Representation of the People Bill

Emily Darlington Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

The most personal form of power each of us has is the power to choose. When we mark our ballot, we exercise something profound and meaningful: our power to decide freely what kind of future we want, and that choice belongs to each of us. But today it is clear that our power to freely decide our future is under attack, not because our vote has been taken away or because of voter fraud, but because the environment in which we make up our minds is being deliberately distorted. Hostile states—especially Russia—are investing in digital tools designed to confuse, divide and destabilise us. At the same time, big tech has built systems that reward the strongest reaction: rage over fact, speed over accuracy and repetition over reflection. One seeks to weaken us, the other profits from whatever captures our attention, and together they distort the spaces in which many of us now make up our minds.

We have come together to put forward amendments that would help the Representation of the People Bill to continue to maintain democracy as we expect it to. We already accept the election rules that require us to regulate spending, prohibit impersonation and enforce transparency. We choose to do that because our democracy is too important to leave unguarded, and the digital space where so many of our choices are now formed should be no different. If our duty is to protect people’s power to choose, these five things must follow.

First, we must identify the crime. At the moment, lots of laws apply, but if it is not specific, it is hard for law enforcement to act. We must codify that the existing laws will apply to these digital behaviours, with a recognition that these are serious offences with serious consequences.

Secondly, we must shine a light. If a video is artificially generated to impersonate a candidate, voters have the right to know. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) has described his own experience in this regard. We need much higher levels of disclosure and labelling of where information comes from, so that people can better understand what they are seeing. That is why we need more regulation and transparency around political advertising, with all paid digital advertising being kept publicly available in a library so that it is open for all to see.

Thirdly, we must demand that major platforms play their proper role in society. These platforms shape what millions of people see during an election and they must be accountable. These amendments would enable Ofcom to demand action from these platforms, unless they want to face major consequences, by making electoral offences a priority offence under the law. With our success in forcing Grok to take action on notification, we know that we can act to protect people. No platform is too big or too powerful.

[Martin Wrigley]

Does the hon. Member agree that our joint hon. Friend from the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), was woefully let down by Meta when he attempted to get his own video taken down?

[Emily Darlington]

I completely agree. I think we all agree, no matter what side of the House we are on, that a misrepresentation of that kind distorts the electorate’s views. The reality is that it should be taken down. I think we can all agree on that fact.

Fourthly, law enforcement and regulatory bodies must have the power to act. The Electoral Commission must have more power to investigate, with real-time access to the platform data that is vital to understanding the impact of algorithmic systems and the role of inauthentic behaviour through bots. Regulators must have the power to compel major platforms to take action, including in the case of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk. We need to have a standard way to let the public know about incidents when they happen. They need to be informed.

Fifthly, these rules must apply year-round. One of the reasons that Meta will not take that content down is that we are not in an electoral period. These online methodologies are so powerful because they recognise the truth that we make our choices not just in the election period; we are making up our minds all the time. Let us get our election law in line with that reality.

Finally, we are proposing an amendment that goes to the core of how we treat each other. We must take action to reduce the abuse of candidates. I commend Mr Speaker and his Conference for their important work on this issue, because we all know too personally where this leads. Not only have we already lost beloved colleagues and friends to violence, but we also lose the talented people who will be put off from running in the first place. This is a robust set of choices that we in the Chamber can make to protect the future that we live in together. They are not about shutting down arguments or preventing someone from speaking their mind; they are about protecting the space for each of us to make the choice freely, and for those spaces to be filled with genuine discourse and arguments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

I am not making any sort of comment on that. My point is very simple: it is citizenship and age. If we are to apportion the respect to voting that we absolutely should—I think all of us in this House think voting is a critical thing to do—giving it the status of being an adult decision, as opposed to one made by children, is also important. To not do so is fundamentally anti-democratic. It diminishes what people have to go through in terms of the status of voting compared with other decisions. Voting is more important than being able to buy a beer, have a driving licence or join the cadets. Voting is absolutely critical, and that is why it is so important that it should be seen as an adult act, not an act that is within the scope of being a child.

[Emily Darlington]

If we were to link voting with brain development and maturity, that would mean that men get the right to vote about five years after women. Should we base it on that science?

[Dr Spencer]

The point the hon. Member makes illustrates exactly why we have to use an adult citizenship criteria, not one based on capability or ability, because the moment we start to do that, all sorts of awful things risk happening. People should get the right to vote in the UK if they are a citizen and if they are an adult, and that is it. We should never put at risk someone’s right to vote because of considerations about their cognitive ability, and that goes in both directions.

People should be careful what they wish for in making arguments to remove adult status and citizenship from voter enfranchisement. They may not like where they end up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

In my experience, Meta does not care about the truth. We heard from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) about what he experienced, and I have had the same experiences: stuff goes up, it does not meet the threshold, it carries on and the lies continue to be propagated. Meta’s indifference is a danger to our democracy and that absolutely needs tackling.

There are long-standing rules on how political parties can use paid-for advertising in the offline world, but we have effectively gone from a situation where we have banal party political broadcasts on terrestrial channels to a virtual free-for-all online. That leads to deliberate distortions, misleading claims and half-truths being pushed into social media feeds with absolutely no checks on their accuracy and little recourse, as we have heard, to challenge their spread.

[Emily Darlington]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that although the Representation of People Act 1983 makes it illegal to misrepresent a candidate in an election, that offence is yet to be tested in relation to online misrepresentation? In fact, Ofcom and many platforms do not see themselves as being bound by that legislation.

[Justin Madders]

The truth is that we have analogue laws for a digital age, and they are simply not fit for purpose. That is exacerbated by the fact that social media companies and their entire business models rely on outrageous comments to incentivise clicks. That amplifies the distortion of our political process and encourages the controversial, so we absolutely need to go further to tackle this issue.

The Bill already has provisions to tighten up rules on digital imprints on campaign material, but we need greater transparency for online political adverts. Some straightforward changes, some of which have already been supported by the Government, could improve transparency and fairness, and increase trust in our political system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) has already said, the first of these is an advert library. We need an accessible database to act as a repository for all election advertising across all advertising platforms on the internet. This should include the content of the advert, the money put behind it to promote the content, the paying entity and who the content is targeted at. At present, those are all opaque, with the only libraries available being controlled by the media companies, which can choose to stop sharing access. As we have already heard, they are not really interested in ensuring that things are accurate or truthful when they are published. Similar models have been implemented in Canada and New Zealand already, and the EU will introduce its own later this month.

Secondly, the Government should introduce an amendment requiring candidates to follow a statutory code of conduct at elections, as well as including provisions to stop the intimidation and harassment of candidates, as was suggested in the Government’s White Paper last year. That should extend to commitments to telling the truth and not knowingly including misinformation in campaign material. Putting all that on a statutory footing and including steps on tackling misinformation will give it the teeth that it needs, because we cannot defend democracy if our financial frameworks remain as they are and our online spaces are unregulated. I welcome the proposals for “know your donor” checks. I recognise and encourage the enforcement mechanisms that will be introduced by the Electoral Commission, but we absolutely need to go further.

This Bill is a positive step. Votes at 16, greater enfranchisement and registration, checking cracks in our democracy and better protecting candidates are all really welcome things, but I fear that the experiences of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk are where we will be in 2029 if we do not crack down on this now. I look forward to working with the Minister to explore ways in which we can make this Bill even better to protect our democracy and allow it to flourish not just now, but in the future.

Our democracy is fragile and cannot be taken for granted, and it has to retain the public’s trust if it is to endure. Many around the world are working very hard to try to erode that trust, so we must be equal to the challenge and ensure that we have the best legislation possible to meet that challenge.

Local Government Finance

Emily Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I think those three questions have been answered in what I have already said, so I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answers.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

As a former deputy leader of Milton Keynes city council, I welcome this announcement. As a reminder, Milton Keynes city council faced £200 million-worth of cuts—55% of our grant—while Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire were protected and got bail-outs. This settlement is, for once, going to give us the funding we need to protect Britain’s fastest-growing city, so I thank the Minister. Will she meet us to talk about some of the things we can do to encourage councils to build homes at the same rate as Milton Keynes?

Electoral Resilience

Emily Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), when asked to conduct an internal review into the Gill matter, of course refused to carry one out—although, to give him credit, he did say that he would welcome a review by the Government into these matters, so I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) does not welcome the review we are discussing today. To be clear: all potential sources of malign foreign financial interference are in scope for this review. If the review finds failings in any political party, I expect the leaders of other political parties, as I do my own party leader, to put the country first and their party second.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on social media, and I hope we can meet the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is responsible for elections, ahead of the publication of the elections Bill to see what we can do about those protections. The Secretary of State has announced a very good review. Will the money that is coming into this country, particularly related to changing our politics on abortion rights, trans rights and other areas, be within scope of the review?

[Steve Reed]

I am sure that the elections Minister would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her concerns. The review will look at any foreign financial interference in our democracy, and I would expect the points she raises to be in scope.

Ending Homelessness

Emily Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I thank the co-sponsors of today’s ever-important debate, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker). As hon. Members have mentioned, homelessness is so much more than an individual not having a roof over their head; it is about the loss of safety, dignity and the often complex support that they need.

In Wolverhampton North East, for far too many years, we have seen the scale of the challenge, with the loss of social homes and increasing rents and mortgage costs. We have also seen the strength of our community’s response. In Wolverhampton, homelessness rates are exacerbated by those stuck in temporary housing and the “unofficial homeless”, who manage by sofa surfing. More than 600 children are growing up in temporary accommodation, and hundreds of families are living with uncertain housing situations.

The number of people sleeping rough in Wolverhampton is relatively low, with around eight recorded last autumn, but I want to share one such story from my constituency. Due to a local shopkeeper called Max, who could not turn a blind eye, the community of Wednesfield and I became aware of John, who had found himself sleeping rough on Wednesfield High Street. He had lost almost everything: his home, his ID, access to social security benefits and hope that anyone cared. But then something remarkable happened: members of the community, led by Max and including Sharon, John Paul, Sherrie and Jade, came to help him. I was deeply moved by that, and with my team and the support of P3, a fantastic national charity with roots in Wolverhampton, helped him rebuild his life.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does she agree that supporting people from rough sleeping into solo accommodation involves a continuum of support from the charity and public sectors? That creates the system that holds people up and supports them, with trauma-based support at its heart.

[Mrs Brackenridge]

Absolutely. We have to heal the person and the family and respond to their situation, rather than simply securing a safe home, although that is of course important too.

Finally, I put on record my thanks to Wolverhampton’s wonderful community services, including the Good Shepherd, P3 and the Alternative Giving initiative, which gives 100% of donations directly to organisations and charities that work in Wolverhampton city centre to provide long-term support for those who need it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emily Darlington Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

11. What steps he is taking to reduce youth homelessness.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

20. What recent progress the inter-ministerial group on homelessness and rough sleeping has made on the development of a cross-Government strategy to end homelessness.

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

The Government inherited a homelessness crisis; there were record numbers of people in temporary accommodation, and rough sleeping had doubled. That is why my predecessor got together the inter-ministerial group on homelessness very quickly. It has met four times, and has established the principles of the strategy, having sought full input from across Government. That strategy is on its way, but just last week, the Government announced a further £84 million in this financial year to support people who are sleeping rough or who are homeless.

[Alison McGovern]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on sharing those figures with the House, because even though it is quite hard to hear them, it is important that we do not look away from this crisis. I will of course meet her and the charities she mentions.

[Emily Darlington]

As the Minister may know, Milton Keynes used to be called “tent city”. We reduced the number of rough sleepers down to 16 when I was deputy leader at the council. We were able to do that because we understood that rough sleeping was more than just a housing issue; it was a whole-person issue. Is she willing to meet me and the other officers of the all-party parliamentary group on rough sleeping, as well as Back-Bench Members who have experience in this area, while shaping and delivering the rough sleeping strategy?

[Alison McGovern]

I am aware of my hon. Friend’s work, and the work of Milton Keynes council and others in the city, to bring down the number of rough sleepers. We will take that whole-person approach in the homelessness strategy. I never knowingly avoid a meeting with an APPG, so I am sure that we will get that arranged shortly.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Emily Darlington Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I join colleagues in thanking the Petitions Committee for securing this debate, and I thank Mr Li for instigating the BNO petition.

I am here to speak about the BNO visa. Our debate today should have two starting points: first, an acknowledgment of the historic commitment that the UK made to the people of Hong Kong in the form of the BNO scheme, which is something that we should be intensely proud of, and secondly a recognition of the massive repression that we have seen in Hong Kong, particularly since the enactment of the national security law.

Rights that were guaranteed to the people of Hong Kong by the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration have been cast aside. Hong Kong’s democracy has been replaced by a dictatorship, and its free press has been crushed. That is the context that has left many Hongkongers feeling that they have little choice but to leave, to seek freedom and a new life here in the UK.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree we should be clear that when we say BNO, it stands for British national overseas? We are not talking about Hongkongers or Chinese people; we are talking about people we literally recognise as British nationals overseas, because of our historical relationship. Does he think we should be much clearer about that when it comes to how we treat them in our immigration system?

[David Pinto-Duschinsky]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. She is of course right, and I am proud to have welcomed many people with BNO status to my constituency of Hendon, particularly in Colindale. That growing and vibrant community adds immeasurably to the life of the area.

I have talked to many BNO holders who have come to the UK to start a new life. They are absolutely committed to our country for the long term. They are keen to put down roots. They are planning their working lives, their children’s educations and their retirements here. That is why the five-year ILR timeframe is so important to them. Without ILR, BNO holders cannot get home fee arrangements at university for their children or access their pension savings from their mandatory provident fund accounts. I have talked to many families who are directly and profoundly affected by that, leaving them in great financial difficulty. Without ILR, people cannot begin the path to full UK citizenship. When they applied for BNO status starting in 2021, they did so on the basis of a five-year ILR period. Extending the ILR period for them will potentially create great uncertainty and hardship.

The Government are absolutely right to tighten the rules on migration to address the appalling failures of the previous Government. The measures laid out in the recent migration White Paper will make an important and welcome difference, and I fully support them. However, it is still worth considering the obligation we have to certain groups when making that important change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I will not speak for too long, given that most of the debate’s key points have already been made, so hopefully that will help with the average speaking time that you are aiming for.

I, too, thank the Petitions Committee for this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his opening speech. I think it is important to add my voice to the many voices that we have heard expressing concern about the changes to BNO visas, particularly when it comes to the timelines for indefinite leave to remain.

I have received emails from many constituents across Milton Keynes, and I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who I know has received many more. I recently met Yvonne from 852 CIC, a fantastic organisation that represents and looks to integrate Hongkongers into the community in Milton Keynes. It has shared its concerns with me about the changes that it fears may be coming under the immigration White Paper.

[Emily Darlington]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Hong Kong community’s contribution to Milton Keynes, to our diversity and strength as an economic powerhouse in the UK, should not go unseen by the Minister and this Government? The reality is that we made the Hongkongers a promise, and we should keep it.

[Chris Curtis]

I completely agree. Diversity is at the heart of Milton Keynes. We are a proud city that shows how people from many backgrounds can come together to enrich and strengthen our community. We have seen at first hand how the many people who have come to our city from Hong Kong have added to our local economy. The previous Government and this Government made a deal, a commitment, that was in keeping with our human rights commitments and our commitment to doing the right thing. It is important that we keep to that commitment.

Like most people, I welcome the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to ensure that those who come to Britain are able to integrate and contribute to our society, rather than simply filling gaps left by uncertainty and under-investment in skills and training—changing the deal for BNO visa holders is not the way to do that.

I do not think the Government intentionally aim to create uncertainty for the people who came here, but unfortunately that uncertainty has now been created, and everybody in this room sees it in our inboxes. I hope that today the Minister will be able to clarify the situation and provide certainty, so that those who came here seeking safety, freedom and opportunity know that this Government still stand with them and will not change the rules, and that the five-year journey committed to by the previous Government will remain in place even after the immigration White Paper goes through.

Political Donations

Emily Darlington Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Harris. In the interests of transparency, I would like to declare that I have received no donations from business, but I have received donations from UK citizens, including via the trade union GMB, of which I am a member, and through fundraising dinners and quizzes in my constituency, which anyone is welcome to attend.

I would like to thank Mr Stone for starting this petition and having such great success in raising the issue with the public right across the country. We cannot be complacent in protecting our democratic rights, and we must take heed of what has happened elsewhere. When the US relaxed funding laws, it changed the course of election costs. In 1990, the average cost of a successful campaign to the House of Representatives was $981,000, while a successful Senate race cost an average of $9.3 million. In 2022, after the relaxation of the political donations legislation, the average cost of a successful campaign for the House of Representatives was $3 million, while the average cost of a successful Senate campaign was $28.5 million. We cannot afford to let that happen within the UK.

Standing for Parliament is an honour and a privilege, but not only for those who can afford it or have rich friends; it is for those who come from all walks of life. One of the big loopholes that I perceive within our campaign finance rules—I hope that the Minister will consider it in fulfilling the campaign pledge in our manifesto to clean up political donations—is the rules for political party spending and the long and the short campaign. Although we have rules for the short campaign that are adhered to in the final few weeks, we do not have a consistent set of rules for the 55 months when political parties of any sort are campaigning.

The rise of online spend is much more difficult to track and understand. As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned, there are ways of supporting political parties that are not always about straight donations, but that can be done through algorithms and other online activity. I will not mention any particular Member, but I will mention the behaviour of two parties when it comes to donations received. We have people with backgrounds very much linked to tax havens, such as the billionaire property developer Nick Candy, who is one of the main fundraisers for the Reform party. He is also a link between the Reform party and Trump and Elon Musk. He was very clear when he told The New York Times,

“We are going to have fund-raisers all over the world, in every part of the world where there are British nationals”—

not necessarily British taxpayers. He went on:

“We will have fund-raisers in the US, in Monaco, and we will have huge fund-raisers in the UAE, where we have an expat community there who are unhappy with the amount of regulation and tax in the UK.”

To be clear, he is the UK treasurer for the Reform party. We need to close the loophole, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) said earlier. If someone is not a UK taxpayer, they should not be funding a political party in order to create outcomes around regulation and tax. There are other examples I could point to, and I am sure many will.

[Alex Sobel]

I am sure my hon. Friend knows of the Carlton Club, which is a private and unincorporated association with close links to the Conservative party. It has received over £200,000 in donations from companies run by wealthy Swiss, German and Russian nationals. Over the same period, since 2020, the Carlton Club has donated £312,000 to the Conservative party. Do we not need to remove the ability to use unincorporated associations to wash money that would otherwise not be able to be donated?

[Emily Darlington]

That is a very good foray into my last point. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention unincorporated companies or LLCs that are not transparent about where their money comes from. I have to ask why businesses are the ones giving money in the first place. I always think: what is the reward? I understand it better when it comes from a trade union that represents millions of workers. The trade union pulls together donations. Its members are asked whether they want to donate. Under the current legislation, they are asked whether they are happy to pay their dues and make political donations. Those individuals work and pay tax here in this country. But when there is a lack of transparency and the public cannot see how much money the company is making and then donating—the Carlton Club may fit into that; I have never been there, but I hear it is pretty lavish—that is the final loophole that I ask the Minister to consider.

I end my comments there because I know that many colleagues want to speak. I ask the Minister to consider my points and take action.

Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement

Emily Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

That is precisely why we have provided an extra £233 million to meet the demand. We do not take any pleasure or pride in that, actually. It is a sign of a system that is not working that we must keep on providing more and more money for temporary accommodation, to the benefit of hotel owners and not to the benefit of the people who need a safe, secure and affordable home. This funding has to be part of a wider plan. That is why the 1.5 million new homes are so important. If we do not provide those safe, affordable homes for people, we will always be in this cycle of trying to play catch up, and that is not sustainable.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

May I, too, welcome the multi-year certainty given by the statement today? As a former deputy leader of Milton Keynes council, I can say that it is the kind of certainty we ask for, rather than getting a letter—on Christmas Eve, usually—setting out what the funding might be, already halfway through our budget-setting process. I also welcome the fact that Milton Keynes is getting more than £7 million to prevent homelessness. I welcome the fact that there will be transparency, but can the Minister give reassurances to Milton Keynes that with the loss of the new homes bonus, additional funding will be given to Milton Keynes to make up for that difference?

[Jim McMahon]

I thank my hon. Friend for the advocacy that she shows for Milton Keynes and for the local authority. Overall core spending power in Milton Keynes will increase by 6.1%, and that is only part of the settlement—the council can easily expect that to increase in its final settlement. It shows that the Government are working in partnership with the council to deal with the issues that she raises.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emily Darlington Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that supplementary question and assure him that I share his deep concern about the pressure on the household budgets of shared owners in his constituency, and others across the country, as a result of rising variable service charges. In addition to the routes to redress I have just set out, I draw his and the House’s attention to the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 that are designed to drive up the transparency of service charges to make them more easily challengeable if leaseholders consider them unreasonable. Further detail about our plan to bring those and other provisions in the Act into force can be found in the written ministerial statement made on 21 November.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

As the Minister will know, social housing providers and councils operate within a regulated service charge regime that does not allow them to make a profit, and the Housing Ombudsman Service is there for any complaints. Will the Minister consider bringing in a similar regime for the private sector?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have set out the routes to redress that are already available and our intention to switch on the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act, but I am more than happy to sit down and have a conversation with my hon. Friend about what more protection leaseholders in this space require.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Emily Darlington Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests.

First of all, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), plus all the London MPs who have brought home what Grenfell meant in their constituencies. However, the consequences of Grenfell are felt right across the country, and they have gone on for far too long for the residents of my constituency. Had the previous Government proceeded at pace with the confidence to take on developers with legal obligations and severe penalties, my residents would not still be stuck in buildings that have not had the remediation required. Each year since Grenfell, thousands of people in Milton Keynes have been left worse off, impacting their financial and mental health.

A woman in my constituency—we will call her Angie—bought her flat with her husband in order to downsize, and be mortgage free and financially secure in their retirement. Unfortunately, she lost her husband, and with her single pension she cannot afford the 600% increase in insurance costs that she has seen in the past seven years. She is accumulating debt that she will never be able to pay, and she cannot sell her flat to prevent further debt. Her plan for a secure retirement has turned into a nightmare that she cannot get out of. That is why I welcome the Government’s announcement today to challenge that practice by the insurance industry, and to promise to act if the insurance industry does not. Has the Deputy Prime Minister had discussions with the industry about any retrospective reductions for those who have been affected by those huge insurance hikes?

The Grenfell report rightly identifies the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for its many failings, but not all local authorities were slow to respond, such as my own in Milton Keynes Central where two council housing tower blocks were dealt with within a year of the tragedy—well within the guidelines that the Government recommended, and with no financial support from the Government. I would welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s views on whether the councils that took action, at huge cost to their housing revenue account, should be rewarded for their proactive attention with help to build more council homes.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to putting local authorities at the heart of the solution, but developments are still being put forward that might not meet building control requirements, especially the permitted development of office conversions to flats. That is not currently a material consideration, so local planning committees have no choice but to pass it. Will the Secretary of State review the planning rules so that no building, new or converted, is unsafe for its residents? Will she also consider whether building control should be fully in the hands of local authorities, so that developers can no longer use their favourite private building control to sign off developments? The privatised BRE and its role in ensuring new materials has been brought up by many. Will the Minister consider renationalising the BRE, so that there can be no question of any company influence over the safety of new building products?

Finally, it is not just tall buildings that have been affected. For far too long, those in buildings like Backus Lodge in my constituency, which has been rated B2 under the EWS1 framework since March 2022—