians. I really hope that the Government will take further steps to align this Bill with a fairer and greener future for everyone.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I will speak to Lords amendment 28, which was introduced in the other place but relates specifically to my constituency. The Eskdalemuir seismic array, which is near the village of Eskdalemuir in my constituency, is a seismological monitoring station established to detect seismic signals from nuclear explosions. To a generation that grew up following the end of the cold war, the facility may seem to be little more than a historical curiosity, but it continues to be a vital asset in global monitoring, in scientific research, and, crucially, in helping to keep the United Kingdom compliant with its international obligations under the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

The Eskdalemuir seismic array has been operating since 1962, making it one of the longest-operating steerable seismic arrays in the world. The facility is geographically remote, in a low seismic noise environment, and highly calibrated and sensitive, enabling the detection of even small seismic signals at a vast distance. Over recent years, its seismometers have picked up the sonic boom from Russian jets in UK airspace, and have detected underground nuclear tests in North Korea. On one occasion, it was able to detect signals generated by the detonation of around 100 tonnes of conventional explosives in Kazakhstan. All that is clear evidence of the unique nature of the site and its capabilities.

Some might wonder what the site has to do with the Bill. What could the Bill’s impact be on the maintenance of this vital scientific facility, which is crucial to our national defence and our undertakings under international treaties? In many rural constituencies in Scotland, the march of large-scale wind farm developments continues, encouraged by the Scottish Government. The forces acting on wind turbines cause vibration in the turbine—vibrations that can travel underground for many kilometres, with obvious consequences for facilities that require seismological quiet for their effective operation.

As some Members may know, the desire of wind farm developers to push the boundaries of where their infrastructure can be located, and the boundaries of the guidance against which their applications are assessed, has led to challenges to the Ministry of Defence. A previous attempt by a developer to site a wind farm at Little Hartfell, which is in the consultation zone of the Eskdalemuir seismological monitoring station, led to judicial review proceedings against the MOD. On that occasion, the challenge did not dispute that the MOD is entitled to devise and enforce a policy to protect the array from interference with its detection capabilities—it concerned the way that proposed developments were prioritised—but the lesson is clear: developers will seek to push the boundaries of where and how their developments may be sited. Ministers must be aware of that, and willing to take measures to protect against that, where issues of national defence are at stake.

The key consideration is this: in a dangerous and difficult world, we must not water down our defence systems or let down our allies to squeeze out what, in a national context, is a small amount of extra electricity. The UK Government should robustly refuse to entertain novel technologies within the 15 km exclusion zone proposed by the Eskdalemuir working group, which would replace the existing 10 km zone. That should also apply to those applications already in the planning system that were submitted by developers who continued to pursue their projects aggressively, with full knowledge that work was ongoing to review the exclusion zone. Our national defence must come first. I am sure that most people would agree that this is an area where an abundance of caution is well justified. It would be concerning if Ministers and the MOD were pressured into going too far in the name of net zero.

I am not necessarily objective, because I am the Member of Parliament with the largest number of wind turbines in their constituency, either consented or built. I believe that industrial-scale wind farms are bad generally for the locality, but there need to be specific rules around them when national security is in question, and we have to protect our credibility with our international partners.

Any loosening of the rules on infrastructure developments around facilities like the Eskdalemuir seismic array, or passing up the opportunity to reinforce existing rules, would send entirely the wrong message, both to potential developers eager to exploit new opportunities to construct even more wind farms, and to our international partners, who rely on our ability to contribute to our own defence and our collective defence. Lords amendment 28 is an opportunity to underscore the protection needed for facilities like the Eskdalemuir seismic array, and I want this Government take those protections forward.

House Building: London

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I am going to impose an informal five-minute limit, and we will see how we get on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) on getting this slot. As he can see, the subject is close to the hearts of so many of us; more importantly, it is close to the hearts of our constituents.

In Islington, those who want affordable housing have to have social housing. Nothing else works. In Islington, we therefore need to have a policy to maximise social housing. People can rent privately, but the only way they can afford to rent privately is by renting out one room each: that means having a single person sleeping in the sitting room, and other single people sleeping in the bedrooms. We have lots of large, dark, sad tower blocks that were built under the Liberal Democrats, which have been bought for investment purposes and are not used. Their lights are off at night, nobody is on the voter register —they are just there, and they laugh at the 17,000 people on the waiting list in Islington who desperately need social housing. Those are Islington people who want to live in Islington, and there is no space for them.

Frankly, politics in Islington begins and ends with housing. We have some very rich people, some lucky people and some very poor people in Islington, but moving to Islington is impossible for an ordinary person. We have a vibrant community. We are a tiny community—Islington is one of the tiniest boroughs in Britain. Let me give hon. Members some stats about it: Bexley borough is four times bigger and Bromley borough is ten times bigger than Islington. The Minister is likely to say that 20% of something is better than 35% of nothing. I get that, but I do not think that one size fits all, particularly in little brave Islington.

Since the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury was in charge of housing in Islington, we have had a policy that 50% of all new developments need to be affordable. We say to the developer, “Fine. The land is expensive. You’re going to make a killing on the flats that you build. But half of them have to be for local people, which means that they have to be affordable, which means they have to be social, because nothing else is affordable in Islington. We will let you have half, but half of it has to be for us, and that is how it is.”

We have been doing that, and it has not meant that we have got nothing. Since 2020, seven schemes have gone through in Islington, which has resulted in nearly 1,000 affordable homes. That may not seem like a lot, but it is in somewhere as cramped as Islington where the opportunities are as few as we get. I have the least amount of green space of any MP in the whole of Britain. I have 120,000 people crammed into the seventh smallest constituency in the country. We have 15,000 people per kilometre. Our opportunities for development are limited.

I appreciate that it has recently become more difficult for local authorities to build by themselves, but until recently the joke was that if someone left their garage in the morning to drive to work, by the time they came back the local authority would have built a flat there. It is a political and social imperative to build as much housing for our people as we possibly can, and that is what we want to do. Unlike the Bromleys and the other boroughs, we have only little infill sites. We do not have big developments. Please do not give everybody instructions to do exactly the same thing because that is not going to work.

I ask that we look at what can be achieved and allow Islington to continue to insist on 50% so that when we do get our tiny little sites available for development, we can say to a developer, “You are very welcome. Welcome to Islington. We are headbangers. We have 17,000 people on the waiting list. You have to build half of it as affordable housing. You know that because we have been saying it for 15 years and we will continue to do so.” We would rather the Government did not undermine that so that we can continue to do it.

It is more difficult to get those developments, and it may be that those sites will take a bit longer to be developed. However, we would rather such tiny sites as we have be developed for social housing and local people and take a bit longer to develop than yet another great big tower block that is empty, dark and owned by people in China who have decided to build to buy a flat in Islington instead of a gold bar. That is the reality of housing in Islington.

I know that the Minister knows what I am talking about. I know that he is very thoughtful and an absolute expert in housing and wants to do exactly what we want. We know that the housing crisis can be solved only by building more housing. Absolutely—he has my full support on that. But we need to have housing that local people can live in. The reality of the economy in central and inner London is that we must have affordable housing. Otherwise people will continue to come.

Whenever I speak about housing in Islington, I try not to cherry-pick; I just talk about the last time someone spoke to me about housing. Someone spoke to me about housing on Saturday. I knocked on their door and there was a terrible noise. There was a child in the corridor screaming and screaming. Mum had her headphones on because the child is clearly autistic. She came to the door and said, “Emily, I’ve been to see you so many times and you just cannot get me rehoused, can you? There’s five of us in this one-bedroom flat.” That is the reality. That is why we have to build more social housing in Islington. That is how people live, and it is wrong. Our absolute priority must be to build more homes that families like that can live in.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call Peter Fortune, who I am sure will stick to the five-minute limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I also recognise that there are financial challenges with the Treasury signing a fairly blank cheque to say that all public land could become housing. We need to be creative about this, and that is where we need a mixture of local knowledge and some flexibility from the Treasury. For example, the change of use of school sites was quite gummed up in the Department for Education under the previous Government. We need to make sure that any change of use can be dealt with relatively quickly. It will be better for health and education outcomes if we use that land for other things.

We need a national mission on housing, and I applaud the Minister for leading on that. Does he have any plans to limit further overseas purchasers buying these properties? It is great for developers, because they get that cash in, but we need to prioritise local people, and tax does not seem to be doing it. Does he have any thoughts about restricting Airbnb? I know well the blocks that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury was talking about, because during covid, people paid rent to go to those places to isolate, but they were not proper homes. That is having a devastating effect on school numbers across London. Could the Minister look at the costs of building? The long-term costs of not doing it will be enormous, and we need to support those families who desperately need social rented housing.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I ask our last three speakers to stick to their five minutes.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for securing this important debate. Few issues affect Londoners more directly than the shortage of decent and affordable homes. I want to begin by talking about one of the clearest symptoms of that shortage: the rising cost of temporary accommodation. In Waltham Forest, the net overspend on temporary accommodation this year alone is £14.3 million. In my constituency, 7,300 applicants sit on the housing register, and the average wait for homes is irreconcilable—10 years for a three-bedroom home, and 14 years for a four-bedroom home. In neighbouring Redbridge, 3,000 families sit on the temporary accommodation register, and a wait for a three-bedroom home is 18 years, which is the lifespan of a child.

Behind those numbers are people. One of my constituents, a mother and a nurse, has been without a stable home since she was 13. For 20 years, she has moved between insecure rentals and temporary housing, despite working as a public health worker and a nurse, and caring for a child under treatment at Great Ormond Street. She faces eviction, instability and anxiety, all because of a shortage of social housing. That is what the housing crisis looks like for humans. The slowdown in house building has tightened competition for homes, driven up prices and pushed councils to rely on hotels.

The causes are many: the lingering impact of the pandemic, high interest rates since the 2022 mini-Budget, Brexit-related labour shortages, soaring construction costs, and the new fire safety and building regulation requirements. I therefore welcome the agreement by the Mayor of London and the Government to boost house building, which includes a £322 million injection from City Hall in the form of a developer investment fund, which will leverage private capital, and a wider £11.7 billion from the social and affordable homes programme, with low-cost loans from the national housing bank.

We must face the scale of the problem. London councils are trapped in a vicious cycle of rising costs while funding to cover them stays static. Councils even outbid one another for the same limited supply. Many constituents are now housed far outside their own boroughs—we read about that today in an article about Waltham Forest.

The situation is worsened by competition with the Home Office, which also relies on temporary accommodation for asylum seekers. The bidding war benefits a handful of landlords but leaves councils and communities footing the bill, and people from within our communities are sent outwith them. A constructive answer would be to re-establish co-ordination between the Home Office and London Councils, reinstate a cap on bids or prioritise boroughs with the greatest need. I therefore welcome the Home Office’s commitment to develop a more sustainable model of accommodation, but it must go further by reducing competition and expanding supply to restore fairness and stability to local housing markets.

Councils are not only victims of the crisis, but essential partners in solving it. Redbridge is delivering 600 council homes through its own affordable homes programme, and Waltham Forest has bold regeneration plans, particularly at Avenue Road and Montague Road, which I have spoken to the Minister about previously. At Avenue Road, the council could deliver 617 new homes, including 242 for social rent. Montague Road would add 223 new social homes and about 200 additional properties. That is more than 1,000 new homes in total, which would improve the lives of the wonderful community that lives there at the moment.

But like many London schemes, those have stalled. Across the capital, 111,000 homes are paused, and the rate of converting planning approvals into completions is below 10%. That is why our Government’s intervention is vital. It will not override local councils but empower them. Our Labour councils have a strong record of innovation, using infrastructure, finance and land value capture to support house building as part of the regeneration. With modest, well-targeted funding, Waltham Forest could unlock more than 5,000 new homes through estate renewal and redevelopment in underused sites.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. I have to draw you to a close there, Mr Bailey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second time today, Mr Mundell. I welcome this important debate and thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for securing it. I declare an interest, as my son is studying construction management at London South Bank University—I hope he will be one of the house builders of the future. I also do so because, like all the other hon. Members in this debate, this is one of the biggest issues for my constituency—for so many people who come to my surgery and whom I see every day when I go out and about in the constituency, but also for my own children. I do not know whether they would ever be able to afford to live in my area, and that is no way to build a community. People need to be able to know that their children and grandchildren will be able to live near them, to have work near them and to live in areas that they can afford. At the moment, we do not have that in London; we have a broken housing situation.

Tackling the housing crisis has always been a top priority for the Mayor of London. Despite some of the claims made today, the facts speak for themselves. Sadiq Khan has started more new council homes in London than has been the case at any time since the 1970s. Before the pandemic, he completed more homes than had been the case at any time since the 1930s. That is not luck; it is Labour leadership in action and working hand in hand with Labour boroughs, such as Wandsworth, to deliver for Londoners. Since 2018, 23,000 council homes have been built or are being built with the help of City Hall funding.

We know that the challenges are real. House building is facing a perfect storm: the legacy of Conservative under-investment and, in Wandsworth, Conservative total pandering to developers; sky-high interest rates; soaring construction costs; and the lasting impact of Brexit. Those pressures demand bold, urgent action. That is why I welcome the emergency, time-limited housing package announced by the Government and the mayor, working together, in October. It is a serious intervention, with £322 million of new investment for a City Hall developer investment fund, which will be used to keep affordable housing rates as high as they can be. Like other hon. Members, I hope that we will not just see more dark houses. It is really important that local people have first dibs on all the new houses being built. We need to have those stalled projects unlocked and getting shovels in the ground.

I will highlight two housing developments in my constituency that I think all hon. Members will be very interested in. This is good news. The first is New Acres, which is a £500 million, purpose-built neighbourhood on a brownfield site that has brought 1,034 new rental homes to Wandsworth; it was completed last year. The original plans were that 23% would be affordable. The mayor called the scheme in, and it is now 35% affordable, with 55% of that built in the first phase. It has not been a case of leaving it all to the next phase and then it perhaps not happening. It is there; it is real. It is in my community in Wandsworth. It is one of the UK’s largest build-to-rent schemes and it is—I underline—35% affordable.

The second development is the Alton estate renewal, which just two weeks ago, in the UK’s largest ever regeneration ballot, was overwhelmingly endorsed by residents—82.4% voted in favour. That is the result of the Labour council coming in and saying that the previous Conservative council’s plans just did not work and were being imposed on the community. The Labour council said, “Let’s start again and work with the community.” The community could see that the plans would provide what they wanted for their area. There will be new GP surgeries; dedicated youth facilities, which I am obsessed with; a family hub; improved shops; green spaces, and up to 650 new homes—the developer is the council, so it will be able to ensure that it has the affordable housing and that the whole development is what the community wants—thanks to £100 million in investment from the council and £16 million in Greater London Authority funding, with a focus on family-sized homes.

We need more affordable homes. I am grateful for the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and for all the work the Minister did on it. I am also grateful for Awaab’s law and its extension to private renters, because the link between housing and mental health issues is very strong. But I agree with other Members that overseas sales need to be reduced. Buy-backs are very important, as is local government funding for repairs. Too many homes stay empty for too long between periods of use. Councils need more money to repair them along the way.

A Labour mayor with a proven track record of house building, backed by a Labour Government with the ambition to deliver, and a Labour council, as we have in Wandsworth, is how we will solve London’s housing crisis. That is how we will build a fairer, stronger city for future generations.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call Luke Taylor on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. You have eight minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Beales]

I share the hon. Member’s view of the general public’s opinion on the issue, but as a cabinet member during seven years of planning and redevelopment in Camden, I rarely heard those voices in planning committees. Unfortunately, the voices that are heard are often disproportionately against development and do not represent the people on housing waiting lists. I just challenge the presentation of the public view through the planning system. Is it not true, too, that many local authorities take far too long to determine applications? In my borough—I have just had an email—it has taken six months to draft a section 106 heads of terms document, two years since the planning was approved. Is that not unacceptable?

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Taylor, you have taken two lengthy interventions. I am afraid that they will not be in addition to your time.

[Luke Taylor]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I will move on swiftly.

In my experience in Sutton we subscribe to the “yify”—“yes, if”—approach that I have spoken about a number of times. We do not need to water down community buy-in. We might need to make it faster and more efficient, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater will only lead to the wrong housing being built in the wrong places and leave us wondering, in 30 years’ time, why the mistake was not glaringly obvious to people today. That is not a new approach that has reared its head in these measures; the decisions to cut the portion of affordable housing expected from developments in the recent “Homes for Londoners” plan, and to set the annual national social house building target at just 20,000 social homes per year, show that the Government simply do not have a credible plan to provide the kind of housing the country needs.

We need an ambitious whole-of-Government approach to build up to 150,000 social homes each year. It can be done, and the Government need look no further than the Liberal Democrats’ plans. We would give local authorities the power to stop Help to Buy in their area and, as a last resort, to stop the right to buy too, and give them the first right to purchase all public land for social housing. We would also fix the Building Safety Regulator by ending the mismatch between fire safety standards and the Building Safety Act 2022, speeding up the backlog of confusion and incomplete assessments for remediation, while ensuring that the building safety levy covers all the costs so that leaseholders are protected from paying. As well as making it more affordable to insulate existing homes, we would ensure that all new homes are zero carbon and provide proper incentives for critical household infrastructure such as heat pumps. That is how we build more affordable homes—not by tearing up regulations with no regard to the impact, but by smartening regulations and intervening with serious, meaningful incentives to build the right kinds of housing.

Secondly, it will be news to nobody that the financial picture for London councils is dire. The city’s 32 boroughs overspent by £330 million on housing and temporary accommodation budgets last year alone—double the previous year’s figure. As London Councils has demonstrated, the cost of the London homelessness crisis is the greatest threat to the financial stability of London boroughs. Watering down the community infrastructure levy—perhaps the most notable way that councils recoup costs and benefits from house building in the short term—is simply another hammer blow in that regard.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. I think this might be the point at which you need to conclude.

[Luke Taylor]

Skipping ahead, I invite the Minister to tell us why anyone who cares about solving the housing crisis and protecting local councils in London should vote Labour at the local elections in May, particularly when the only party consistently standing up for those hit hardest by the housing crisis, and for our cash-strapped local councils, is the London Liberal Democrats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

I am afraid I cannot, because we are under time pressure.

A report recently released by the Centre for Policy Studies described London as

“The City That Doesn’t Build”.

It is impossible not to agree with that when the mayor’s record is put under scrutiny. Under Sadiq Khan, housing starts have collapsed in London, with the number of private homes under construction set to slump to only 15,000 in 2027—a mere a quarter of what should be expected.

Analysis from the Centre for Policy Studies has shown that, over the last financial year, only 4,170 homes have been started in London, amounting to less than 5% of London’s 88,000 home target. In the first half of this year, that has hardly been improved on, with just 2,158 private housing starts, again versus a target of 88,000 per year. Those totals are disastrous. The mayor, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister should be reversing those figures, not indulging or excusing them.

The picture becomes even worse when we look at affordable housing. Affordable homes had just 347 starts between April and June, which is around 15% of the total starts for 2023-24, and just 9% of the total starts in 2024-25. Prior to the general election last year, the Mayor of London was telling anyone who would listen that he needed £4.9 billion per year for the next 10 years to build affordable homes. The Government elected last July did not accede to his request. Given his appalling record over the past decade, I cannot say I entirely blame them for not trusting his ability to deliver.

At the last spending review in June, as has been mentioned, £11.7 billion was awarded for the next affordable housing programme, which will run from 2026 to 2036. At the last round of Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government questions, when I asked the Secretary of State what he was doing to hold the Mayor of London to account for his lamentable record of failure, he alluded to a pending announcement. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) noted, a written ministerial statement was snuck out without fanfare a couple of weeks ago that announced temporary reforms to London house building to try to cover the mayor’s decade of failure.

Some of those proposals are welcome, including the sensible removal of elements that can constrain density, such as dual aspect and units around the core of a building, as well as some of the changes to the insistence on arbitrary and unviable affordable housing targets. However, it is deeply concerning that the Government are proposing to reward the mayor’s decade of failure by giving him more power to intervene on democratically elected local councils and take planning powers away from them.

Most worryingly, that gives the mayor considerable additional powers to concrete over the green belt. There is nothing in the statement about facilitating brownfield development, despite the CPRE report published last month that shows that Greater London has the capacity to deliver in excess of 462,000 new dwellings on brownfield land. The Minister is a very decent man; he is respected across the House, including by me. When we hear him speak in a few moments, I am sure he will give us invaluable insight into how the Government justify these shocking figures. However, to me, they are simply not doing enough to build or to hold the mayor to account for his failures.

The Home Builders Federation has written to the independent Office for Budget Responsibility to say that, without changes to boost affordability for first-time buyers and tax cuts, the Government will miss their national housing target. Another study by the planning and environmental consultancy Lanpro suggested that, at the present of rate of building, the Government would fall 860,000 homes short of their national target—that amounts to missing the target by 57%. Together, the Mayor of London and, more recently, the Government have shown that they are anti-business and anti-growth, with spending and borrowing rising, and with inflation at almost twice the target level, as well as anaemic growth, over-regulation and rising taxation curbing any chance of a housing recovery at every turn.

As I have outlined, this is being felt most in our capital city. I am deeply proud to be a Greater London MP, to have been the London Assembly member for Bexley and Bromley, to have been the Conservative leader at City Hall, to have been a London borough councillor, and to live and work in this great city. That is why I care so much about holding this Government—and specifically their shambolic colleague, the Mayor of London—to account for their abject failures to get house building in London to flourish. Action is sorely needed and desperately wanted. The Government need to do a lot more, and they need to do it now.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister to respond to the debate, and perhaps he can give Mr French a minute at the end to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not going to comment on the use of the mayor’s planning powers in specific instances. We think these additional expanded powers are a sensible response to the crisis in house building that London faces.

Finally, we are providing £322 million of funding to establish a City Hall developer investment fund. Building on the success of the mayor’s land fund, which has already delivered 8,000 homes five years ahead of schedule, this new fund will allow the mayor to take a direct, interventionist role in unlocking thousands of homes, driving regeneration and creating thriving communities.

It is also worth noting that alongside the implementation of this package of support, the Government intend to clarify the use of section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 so that an application under the section to vary a condition of a planning permission should no longer be used as an alternative means of reconsidering fundamental questions of scheme viability or planning obligations.

In the time available to me I am not going to be able to respond to all the points that have been raised. There have been a number of very good points. I could speak, for example, about what more can be done on TfL land. I think it is worth noting that Places for London is on site, constructing nearly 5,000 homes, 56% of which are affordable. It has already delivered 1,600, but there is definitely more we can do on TfL land around train stations. There is more that the Government are doing on the release of public sector land. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) about that in particular. I can assure hon. Members that our new social and affordable housing fund will leave a role for acquisitions to be funded.

We know that there is no single simple solution to the development crisis that London is facing. Action to address the acute viability challenges facing residential development in the capital is a necessary intervention, but it is not sufficient. We know that a revival of house building in the capital is dependent on other factors, including increased demand for private for-sale homes, but taken alongside the reforms we are making to the Building Safety Regulator and the significant grant funding we are allocating to London for land, infrastructure and affordable housing, this time-limited package will give house building in London a shot in the arm, and the Government look forward to working with the mayor and the GLA to implement the package and kick-start house building in our capital.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Mr French, you have 30 seconds to conclude the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

On a point of order, Mr Mundell. I should have drawn the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I rent out my late mother’s flat. We bought it for her so that she could release our council house back to the council.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Duly noted.

Pride in Place

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The shared prosperity fund will come to an end in March next year. We will set out the details of a local growth fund, which will be geared towards the areas of the country that we think need it the most: our mayoral authorities in the north and the midlands. We will share details of that in due course.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Borderlands was a fully-funded initiative launched by the former Government, and it is now supported by the Department, the Scottish Government and the Scotland Office here in Westminster. It is designed to meet all the objectives that she has set out in the south of Scotland, Cumbria and Northumberland, but for some reason, only a very small proportion of the money has got out the door. Can the hon. Lady, in conjunction with the Scotland Office, do a full drains up to understand why the money is not getting to the community projects that it is designed to support?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I am very happy to take it away, and to work with the Scotland Office to understand why the money has been blocked. We are really keen to move at pace. We want to get investment into our communities, and we want things to start happening, so if we can find ways to unblock the investment, we absolutely shall.

Coalfield Communities

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adam Jogee]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. My wife is a wise and wonderful woman, so he will be reassured to know that I learn lots from her. I agree that we are one United Kingdom, and that this issue requires one approach.

At the commemoration last month to which I referred, the order of service contained a poem from Captain John William Roberts, whose grandfather died in the disaster and whose daughter, Maisie Farrell, was at the memorial with me despite suffering a stroke in recent months. I am pleased to say that she is on the road to recovery. Staffordshire women are made of strong stuff— I should know, as I was born to one—and I wish Maisie well in her recovery to full health. It just so happens that Maisie is Newcastle-under-Lyme born and bred, and is a close friend of my family. I want to share a small part of that poem with the House:

“Diglake Disaster:

That bitter day in January, Christmas not long gone

We went to work joking and singing—clogs echoing to mirth

How could we guess early, subterranean Niagara sweep lads away

By the nature of its vector, trap mates without escape?

While we struggled in icy water, choked for clear air, agony of heart,

Burning in our mind we were separated for ever from loved ones.

This mixed group of men, not able to see Easter—”

It ends,

“Bequeath our generation acts, they knew we could perform—

Advancing wisdom, better leaders, unselfish goals

Thus, take up the human charter: embrace our task.

The words of Captain John William Roberts, ACF.”

What a tribute those words are to the sacrifice of those men and boys who died, and to the shared experience of miners right across our United Kingdom, from South Wales to the east midlands and from Yorkshire to the jewel in our kingdom’s crown in north Staffordshire. Those miners worked hard, they powered our economy, and they showed what grit, determination, dignity, strength and commitment look like. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) alluded to, we have a duty to give back to the communities that gave us the men and boys, and the strong women right beside them, without whom our country would never have developed in the way that it has.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and I will touch gently on that issue. Her intervention speaks to her commitment to standing up for those most in need of a strong voice.

I will now happily give way to my friend from Scotland.

[David Mundell]

I commend the hon. Member on securing this debate. I agree 100% with the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). I have many constituents who are in exactly the same position, although the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) did not mention Scotland, which has a proud mining tradition. Communities in my constituency, such as Sanquhar, Kirkconnel, Kelloholm, Coalburn and the Douglas valley, have often felt very overlooked. Does the hon. Member agree that often in these communities, people are still forward-looking, wanting to make those communities turn around and be regenerated? They have not given up on them, and the Government—in London and in Edinburgh—should not either.

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to my friend from Scotland for making that point. I look forward to working with him, and to his supporting the Government as we seek to do exactly as he said—get these communities back on track, in the place and with the support that they need and deserve.

Last Friday, I met the widow and two of the five daughters of the late Jimmy Flynn at the weekly coffee morning at St Giles’ church in Newcastle-under-Lyme. I hope that one day, you will join me there, Madam Deputy Speaker—they do a good fry in the morning. [Interruption.] Not quite an Ulster fry, but we look forward to joining the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for one of those soon. Mr Flynn was a miner, and over a cuppa, his widow and daughters told me about his life, his work, and the fact that their dad and their husband—alongside all those who worked down the pit—worked “bloody hard every day.” That they did.

I cannot talk about Newcastle-under-Lyme’s mining history without celebrating the fantastic Apedale heritage centre, which is on the site of a former coalmine. I also want to acknowledge the Apedale valley light railway; I very much enjoyed riding on a steam train on a recent visit. Despite the coalmines ceasing to operate, their legacy remains an integral part of my community, our heritage and the lived experience. That legacy reflects a community built on hard work and industrial prowess by good people, driven by decency, respect, strength and skill. I am proud to honour the memories of those who went before us, and to represent their descendants and their ambitions in this place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) has had to head home to meet workers at Royal Stafford, who have had bad news this week. He has asked me to pay tribute to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which has supported a number of community organisations in his constituency.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), who has been a steadfast and diligent champion of former miners and coalfield communities up and down our United Kingdom. It has been a pleasure working with him, and with Sophie Jackson in his office—and with my team, since my election to this place—on getting justice for members of the mineworkers pension scheme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) mentioned. I thank the Prime Minister and all those on the Front Bench for the leadership that they have shown. I want to acknowledge Professor Steve Fothergill and Chris Whitwood for the excellent work that they do supporting the Labour group of coalfield MPs—a group on which I lead for the west midlands.

Some 5.7 million people live in Britain’s coalfields—one in 10 people in England and Scotland, and one in four people in Wales—but almost half of coalfield communities are among the 30% most deprived communities in the United Kingdom. Yesterday, I had a very helpful discussion with Tash and Roshni from the Local Trust. We talked through the figures in my community—in Cross Heath, Knutton and Silverdale, where the challenge of tackling injustice and inequality is most serious for us locally, just as it is serious in places across the country. I would be grateful if the Minister touched on the community wealth fund, and how we can ensure that money from it is directed at supporting disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Where will the money go, and how will it be allocated?

Education has such an important role to play. I was at St Thomas Boughey school in Halmer End last week, and I heard about the challenges that it faces when it comes to funding, staff recruitment and retention, and ensuring that the smart young people who go to the school can work and live in, and contribute to, the community in which they were raised. I look forward to welcoming some of those young people to Parliament later this month. My community has a university, Keele University. How do we build a bridge between the funding that universities can attract and young people who want to study in the community that they live in?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East said, we need justice for the British Coal staff superannuation scheme members, and I have told the Prime Minister this directly. The BCSSS has more than 40,000 members who formerly worked in the mining industry, including a number of my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I have promised that I will fight their corner. I urge Ministers to speed up efforts to transfer the £2.3 billion investment reserve in the BCSSS to the members who earned it, deserve it and need it, as more and more former miners die each year. That is important, because a significant number of BCSSS members were required to transfer to the BCSSS, as we have heard. If they had not been forced to move, they would have had access to their own money when this new Labour Government made the right call on the MPS. They deserve it, and this Government, although they have been in power for only a few short months, must now get on with it. I will do whatever I can to help. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said, we want real action, not empty words; we want a proper commitment, not hollow promises; and we want our communities properly invested in, not forgotten. A new Government with a majority of this size presents us with an opportunity to finally get the settlement we need, the focus my constituents deserve, and the future my constituents have earned.

Conduct of Elections

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I will call Wendy Chamberlain to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the conduct of elections.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. We are approaching a general election at some point this year, or maybe next, and it will not be a snap general election. A lot has happened since the previous one in December 2019, and the country has experienced a number of events since then, but the intention of this debate is to note that a number of changes to our democracy will be fully tested for the first time in a general election since 2019. It is worth while assessing whether those changes have improved our democratic systems, or whether they are tools for the current Government to improve their position.

In the 2019 Conservative manifesto the Government committed to a number of changes, including the scrapping of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, updating and equalising boundaries through the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020, and maintaining first past the post. I wonder whether the former vice-chairman of the Conservative party and now Reform MP, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), agrees with that, given that he is now a member of a party that is committed to electoral reform and has signed up to the Make Votes Matter good systems agreement. It is always worth noting that the only other country in Europe that has the first-past-the-post system is Belarus.

In additional, the Government committed to maintaining the voting age of 18, introducing voter ID, and restricting postal vote harvesting and foreign interference in elections. It is a pity they have been slow to move on that issue when it comes to party finances. They also committed to preventing that intimidation of candidates and voters, and I am sure we can all agree with that.

The Government also committed to introducing a constitution, democracy and rights commission within the first year of the new Parliament. In December 2020, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee held oral evidence sessions on the subject of a commission but, other than independent reviews of administrative law and the Human Rights Act 1998, the reports of which have resulted in further consultations, there is no commission.

Indeed, the Constitution Unit has suggested that the Government’s failure on that manifesto commitment is because the underlying goal is to bolster their position and weaken parliamentary and judicial checks, and that a more fragmented review process may help to obscure the combined effort of any reforms and divide opponents. I hope the Minister will provide clarity on the future of the commission and whether it will come into being before the election.

As MPs, when people come to us for assistance, the first thing we do is check that they are our constituents. We do that by finding out where they live. I am sure the vast majority of MPs point out on their standard automated acknowledgment that the person who has emailed must be a constituent in order to get assistance. It is important to note that constituencies are not organised on that basis, but on the number of registered voters within them.

The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 set a tolerance of 5% of the electoral quota to produce what the Government insist are equal constituencies, to ensure that each vote applies equally. That has resulted in huge differences in the constituencies to be fought in the upcoming general election. Only 55 of the 533 English constituencies remain unchanged by boundaries. The geographical boundaries have shifted and the names of some of the new constituencies are a mouthful, linking areas that are not necessarily linked in other obvious, definable ways.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mundell Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Young]

I absolutely commit to looking at that. We have introduced the project adjustment request process, and I am more than happy to talk to the hon. Lady and her local authority about how they can utilise that to meet the changes that she outlines.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the great strength of levelling-up funding is that it supports projects that are generated by local communities, rather than by officialdom? When the Borders levelling-up partnership is considering projects, the projects in my constituency at the Crook Inn at Tweedsmuir and the George Hotel in Walkerburn are ideal for such funding opportunities.

[Jacob Young]

I was grateful to meet my right hon. Friend recently to discuss those exact priorities. We are hoping to invest £20 million into the levelling-up partnership he mentions. I am sure that those priorities will be part of our considerations as we design the partnership.

Levelling Up

David Mundell Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Young]

I would not accept the hon. Member’s synopsis. As I said earlier, we gave councils an uplift of £5 billion last year to meet priorities in their area. I cannot answer the hon. Member’s question today on Rochdale, but I shall write to him as soon as this statement is over.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I particularly welcome the £4.1 million for the Chambers Institute in Peebles, the £6.8 million for walks and cycleways in Clydesdale and the £13.8 million for transport in Dumfries and Galloway, but I pay particular tribute to the trustees of the Annan Harbour Action Group for its compelling bid, which secured £11.9 million to regenerate Annan Harbour. These are all essentially rural projects. Does my hon. Friend agree that rural areas across the United Kingdom must be at the core of levelling up?

[Jacob Young]

There is no greater champion for levelling up in rural areas than my right hon. Friend. I am delighted that we have been able to give Dumfries and Galloway a chunk of money in this round, and I am sure that he will work to ensure that his local authorities put it to good use. I am delighted to be working with him on doing just that.

Holocaust Memorial Day

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

My thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) for bringing forward the debate and my commendations to the new hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) on an excellent maiden speech.

I want to tell the House the story of an ordinary person who became extraordinary through her love and courage, who did not look the other way and who eventually laid down her life for her commitment. When Jane Haining was arrested by the Gestapo at the school where she worked in Budapest one morning in April 1944, she told the children in her care:

“Don’t worry. I’ll be back by lunch.”

She did not come back. Instead, from one of Budapest’s police stations, Jane was taken to Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Unlike the 12,000 Hungarian Jews who were arriving daily to the horror of Auschwitz, Jane’s journey started not on the cobbled streets or Budapest or the Someşul Mic side town of Cluj but in the rolling farmland of my native Dumfriesshire. Her so-called crime, unlike the Hungarian Jews she arrived with, was not her ethnicity but her faith and courage. Like almost all who arrived at the camp at that time, Jane died within a few weeks—at just 47—in conditions that few can comprehend. She was the only Scot to die in the holocaust.

Jane had, in a very literal sense, given her whole life to others. As a young girl in Dunscore in eastern Dumfriesshire, she had given it to her younger sisters for whom she had become the carer on the death of her mother. After her graduation from Dumfries Academy, where she had excelled in languages, she worked as a secretary in Paisley and Glasgow before finally finding her calling as a missionary in the Church of Scotland.

From June 1932, Jane was the matron of the Scottish Mission School in Budapest, a boarding house for Jewish and Christian girls. Life and work at the school was overtly Christian, but Jewish parents were keen to see their daughters attend the school not only because of the quality of the education but because of how the girls were accepted. As one commentator noted:

“Jewish girls who came here were not seen as second-class pupils. They were just welcome.”

That must have felt precious to the pupils and their parents as the persecution of the 1930s become more prevalent and pernicious.

Even before the start of world war two, the Church of Scotland had repeatedly advised Jane to leave Budapest, but she refused. After her final visit to her home in Scotland in 1939, she wrote

“if these children need me in days of sunshine, how much more do they need me now”?

It is a testament to Jane and a reminder of our capacity for good that her concern was always the children’s needs, not her own safety. Her courage and selflessness, though, cost Jane her life.

When the Nazis swept into Budapest in March 1944, Jane was arrested within a month. Her crimes, according to the Gestapo, included that “she had wept” when, as prescribed by law, she had sewn yellow stars on to the pupils’ clothes. Her sympathies for the Jewish people had been revealed to Nazi authorities by the son-in-law of the cook at her school, whom she had scolded for eating food intended for the girls in her care.

Jane was rightly recognised in 1997 by Yad Vashem as one of the righteous among the nations. She is also recognised as a national hero in Hungary. It was there in 2019 that I, as Secretary of State for Scotland, had the privilege of leading thousands of people through the streets of Budapest on the march of the living, an annual event to mark Hungary’s Holocaust Memorial Day, which movingly that year was dedicated to Jane and started in a street named after her.

Here in the UK, Jane is remembered with a cairn outside Dunscore parish church, and an informative exhibition within it. For those wishing to know more about her life, I encourage them to look to Mary Miller’s book on Jane’s life, “A Life of Love and Courage”, to find out more. While her life, like all those taken in the holocaust, cannot be restored, it can and must be remembered, and I would certainly like to see it remembered more fully and more widely.

As the holocaust and its victims move further into memory, it is right that we do more to ensure that current and future generations comprehend the scale of the horror, but also the impact of each individual loss, and through Jane’s example—the example of an ordinary person—remember that for all the evil in the world, if we do not compromise or look away then, like Jane, there is always something that each individual can do to combat it. As Rev. Aaron Stevens of St Columba’s Church of Scotland in Budapest eulogised:

“Jane Haining’s service and sacrifice shows that caring for people from different backgrounds in no way compromises our faith. In fact, it just might be the fullest expression of it.”

May God bless Jane Haining. She was truly a light in the darkness, and may her light shine even brighter in the future.

Levelling Up Rural Britain

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

As the Member with the largest rural constituency outside the highlands—it is larger than any in England or Wales—I am pleased to be called to speak. I will not take up the eight minutes by reading out the more than 100 communities that make up that large and diverse constituency, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for bringing to the Floor of the House a debate on rural issues across Britain. In my experience, this House debates rural issues too rarely and has become far too metropolitan and urban-focused, which is a facet of our society generally. Sadly, I find things little different in our Scottish Parliament.

It is important that Members across Britain can debate these issues. The ones my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) raised are equally applicable in Leadhills in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) set out the right prognosis: we need to have a strategic approach if we are to maintain rural communities and a rural way of life. The one thing I did not think either really touched on—although they did in relation to funding—is that the most important Department we could have had represented here today is the Treasury. My experience is that the Treasury is the greatest impediment to investment in the rural parts of the UK. That flows into the welcome levelling-up initiatives that are being taken by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and I will touch on those in my constituency.

I have raised this before, but many smaller rural local authorities are ill placed to put forward complex bids. The Treasury came forward with an initiative to put certain moneys into certain local authorities to allow them to take that forward, but their capacity is limited, as is their experience of doing so and their direct contact with Whitehall. If we are to go through these processes, it is important that rural and small local authorities are supported.

It is difficult to spend £20 million on a single project in a rural area, when we come to do the analysis. On levelling up and other proposals, there has been a lack of flexibility. Ultimately, I was able to negotiate, partly because my constituency, unusually, covers three county areas, for the project that was put forward to be in three separate parts, but there was a lot of resistance to that type of project.

Even when projects go forward, the usual suspects tend to be favoured. Although I welcome the community renewal funding that came to the south of Scotland, the organisations that ultimately received that funding had the capacity to make professional bids for it. I say to the Minister that they would not have been the choice of my constituents for that funding. If we are going to say that we have community renewal funding, we have to listen more to communities and what they want to do. Ultimately, that needs a loosening of the Green Book rules. Various announcements have been made at various times that the Green Book rules from the Treasury were to be loosened. They need to be if we are successfully to invest in rural areas.

I was struck by what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) had to say, because his constituency in Cumbria is similar to mine in the south of Scotland, which is why I very much welcome the Borderlands initiative, which has brought the south of Scotland, Cumbria and Northumberland together to try to create capacity to take forward important rural projects. For example, Carlisle, although in the north of England, is very economically important to my constituency, so the initiative is important.

I recognise many of the problems that have been mentioned. Although I am sure that we will hear from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that there is some sort of Utopia in Scotland, I can confirm that a resident in Dumfries and Galloway has no access to an NHS dentist. Indeed, 10 days ago, NHS Dumfries and Galloway was so overwhelmed by patients that it could not manage the situation. Many of the issues are very much the same in Scotland and need the same innovative approaches that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex spoke about. If we want to sustain rural communities, we have to think innovatively about how to do that.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you would expect me to mention the three projects in my constituency that are going forward as part of the Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale levelling-up bid. They include the rejuvenation of Annan Harbour. I congratulate the Annan Harbour action group on its innovative work over a long period. It will see the rejuvenation of the Ministers’ Merse and the creation of a bunk house and café. It will revitalise that part of Annan. There is the rejuvenation of the Chambers Institute, the equivalent of the town hall, in the heart of Peebles, and the Clydesdale walkway, which will look to bring together various existing walking and cycling trails in the south of Scotland to create the possibility for people to walk from Stranraer to Eyemouth, which I am sure appeals, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to take advantage of the rural tourism opportunities in the area. I also commend the Dumfries and Galloway transport bid, which is to bring electric buses to the area for those who perhaps find the walking a little too much.

In summary, the important point is that, across Britain, we need to take a new and more urgent approach to tackling rural issues. It is not just about single, one-off bids and funding. They are welcome, but if we are to sustain rural communities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, we need a different approach, and the Treasury and changing its attitudes is central to that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I now have to reduce the time limit to seven minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mundell Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is right that there has already been significant investment in Rotherham. Of course, one of the beneficiaries of that is the shadow Defence Secretary, whose impassioned advocacy on behalf of his constituents has not gone unheard; however, there are a number of communities in Rother Valley. The community ownership fund, which we will be expanding, is just one route, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to take it with me to ensure that the villages and communities that he serves get the services they deserve.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that smaller and rural local authorities often do not have the capacity to deal with complex application processes? What steps will he take to address that concern?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend is right. He represents, I think, the largest, and certainly the second-most attractive constituency in Scotland, which covers three excellent local authority areas. There are excellent local councillors in all of them but, essentially because they lack the economies of scale, we need to work with those local authorities to ensure that, from Lockerbie to Moffat, the communities that deserve investment secure it.