Budget Resolutions

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

It is fair to say that my constituents in Ealing Southall will not all have been glued to the telly last Wednesday to watch the Chancellor’s speech. Instead, due to wars abroad, many of them will have been trying their best to feed hungry kids, who were off for half term, or stressing about whether to turn the heating on or not. After years of austerity, my constituents have spent more than a decade too worried about their daily lives to be able to pay much attention to Budget day, and all the talk of GDP, OBR and CPI does not seem to have any impact on their lives.

This Budget changes that. By cutting energy bills and giving 34,300 households in my constituency a £100 council tax rebate, this Budget recognises the families in Ealing Southall worried about getting through this winter and the next. By reducing tariffs on everyday items, this Budget recognises the hard choices that mums in Ealing Southall have to make every day. By permanently raising the tax-free mileage rate to 55p, this Budget recognises the many nurses, plumbers and care workers in Ealing Southall who use their car for work. By allowing carers to work more hours without losing their entire benefits, this Budget recognises the situation of many carers in Ealing Southall. The Leader of the Opposition dismisses those changes, but in doing so she simply shows how out of touch she is with the reality of working people’s lives. Small changes such as those matter.

As well as giving people breathing space, this Budget takes the big decisions needed to finally undo the damage of 14 years of the Conservatives. Investing in skills and apprenticeships so that my constituents can get better-paid jobs is the best way to protect them from the uncertainties of foreign wars and global crises. This Budget’s £15 million investment to restore the union learning fund is one example of that.

The Leader of the Opposition dismissed the union learning fund as a “random new scheme employers don’t want”, but in fact it is a brilliant old scheme that 78% of employers said they were hugely supportive of until the Tories got rid of it. Yet again, the Leader of the Opposition shows how out of touch she is. The new union learning fund will address the challenges of today and help to reskill the workforce to take on jobs in AI and advanced manufacturing. It will help the Somali Uber drivers in my constituency to get help from their union, the GMB, when they fear losing their jobs to driverless cars.

This Budget also invests in apprentices such as Jack and Aidan, who I met when I visited West London College earlier this year. They can see buildings being built outside their window, and the new apprenticeship brokering scheme will help them to work on those sites.

Although they might not have been glued to the telly last week, when the kids had all been fed, the elderly parents had been looked after and the working day was done, people in Ealing Southall switched on their telly and their heating, and they saw a Government who are giving them not just the breathing space they need to make their lives a little easier right now, but the tools they need to face the future with confidence.

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Gideon Amos]

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. New clause 1 would require a strategy for the provision of 150,000 new social homes a year in England, which is the Liberal Democrat target. We welcome the Government’s commitments so far to funding and supporting the delivery of social homes, which are of key importance—in fact, we welcome those proposals a lot more than some of the planning system proposals for private housing development, but the focus of the new clause is on social homes. However, we need a significant target. So far, the Government have not set a statutory target, or indeed any clear target at all. The National Housing Federation and Shelter estimate that 90,000 more social homes are needed per year. Why did we go to 150,000? Because social homes should not be for just the most excluded, desperate and challenged in our society; they should be for working people in low-paid jobs.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I hesitate to ask the hon. Gentleman a slightly difficult question so early in the proceedings; he is a very nice man and does a very good job. He has previously said that national housing targets should not be dictated by Whitehall, that the Government’s housing targets are over the top and that a targeted approach to housing is unreasonable. Does he not agree that what the Government are doing is in line with his previous comments, and that it will achieve more social and affordable housing by overhauling the funding mechanisms for housing and by breaking down the planning barriers? That is a better approach, as he would previously have agreed himself.

[Gideon Amos]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s question about the details of Liberal Democrat policy, upon which I shall be delighted to expound. The challenge I was making is that the Government’s overall target for homes is mainly for private homes, so we have situations in Taunton where thousands of homes will be imposed on a community that will not be able to afford them or have any access to them. They will not be for local people.

Those targets come alongside the planning reforms, which seem to celebrate a confrontational approach—I think the Labour party called it a “blockers versus builders” approach. The notion that that will somehow lead to more community acceptance of housing development is wrong-headed. That is why we believe that the overall housing target needs to be based on household projections, as it once was, rather than on the current standard method. However, we would stick rigidly to our target of 150,000 social homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan]

Hear, hear.

[Gideon Amos]

I almost echo the “Hear, hears”. However, that money would struggle to add about 1,000 social homes per year to the current 18,000, which is the closest thing to a target that we can divine from the Government’s policy announcements—about 18,000, 19,000 or maybe 20,000 a year. We need a whole lot more than that. The National Housing Federation and Shelter believe that we need at least 90,000 a year. The current level of ambition really is not high enough. I encourage the Government to focus their attention less on issuing thousands more planning permissions. We need planning permissions to keep coming through, but since we already have a million plots with planning permission not built for private housing, they should focus their attention instead on the delivery of social housing and on setting a target—if not this one, a target of some sort.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to my new clause 34. I regret that my pointing out that the Bill will not create a single new social home appeared to get under the Minister’s skin on Tuesday, but the fact is that the Bill does not create any extra housing. That is not a surprise, as it comes from a Government who have built just 26% of their target in nearly 50% of their time in office. None the less, it is simply not good enough.

Moreover, in the places—few and far between—where the Government have tried to get Britain building, that has nearly always come at the cost of green belt protections, despite the fact that research from the Campaign to Protect Rural England shows that a large proportion of the Government’s lofty housing target could swiftly be met using brownfield land that already has planning permission. The CPRE estimates that up to 1.41 million homes could be built on existing brownfield land in England, based on data from local planning authorities’ brownfield land registers up to 2024.

[Deirdre Costigan]

The hon. Member talks about the importance of building on brownfield land first. That is certainly the policy of this Government. Would the hon. Member agree that although the previous Government professed to want to focus on developing brownfield land, they did absolutely nothing to make that viable, whereas this Government are putting money into the brownfield land release fund, which will help to clean up that land? Those are steps that the previous Conservative Government absolutely failed to take.

[Gareth Bacon]

The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point, but we are looking forwards, not backwards.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Ah!

[Gareth Bacon]

The hon. Lady says that the Government are making brownfield land development more viable. Where are the signs of that? There is no development happening. Development in this country has ground to a standstill under this Government. That malaise did not start under this Government—I will accept that criticism—but it is most certainly being exacerbated by this Government. They are doing nothing to turn back the tide. In fact, they are pushing it further.

Those 1.41 million starts would amount to 93% of the Government’s manifesto pledge. That is why I have tabled new clause 34, which seeks to require the Government to publish a strategy for prioritising brownfield land for social housing development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful for the opportunity to move the new clause, which stands in my name and in the name of my Liberal Democrat colleagues. Regulatory inspection of housing associations is particular to where there has been bad practice or responses to tenants have been poor. I acknowledge that most housing associations do an excellent job and fulfil a vital role in delivering the social homes that we need. However, where they are particularly bad or fail to deliver an adequate level of service and repairs to tenants, the Regulator of Social Housing may eventually carry out an inspection, but only years after tenants have been disadvantaged and not served.

[Deirdre Costigan]

The hon. Gentleman’s new clause 3 is very similar to the official Opposition’s new clause 53, which I believe they describe as a probing amendment. I have a probing question for him. How does he see things moving beyond the changes that the Government have already brought in, on a cross-party basis? Awaab’s law will allow tenants to report problems with repairs and have them dealt with by their housing provider within a very short timescale, and it will enable them to sue for breaches or go to the ombudsman. On top of that, there is the new right in the Bill to manage provision, which will allow tenants to get rid of the repair provider completely and bring in their own. How does he see his new clause moving things beyond that? What gap would it fill?

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Lady makes some excellent points about measures that we have supported; Awaab’s law is one of them, as is the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We certainly welcome the new standards to which tenants will have access. The import of this new clause is that it would cover a much wider range of poor practice: across a whole estate, for example, rather than individual dwellings, or indeed across all of a registered provider’s homes.

The regulator already inspects registered providers, but, as I say, its inspections tend to come after the scandal is all over—after things have been running for years and after tenants have complained, had recourse to complaints mechanisms and so on. Our new clause would allow tenants, where a reasonable percentage of them have signed up, to trigger an inspection by the regulator at an earlier stage. That would make it a proactive power of inspection, rather than making tenants wait until the end of the process for the regulator to look into it. Of course, there are details to be worked out, such as what we mean by an estate, which is why we made provision in the new clause for regulations, to be approved in this place, to set out those more detailed arrangements.

Fundamentally, this is about giving social housing tenants an extra lever: a power to bring in the regulator, where that is justified, to carry out an inspection in a proactive way. It is a constructive new clause and is tabled for that purpose. I am delighted that the Conservatives have followed suit with something similar; we could even be persuaded to vote for their new clause in the unlikely event that the Committee does not agree to ours today. Our new clause stands on its own merits. It would give an extra lever to social housing tenants, some of whom are really badly served by their housing associations. I commend it to the Committee.

Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

As always, Mr Western, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise to support clause 13 remaining part of the Bill. With his typical eloquence, the Minister set out both the opportunities and challenges presented to those with shared ownership, including the regulatory challenges sitting around it. He also described the very real impact that it can have on those individuals—who are often starting off on the path to home ownership—when it does not work well.

I therefore think that clause 13 is important. I do not in any way want to gainsay the important work that the Minister is doing. As I said this morning, I have a lot of respect for the Minister; he is extremely able and I know that he will be pursuing this work with vigour. However, I believe that a statutory review offers the opportunity for a much broader look at this issue in the round, and actions such as those that the Minister has outlined can sit under such a review perfectly reasonably.

The two things are not in contradiction. A statutory review would not stop the Minister from continuing to pursue some of the immediate actions that he has already set out. It just provides an opportunity to take a step back and look at this important sector of home ownership to assess whether it is working well. Where there are things that the Government or the Minister may have missed—as diligent as I know him to be— it gives that extra opportunity.

I know that the Minister has been very clear in his determination to continue pursuing shared ownership, as he set out in his written statement and in his announcement. However, I have to say that this Minister, in whom I have a lot of confidence, may not always be in this post. When he inevitably ascends to higher office, his successor may not be as focused on this issue as him. Therefore, I think that a statutory review as set out in clause 13 offers the opportunity to publish something that has been considered carefully, which Members of this House and future Ministers can then refer back to when considering the way forward. I do not think that it trammels the Minister’s freedom in deciding what to announce or his discretion in any way; it would just be a very important addition.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister has shown that he is willing to take action on the shared ownership eligibility cap, which I think has been frozen since 2019, and on which the previous Conservative Government took no action? He has already announced that he is raising the cap from £80,000 and £90,000 to £90,000 and £110,000 in London and outside London respectively. That shows the vigour with which he is progressing reforms to the shared ownership system.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady amplifies what I have already said about the Minister. Before I do his political career too much harm by being too nice about him in front of his Whip, I have been very clear in my respect for the Minister and the work he is doing. However, as we have seen in previous Governments—not only Conservative but Labour Governments since 2024—Ministers come and go with an alarming rapidity.

When something is as important as this is to so many people, there must be something underpinning it. Whether Ministers move—in this Minister’s case, I hope he ascends—or whether they leave Government, it is important that whoever succeeds that office and its responsibilities has something on which they can hang their hat and plan their strategy. That is why I think that a review would not be a hindrance to any Minister or Government. Actually, it could be of great help, not least in potentially giving the opportunity to objectively consider some of the issues that the hon. Lady has just raised further.

Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I echo the Minister’s welcome: it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers.

This Bill fails the British people. It effectively destroys right to buy for millions of families. It does nothing to free up stock for British nationals. It fails to introduce efficient stock management regulations. Most egregiously, it fails to build a single social home—a point completely missed by the Government and the Liberal Democrats. In scrutinising the Bill line by line, it is critically important that we defend aspiration and refocus the debate on the delivery of new homes.

I will speak to new clauses 55 and 57 and amendments 84 and 85, in my name. On new clause 55, in the past, Conservative Government-backed schemes such as Help to Buy and stamp duty discounts made a real difference to people buying their first home, and helped about 1 million first-time buyers to get on to the housing ladder. That contributed to 800,000 people buying their first home under the previous Government. However, since 2024 the Government have not shown that they have the aspiration to match that. Instead, they have cut a lot of the products that turbocharged first-time buyers getting on to the housing ladder.

Even when the Government try to support young people into property ownership, it emerges that all that glisters is not gold. I am primarily referring to the Your First Home scheme—a policy limited to new homes and expected to be constrained by income caps. Young people, especially young people in social housing, deserve better than that.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions Your First Home—the product that the Government announced to get young people on to the housing ladder. Does he agree that the targeted approach of that new idea is in stark contrast to the Conservative Government’s Help to Buy scheme? About half of the people who bought under that scheme were already able to buy a home, and it just allowed them to buy a bigger home, probably in a more affluent area.

[Gareth Bacon]

It rather depends on the detail, but if the income caps that we hear about in the press are even remotely accurate, we can rule out the whole of Greater London and the south-east of England, because people will not be able to access the financing. That would be yet another example of the Government pretending to do something without actually doing it, but we await the detail on that.

Right to buy is not a shameful practice, nor is it an exercise in capitalistic greed. It is a hand up on to the housing ladder for those in need, and an extension in the fundamental rights of property. New clause 55 would help realise that for young people. After all, it is critical that more is done to help young people to buy their first home. They face the greatest barriers to home ownership of any recent generation, and yet the Government’s answer is to cut one of their only routes to property ownership. We believe that that approach is fundamentally wrong, and I urge colleagues to join me in supporting young people by backing new clause 55.

On new clause 57, clause 1 in its current form not only enables the injustice of preventing future hard-working residents from owning their own homes but prevents current tenants from doing so. The Opposition are completely against that retrospective change. The Government have shown time and again that they have no regard for the property rights of individuals. The Government’s socialistic focus has targeted landlords, freeholders and renters, now they turn their gaze towards residents in social homes.

The vast majority of people in social housing deserve a hand up on to the property ladder and a chance to share in the pride of owning their own home. Many people in social housing know that their best chance at getting that is through right to buy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

I will not give way. I need to make some progress.

That is the least that can be done to support families aspiring to own their own home, whether they find themselves on the cusp of reaching their three-year qualifying period or on day one of the road towards making their home ownership dream a reality.

On amendments 84 and 85, the Bill opens with a statement claiming that its purpose is to make provision about social housing, but clause 1 makes no effort to increase the supply, build-out rates or funding for social housing. Instead, an ideological aversion to property ownership—a fundamental right—takes the top spot at the very beginning of the Bill. Ever since Margaret Thatcher gave millions of people the chance to own their own home, rather than rent it from the state, local authority or a registered provider, Labour MPs have for generations sought to crush that right and the aspiration that it exists to serve.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gareth Bacon]

No. More than 2 million households have exercised the right to become homeowners and gain a stake in society. Until 1980, that would have been out of reach for far too many British people, but the Government are determined to wind back the clock to the 1970s and cut off the right for hard-working families up and down the country to own their own home.

Amendments 84 and 85 would take out the extended qualifying period from the day the Bill is passed, thus preventing clause 1 from coming into effect for three years following Royal Assent. That would delay the Government’s dogma and continue to support the right of 5 million people to find their place in the community, and to feel the pride and safety that comes with owning one’s own home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

Let me give way to a Government Member this time.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the research that shows that up to 40% of homes bought under right to buy have actually ended up in the hands of private landlords? In fact, if we are looking to help people into long-term housing, right to buy is not the solution.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Member is quite right. Not only that, but local authorities end up paying over the odds for placing families in temporary accommodation, sometimes in homes that were built as council houses to provide for those families in the first place. Now they are being sublet, sometimes multiple times, to provide that housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

We do not share the Government’s position on this. We will be pressing for a Division on amendment 90. On amendment 83, I understand the point that the Minister made about recouping the cost. However, we believe that that is a convenience for local authorities, not for local people, and we are more interested in local people.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Bacon]

No, I will not. I am just summing up. We will press for a Division on amendment 83, because we think that 10 years is more appropriate than 35. On amendment 91, we also disagree with the Government. We think that there should be an affirmative rather than negative procedure for this, so we will also be pressing that to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Paffey]

We are all fighting for our constituents to be protected from the bills that are landing on them through no fault of their own. They certainly did not choose any of this. They want the simple comfort of having their own home, and they work incredibly hard to achieve that, yet look at where so many of them are.

I welcome the mandatory auditing of fire risk assessments to that all-important single standard. A dispute about what is wrong with a building must never again, as in the case of Oceana Boulevard, outlast a decade; there has been constant back and forth about whether the parties accept what they read in the fire engineer’s report. I certainly agree with the comments made by Members on both sides of the Chamber about people picking and choosing who to commission a report from. In some cases, it seems that they decide whether they like what they read in a report before commissioning a different one. That has to come to an end.

I welcome the message that waking watches are temporary. At Sirocco, a development in nearby Ocean Village, the residents paid for one for years. One of the residents, Ro, tells me that she had to use a freedom of information request just to see the fire risk assessments. Under this Bill, remediation plans have to be published, along with timelines and contacts. No resident should need an FOI request to learn the truth about their home.

I welcome the legal duty to remediate. Ben and his family have told me their story, and again, unfortunately, it is not the only time I have heard such a story. They have put their life on hold and have put off having more children—growing their family—because they cannot sell and move on. Since when should anyone’s life aspirations be subject to the stalling of these companies, many of which have literally not bothered to get their own houses in order? Sadly, being unable to sell and move on is a story I have heard many times, and which other hon. Members have repeated. Remediation work at the Blake building close by began only this summer. It certainly will not finish before next summer, four years after enforcement action was first taken. It is clear that delays cost, and it is far too often still the residents who pay those costs.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Much of what my hon. Friend is saying has echoes in my constituency. Residents in Hanwell Locks have been in a battle with Bellway over remediation works to their building. There has been an acknowledgment that works are needed, but there is no clear programme of works, and no progress at all. Those residents, like those in his constituency, are having trouble re-mortgaging or selling, and they are worried about the continuing fire risk. Does he agree that the remediation compliance plans required in the Bill and the strong financial penalties against builders will make a difference to our constituents?

[Darren Paffey]

I absolutely agree. As I will come on to say, it is simply unforgivable that too many companies still have no plan whatever for remediation, and people are paying the price, financially, but also with their life ambitions.

Rough Sleeping and Good Growth Funds

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi]

This is a key area that we discuss, and I continue to discuss it with the Minister with responsibility. I hope that we will soon have some additional updates for the hon. Member. It is vital that we recognise that many young people might still not be able to live independently once they hit 18, and it is important that we look at support for them as they transition into adulthood.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement, and for the £874 million investment into ending rough sleeping. I particularly welcome this Government giving local leaders the power to make decisions that work best for their own areas. Given the very different character of rough sleeping in Ealing Southall, where the vast majority have no recourse to public funds, will she work with Ealing council and Hope for Southall Street Homeless, based at St Anselm’s church, to give them the funding and powers they need, so that the very unique circumstances for rough sleepers in Ealing Southall can be addressed?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. She is absolutely right: in many inner urban areas, we find a lot of people without recourse to public funds. It is vital that local authorities exercise discretion about local connections and people who have no recourse to public funds, which should not be a barrier to accessing support. Local authorities have to assess individuals based on their needs, including accommodation, and refer them to additional and appropriate services to help them.

Black History Month

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the Minister in this Black History Month debate. I pay tribute to her for all the work she has done across parties and across this House. She has been a champion for all communities but has particularly raised issues for people in the black community, such as knife crime, single parents, and stop and search in classrooms. She did all those things as a Back Bencher, reaching across the divide and caring about the community, regardless of who they were or where they were from. It felt as if she was just trying to represent all her constituents and raise the issues that mattered to them. Everyone across this House can connect with that. We in this House come from very different backgrounds and places, but there are Members of Parliament from every party who put their constituents and communities and the issues that matter to them first. The Minister is one of those, so I pay tribute to her and thank her for that.

Every October we celebrate Black History Month, and this year marks its 39th year in the UK. It was a tradition started in 1987 by a Ghanaian activist who believed that black Britons deserved to have their history told, taught and celebrated. Black history is, of course, British history. Madam Deputy Speaker, please act surprised when you hear that my speech is very similar to the Minister’s. This will probably be a rare moment when we are in agreement and saying very similar things.

The theme of Black History Month this year is “Honouring Our Communities”. It focuses on recognising the everyday contributions of black people across Britain. For me, this is a moment for important reflection. I came to this country with basically nothing and knowing no one, and the first community that opened their hearts and their doors to me were my friends in the West Indian Caribbean community in west London. They welcomed me and taught me what it was to be British. They brought me into their community groups and their church groups. They even allowed my mum to come to some of the events. I certainly knew about jerk chicken before I got to the House of Commons.

I pay special tribute to the Acton Vale estate community, and to Grace and Chaney. Grace became one of my closest friends, and Chaney is her daughter, who I mentored and is now incredibly successful. They taught me what it was to be British and to care about the community. Grace was one of the first people who said, “You should think about being a Member of Parliament.” I had never thought about that before. I see the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan); she knows the Acton Vale estate. It was a transformative moment for me to feel that anyone could come to this country and be British and part of British society. We could have British values and be proud to be British—it did not matter where we came from. I learned that hope and that care for our community from my friends, and I am here today as a result. They probably unleashed more than they bargained for, but they were the first to encourage me— they probably deeply regret that now, but that is where it started. They showed me the very best of this country.

I also pay tribute to the other local groups that I worked with, and to Bishara and Adam Matan, who have done tremendous work at the Anti-Tribalism Movement, which helped to tackle tribalism in the Somalian community in west London.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

[Joy Morrissey]

I see the hon. Member for Ealing Southall nodding, because they are well known across west London for the incredible work they have done for years with all the communities and local mosques. They taught me so much about celebrating all the different communities, and I pay tribute to them today. Black history in Britain has always been community history. When the Windrush arrived in 1948, the men and women on board did not just come to work; they built churches and social clubs that welcomed people when Britain often did not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joy Morrissey]

The Christmas holiday arrives! That was my summons to the Chamber, but the debate started earlier than I anticipated. Old age comes to us at many levels, and having to put an alarm on our phone is one of them. Happy Christmas to everyone.

I thank the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for her intervention. This is about the community. All of us have wonderful constituents who represent our communities and raise their concerns. Those community leaders have enlightened us and allowed us to speak with knowledge, and I pay tribute to all of them today.

[Deirdre Costigan]

The hon. Member has mentioned my constituency a couple of times, and I thank her for all she has said and the tributes she has paid to my constituents. Will she join me in congratulating Councillor Faduma Mohamed, who has been elected Mayor of Ealing for this year? She is a councillor in Southall West ward, and she is the first Somali-born hijab-wearing woman to hold that position.

[Joy Morrissey]

I will indeed. I organised the first Somalian community day on the South Acton estate, though we then had to change the name to the wider “South Acton community day”, to be inclusive. That is wonderful, and I congratulate the new mayor. As a fun fact, I used to ride the 207 bus from Acton all the way to Southall and back—for anyone who has not been to Ealing, it is a fun journey. Like the Minister, I started as a councillor. It was a wonderful way of meeting the community and understanding it from the grassroots up. I will never forget that, and I believe it makes us better parliamentarians when we have had that experience on the ground.

In 1963, Bristol’s black community, led by young people like Paul Stephenson, refused to accept a bus company’s ban on black workers. Their boycott helped to pave the way for Britain’s first race relations laws. Today, black people continue to play a key role in communities across our country, helping to bring people together. One of the reasons why black history is British history is that our black communities show that we can be an integrated, cohesive and multiracial Britain. We can celebrate the same values and be proud of who we are together.

There will be black Britons who play a vital role in all our constituencies, offices and community groups. I pay special tribute to a family in my constituency, Rotimi, Marylene and Naomi Isaiah, for being my right hand in everything in Beaconsfield. I could not do my job without their incredible community support, and I thank them for everything they have done; I am sure that all Members across the Chamber could pay similar tributes. They do so much to support and encourage me personally in my work as a Member of Parliament. I was going to have them here today, but it will have to be next time.

Turning to my work on women and equalities, I also want to recognise Nimco Ali, a survivor of female genital mutilation who has done so much to highlight that vital issue, to try to make sure that no other girls experience what she did.

This year, the aim of Black History Month is to look beyond famous people and reflect on the contributions of everyday black Britons, but given that this is the first time I have spoken at the Dispatch Box in Black History Month, it feels only right that I should recognise someone famous—just one person, but a genuine role model for black female Britons. In 1987, the very same year that Black History Month began here, a young woman from Paddington walked into the House of Commons as Britain’s first black female MP. Today, she is the Mother of the House.

When she arrived, there were only 41 women in the entire Commons. She was told in a hundred ways that she did not belong. She stayed anyway. For nearly four decades, she has represented the people of Hackney, championed black children in London schools and chaired the West Indian and sickle cell disease parliamentary groups. She has faced more abuse than almost any politician of her generation—and she has never stopped turning up. We do not have to share her politics to recognise what her presence meant. For millions of black Britons, especially black girls, she was proof that the doors of power could open and that someone who looked like them could walk through.

Black history is not one month; it is being forged every day by people who see themselves first as proud Britons—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), who I am very proud to have leading my party, for leading the way and opening opportunities for us all. It is British history that they, including those across this House, are writing, and it is a privilege to recognise all of them today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her powerful opening remarks. It is a pleasure to follow my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler).

As we have heard, the theme of this year’s Black History Month is “Honouring Our Communities”. It is all about ordinary Black British people who have done the rarely celebrated work of building this nation: of working in our factories, in the NHS, and in so many other jobs that helped this country to grow. It is about how they stood up to everyday racism, often on a daily basis, and yet pushed on for their children and their grandchildren to be able to succeed.

I would love to tell that story today: of the black parents in Ealing Southall who refused to accept racism in schools and so sent their kids to supplementary schools to give them a fair chance in life; of the black workers who joined trade unions to fight racism at work; and of the black tenants who campaigned for fair access to housing. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, on 26 January this year we lost my constituent Eric Huntley, a giant of the black community, so it is only right that I pay tribute to him today.

Eric is not quite an unsung hero. In fact, there is a special Nubian Jak Community Trust blue plaque above his home at 141 Coldershaw Road, which he would proudly show me whenever I passed. But he is not sung about anywhere near enough, and I hope to help rectify that today. Eric and his wife Jessica, who died in 2013, were lifelong activists and educators. Eric came here from Guyana in 1957, and Jessica followed in 1962 when they had saved enough to pay for her passage over. In 1968, they founded one of the UK’s first black-led publishing companies, Bogle-L’Ouverture Publications, from a printing press in their front room on Coldershaw Road.

In 1975, they opened a bookshop specialising in black literature at 5A Chignell Place in West Ealing. Eric described it as

“an oasis in the desert of west London”

for the black community. With few other community spaces, it became an important cultural and academic hub, providing a drop-in centre for parents, students and teachers. The bookshop also offered career advice and help with job applications. It became known globally, with visits from black authors and artists from around the world.

The bookshop, however, also came under attack from the National Front, with racist graffiti, smashed windows and excrement pushed through the letter box. Jessica told the story of how the Ku Klux Klan made threatening phone calls in which they were told they had seven days to pack up the shop and leave, and were left in no doubt about the consequences if they did not. But Eric and Jessica would not be intimidated. With other bookshop owners, the Huntleys founded Bookshop Joint Action, and campaigned against racist threats in Ealing and across London, drawing national press coverage and forcing the police to safeguard the bookshop.

Eric and Jessica were key figures in the Caribbean Education and Community Workers Association, which was set up in response to the racist labelling of large numbers of black children as “educationally subnormal”. They were involved in the supplementary school system, which was almost a parallel education system that black communities were forced to set up to stop their children’s life chances being damaged by racism in the school system. They were also part of the Black Parents Movement, which campaigned against laws that allowed police to stop, search and arrest people on suspicion of intent to commit a crime, which were used disproportionately against young black people in the ’70s and ’80s.

The last time I saw Eric was at a poetry event last year run by CACE—the Caribbean and African cultural centre in West Ealing that is very much a part of his legacy. He was as full of life and opinions as ever, and I know he would have lots to say about our new Prime Minister if he were still around. Eric’s death in January, at the age of 96, is truly the end of an era, but his and Jessica’s work in building a community for black people across west London will never be forgotten—from the blue plaque on the house on Coldershaw Road where they started out, to murals of them both on the windows of West Ealing community library.

Most importantly, their spirit lives on in every young black Briton in Ealing Southall today who says, “I refuse to shut up. I refuse to go away. I refuse to accept things as they are.” I hope that this House will join me in honouring not just our communities but Eric Huntley, a true west London legend whose warmth, activism and determination continue to shape the lives of black Britons today.

Heathrow Airport Expansion

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Simon Lightwood]

I will make a bit of progress, if the hon. Member does not mind. We are a bit short on time.

I may not be able to respond to every question raised during the debate, as the Government are currently considering the consultation responses, and parliamentary scrutiny of the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement—or HENPS—remains ongoing. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt those processes or prejudge any future decisions while that work remains under way. However, I will ensure that hon. Members receive responses in due course to any points that I am unable to cover.

This Government recognise Heathrow’s critical role as the UK’s only hub airport, connecting businesses and passengers to global markets and supporting trade, tourism and investment across the country.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am still going to make a bit of progress; I have limited time, and I want to reply to the points raised.

Hon. Members will be aware that the Government published the draft HENPS consultation in June. That set out the proposed planning policy framework for expansion and the requirements that any future scheme would need to meet, including the Government’s four tests on economic growth, climate change, air quality and noise.

As I have noted, we are carefully considering the more than 27,000 responses received and will also consider the recommendations of the Transport Committee. Any finalised HENPS would also be subject to parliamentary consideration, including a debate and a vote in the House, before it could have legal effect.

The draft HENPS does not grant development consent for expansion. Only when a national policy statement has been designated can proposals for a development consent order be brought forward. Any future proposal by a promoter of expansion would still need to progress through the statutory development consent order process and demonstrate that it met the requirements of the relevant policy framework. It is for potential promoters to determine the timetable and sequencing of their proposals, and for the Government to put the right frameworks in place. Any potential promoter bringing forward a scheme of this scale and complexity will need to balance pace with deliverability, affordability and value for money for passengers.

Given the current stage of the consultation process and the ongoing period of parliamentary scrutiny, I will not seek to pre-empt those processes, and my remarks today should be considered in that context. The Government will provide a more substantive update to the House once we are in a position to do so. That said, I will address some of the points raised during today’s debate where I can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I am sure that the Aviation Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s message and will be delighted to respond to him.

Any promoter must give evidence that expansion will deliver benefits across the country, not just locally. Analysis published alongside the draft HENPS indicates that up to 40% of the estimated GDP growth is expected to accrue in regions outside London and the south-east.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will, for the final time.

[Deirdre Costigan]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his limited time. Many of my constituents in Ealing Southall have responded to the consultation. Noise has been a particular concern, so I hope that he will manage to make some remarks on how realistic steeper landing approaches and new aircraft technology might be in addressing noise.

I also want to talk about jobs. The Minister talks about growth. Many of my constituents work at the airport, and their worry is that if the expansion does not go ahead, we will lose our status as a hub airport and their jobs might be at risk in the future. Is the Minister able to say anything to reassure the many workers from my constituency in good-quality jobs at Heathrow airport?

[Simon Lightwood]

Once again, I am sure the Aviation Minister will have heard my hon. Friend, and I will go on to address some of those issues.

The draft HENPS introduces a new test requiring potential promoters for development consent to demonstrate, through a clear, evidence-based growth strategy, how their scheme will support economic activity and growth at national, regional and local levels.

I will move on to climate change. The draft HENPS contains a clear climate change requirement whereby any increase in carbon emissions resulting from a proposed scheme must not be so significant that it would have a material impact on the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets. For expansion to proceed, it would need to align with the Government’s climate goals, including our legal commitment to reach net zero by 2050. Any increase in carbon emissions associated with Heathrow expansion would need to be considered against the Government’s carbon reduction targets and the mitigation requirements set out in the draft HENPS.

On air quality, the draft HENPS is also clear that a scheme for Heathrow expansion must demonstrate that it will not result in any new breaches of legal obligations on air quality or make existing breaches materially worse. As part of that, the draft HENPS sets out mitigations that a potential promoter should consider to minimise the impact of the project on the environment and affected communities.

Finally, the draft HENPS sets out a noise test requiring overall aircraft noise to be limited and, where reasonably possible, reduced in comparison with 2024, taking into account quieter aircraft and operating procedures while providing adequate and predictable respite for communities. The mitigations should include a runway alternation scheme and a scheduled night flight ban. The draft HENPS currently requires an applicant to propose a scheduled night flight ban of six and a half hours, between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, as part of their proposed mitigations of the noise impacts. Expansion would increase capacity, which may provide greater operational flexibility and allow aircraft to land more efficiently, potentially reducing reliance on extended holding patterns. That could benefit people living in the areas currently affected by noise from aircraft in holding patterns before landing.

Through the consultation, we are listening carefully to views across all four tests. However, I want to make it clear that we recognise that noise and air quality are particularly important to many local residents, and we are committed to ensuring that those concerns are fully considered as part of the process.

The draft HENPS also makes it clear that Heathrow expansion must be supported by a credible surface access strategy that enables more journeys to be made on public transport and reduces pressure on the wider transport network. The draft HENPS defines clear passenger public transport mode share targets. However, the onus will be on any potential promoter to demonstrate through the development consent order process that their proposed approach can credibly achieve those targets. Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, and the Government have been consistently clear that it must be privately financed.

Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

In the right hon. Gentleman’s case, this will be led by the mayoral strategic authority. It will be for that authority to do the consultations, carry out the impact assessment and, importantly, decide on the investment plan.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Southall Broadway attracts wedding shoppers from across the globe, so local businesses welcome the overnight visitor levy as a great opportunity to get investment in the town centre. However, unlike other mayoral areas, London is not a combined authority. What can the Minister do to ensure that is reflected in the design of the levy in London, so that the mayor and London boroughs can jointly shape how it operates, and places such as Southall do not lose out because they are in London?

[Jim McMahon]

We accept that the London devolution settlement is different from the settlement elsewhere in England, because of the relationship between the mayor with executive powers and the Greater London Authority as a directly elected body. However, there is an expectation that all partners—including local authorities, the GLA and the mayor—will work together in partnership on this and other measures.

Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, that policy would increase homelessness and would be entirely self-defeating, because it would just shift the bill to local authorities that would then have to deal with the problem, rather than tackling the problem, as we are doing today through this Bill. What we actually need is more social and genuinely affordable housing, and I welcome the steps this Bill takes to address the issue, because there is no doubt that unchecked right to buy has contributed to the problem.

The measures in the Bill are sensible and will make a difference. They build on policy changes that the Government have already made, including making permanent the retention of 100% of right-to-buy receipts. However, the implementation of these measures in communities such as mine will obviously be vital. In many of our council estates and buildings, the current owners of right-to-buy properties are actually open to selling. That is partly because of estate regeneration costs and concerns about service charges and quality, and because unlike other private leaseholders, those leaseholders may not necessarily benefit to the full extent from the easier path to commonhold and resident-run buildings that the Government will be bringing in for leaseholders in general. I would welcome further information about how local authorities can be supported to buy back properties in blocks where the council is already the freeholder.

I fully understand that this is an admission of the failure of the historical right-to-buy policy, and the situation certainly would not be helped by retaining the three-year eligibility requirement that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), supported in his speech. Changing the requirement to 10 years makes much more strategic sense for councils, because it incentivises both those buy-backs and investment in new council housing.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

My constituency is in the borough of Ealing, where 3,000 families are in temporary accommodation and 7,500 are on the housing list. Some 9,000 homes were sold off under the right to buy since the 1980s. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill strikes the right balance between continuing social mobility for long-standing tenants while protecting homes for those most in need?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Some £7.9 billion a year: that is how much the Chartered Institute of Housing estimates is spent on housing benefit for tenants renting privately. In my local area, a lot of that will be going to people living on the St Helier estate, one of the largest London council estates built during the interwar period, much of which has been sold under right to buy over the past few decades. That means that instead of our local authority receiving rent from those properties, the national Government are paying market rates to private landlords on homes that we built. That is maddening and it surely makes the scale of right to buy sales, alongside the failure to replenish the stock, one of the single greatest policy failures for a generation.

[Deirdre Costigan]

I know the St Helier estate well, but would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it was his party, the Liberal Democrats, in coalition with the Conservatives, that massively increased the discounts for right to buy that caused the very problem he is talking about?