Oral Answers to Questions

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for outlining those points. The situation is not just isolated to London; many councils are seeing an overspend—still going up —in this really tricky area. Just today, Epsom and Ewell borough council reported an overspend of £500,000, rising to £800,000 by next year. Slough estimates a £22 million overspend on TA; Woking, a £330,000 overspend; Waverley, a £165,000 overspend; and Waltham Forest, a £31 million overspend. That is just on temporary accommodation. This situation is not sustainable financially for councils or taxpayers. What more can the Minister do? Can she speak to Treasury colleagues about the big sticking point: the increase in and freeze on local housing allowance, which is not allowing people to live locally and rent locally?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for setting out that, aside from the fact that we care about temporary accommodation because every child deserves the space to play and do their homework, this problem is putting local councils under a financial pressure that is not bearable. We have to get a grip of this situation. We will have more to say about this crucial issue in the homelessness strategy, and I look forward to engaging with the Chair and the whole Committee on it.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for outlining the new power that the Government are looking at. I had a meeting this morning with two of my neighbouring parliamentary colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). In some areas, we are seeing licensing policies that are having a detrimental impact on local communities. Does the Minister agree that in the proposals she is outlining there is still a crucial role for local licensing authorities, where our hard-working councillors are working with the community to determine which licensing applications come forward?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue. We are clear that the local licensing authority will continue to be the key authority, and such things as licensing fees will flow to those local authorities. This measure creates the ability for the Mayor of London to call things in, in particular instances where we think that the licensing will work for areas of strategic importance. In so doing, the mayor will invariably have to work with the local licensing authority and the community, because whatever is done—the mayor is elected—must be done with the support of the local community.

I will turn to planning and empowering our mayors to unlock housing and infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

The principle underpinning new clause 2 is straightforward: equal powers must come with equal accountability. Over recent years, combined authorities have been entrusted with significant and growing responsibilities—on transport, housing, skills, regeneration and more. Many of us support that trend, but with those responsibilities has come the power to levy a precept on local taxpayers, who are already grappling with rising bills and who have every right to expect that their money is being managed prudently and transparently. Pushing more and more on to council tax payers, as this Government have done, releases the Government from sustained funding. More and more responsibilities will be piled on to mayors, and that is not sustainable for the long-term future of our local government family.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the shadow Minister for discussing the issue of council tax, which I am sure he will agree is one of the most regressive forms of taxation. If he is honest, he will recognise that successive Governments have dodged this issue by placing it in the “too difficult” box, including during the last 14 years. Does he agree that maybe this is something that the previous Government should have looked at?

[Paul Holmes]

If I am proposing a new clause to limit the increases that mayors can bring forward, then yes, I am happy to look at that. That is why I have tabled new clause 2, and why I argue that the Government should look at it. I agree with the hon. Lady that council tax has for a very long time been used as a natural model to try to raise more money. I have been honest with her before in saying that Governments of different stripes have not put in a long-term, sustainable funding model that does not just rely on council tax increases, but I say to her gently—she does an excellent job as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—that the Government are making it worse. Allowing central mayors to have no limit on the amount by which they can increase council tax will just encourage them to put more of their responsibilities on to the balance sheet by increasing people’s taxes, and that is not a good thing. That is why we argue that this new clause is proportionate and principled, and offers the certainty that residents deserve.

New clause 4 seeks to ensure that ordinary householders who wish to extend their own homes for their own use are not unfairly burdened with the community infrastructure levy. The purpose of this new clause is clear and sensible. It would insert into the Planning Act 2008 a straightforward principle that CIL is not charged on householder extensions where the property remains the family’s own residence and the development is for personal use, not commercial gain. The Minister knows that we have brought this up before, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) has long been campaigning for it. Too many local authorities across the UK are taking people for granted in charging CIL if people are just creating extensions. The Government, to their credit, and the Minister, to her credit, have said that they would do something about this, but there is no reason why she cannot back this new clause to enable what she has said she wishes to come true. If she cannot back it, I look to her to say in her winding-up speech, for certainty for the people affected by this, when the Government will bring forward measures to tackle what this new clause would do.

I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the last two amendments. Amendment 25 seeks to place clear, sensible and strategic priorities at the heart of the framework for mayoral development orders. It would ensure a rational, evidence-based approach, and does so by ensuring that development under MDOs is focused where it delivers the greatest public benefit—in areas of higher density, stronger transport accessibility and previously developed land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I congratulate the Minister on bringing this Bill back. On a happier note than that of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), I think this Bill does outline some of the powers going down to local communities. My understanding is that this is the first Bill to have “community empowerment” in its title, which shows the Government’s commitment to push on it. The Minister and I are fellow Labour and Co-operative MPs, and I am very excited about the community right to buy. I pay tribute to the many across the co-op movement who have been fighting for this for many years. I am mindful of the time, so I want to reflect on three specific areas.

First, new clause 25, tabled by my Select Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on community infrastructure levy charges on homeowners, including on how local councils will respond to technical errors. Our Committee heard representations from the CIL Injustice group, which represents dozens of homeowners who have been unfairly charged CIL for home extensions, self-build and other small projects, even though CIL is intended as a levy for large-scale developments. Councils have seemingly issued the charges due to technical administrative errors such as paperwork being completed incorrectly, but the impact of these charges are life changing for some residents. We heard evidence of homeowners facing unexpected bills ranging from £40,000 to £200,000. We heard that some councils are applying a zero-tolerance approach, with the threat of imprisonment if these bills are not paid. Ultimately, we are seeing homeowners suffering real distress as a result. Some of them have been forced to sell their homes because they have been charged for something they should not have been charged.

To the credit of the Minister for Housing and Planning, he told our Select Committee that the CIL regulations are

“not intended to operate in this way”,

and that the Government are

“giving very serious consideration to amending them”

to ensure no one is unfairly charged. However, that was back in July, and in a letter to the Committee earlier this month, he was unable to provide an update on the plans to amend the regulations. He told us that the Department

“has not issued any formal or informal communications”

to councils about charging CIL. New clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury, would require the Government to take the steps urgently needed to address the unfair CIL charges. It would be helpful if the Minister, when winding up, gave the House an update on when the review of CIL guidance is coming, or if we can expect any secondary legislation to address this. We understand that Ministers cannot intervene on individual cases, but a clear direction should be issued to councils that they cannot treat applicants in this way and that they should clear up the paperwork to stop more homeowners being pursued for thousands of pounds of charges.

Secondly, new clause 31, on the tourism levy, has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker). This new clause would give established mayoral strategic authorities the power to impose a levy on overnight accommodation in their area. Importantly, subsection (6) would require that money received from this levy is paid into the general fund of the authority, so it would be going directly to local councils. Our Select Committee has pressed the Government to go further with fiscal devolution. We welcome the empowerment of local councils in many areas, but we are very clear that the one omission from the Bill is fiscal devolution down to our local colleagues. Our report on the funding and sustainability of local government finance, which we published in July this year, included a recommendation to the Treasury to devolve tax-setting powers to local authorities, allowing them to set their own forms of local taxation, such as the tourism levy. I understand that, as the Minister outlined, anything to do with taxation is down to the Treasury and is not something for HCLG Ministers to look at, but I hope they are actively having such conversations with Treasury Ministers.

We acknowledge that visitor levies have pros and cons. Their benefits would not be equal right across the country, and the right approach must be taken in each local area. However, our Select Committee heard that, where it does work, it would be helpful as a new form of fundraising at the regional level. For example, Mayor Tracy Brabin, the mayor of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, told us that a visitor levy would give the authority an opportunity to become more self-sufficient. Councillor Louise Gittins, the chair of the Local Government Association, told us that some form of the tourist levy would be really helpful to deal with the pressures that tourists can put on local economies. The Government’s explanatory notes state that the purpose of the Bill is to transfer power out of Westminster, but, as I mentioned, the fiscal devolution element has been very quiet. I hope the Minister will recognise that until Westminster is willing to let go of its tight grip on tax setting and revenue raising down to local authorities, we will not see the kind of independence, community empowerment and local accountability we all want. New clause 31 would grant local authorities the power to impose visitor levies. It would be a positive first step in that direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak to Government new clause 44 and new schedule 2. These provisions give powers to the Mayor of London to establish a pilot to set up a strategic licensing policy statement, which would cover sections 4 and 5 of the Licensing Act 2003. In summary, that is the sale by retail of alcohol, a licence for the “provision of regulated entertainment” under schedule 1 of the 2003 Act, and

“The provision of late night refreshment licences”—

within the meaning of schedule 2 of the 2003 Act.

I am proud to represent a borough that has some of the best licensed premises in the country. In Shoreditch, Dalston and elsewhere, we have some of the best restaurants in the world. I visited Counter 71 in Shoreditch a little while ago, and they told me how they had hit social media in Japan, which had led to a lot of visitors. If the Minister ever wants to do any outreach on licensing, she is welcome to come to my borough, where she will get the best of the best. But there are also people who chance it and try it on, so it is important that we have licensing rules that local authorities can enforce properly—and that they have the money to do so.

In Hackney, the hospitality industry is a growth area, boosting the economy in the way that the Chancellor wants to see. It is also facing pressures, as all Members will know from their own constituencies. There is a well-worn route on licensing in Hackney that is well understood. We need to support the licensing process, and ensure that there are fees available to cover the costs, while also supporting businesses and ensuring that they can do this with relative ease when they play by the rules—and if they do not play by the rules, ensure that enforcement kicks in.

It is important to lie this Bill alongside the joint industry and Government taskforce, which reported to the Department for Business and Trade on, I think, 6 November. That taskforce and its report plays into some of the proposals that are outlined in the Bill. Some of the concerns that we have in Hackney—I know other inner-London MPs share some of these—are around the potential impacts on pavement licences, which are important to support businesses that want to grow.

In covid, when there was a proposal to rapidly increase pavement licences—later solidified by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023—we learnt that there could be real issues without the proper involvement of the community, police and licensing authorities. In that case, it was a rushed process—28 days—to change the rules in the Highways Act 1980 to allow licences to the same level as were provided for internal spaces. It was an unholy alliance of inner-London MPs that managed to eventually get that ameliorated in the Lords. That legislation was done at pace during covid; we have more time to think about it now. But new clause 22 and new schedule 2 have both been tabled at quite late notice.

The length of licences is also an issue, because if licences are allowed to run on too long it can be very complicated to rescind them—it can take 12 months. Although a licence that needs a regular fee, which can be rolled over relatively easily, is a cost on the business, overall, it can be a low fee if the business behaves well. There are measures that many boroughs have introduced to ensure that those that play by the rules are treated fairly.

Although not directly related to the Bill, fees could be part of the wider debate on licensing. Some fees are very low. Temporary events notices, for example, are still £21 each; that would be £37 if they had been uprated. That is still low—barely an hour of an officer’s time. There are examples in Hackney of some licensed premises regularly putting in for temporary events notices.

[Florence Eshalomi]

On the losses to the council, does my hon. Friend recognise that for many councils the costs of additional street cleaning, refuse collection, signage and lighting all add up when an event is granted a temporary licence, and for many councils there is no compensation for that?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I absolutely understand and support the Government’s approach to supporting businesses, but good businesses are not supported if the fees for temporary events notices and other licences do not keep up with inflation. Where there is a flood of temporary events notices for extended hours by some businesses, it causes a huge burden on the local authority, for which it is not funded. In fact, in Hackney there is an annual deficit of around £16,000 on temporary events notices alone.

We need enough fees for enforcement while not overburdening business—we have to get that balance right. The best businesses will understand the costs of enforcement, refuse collection and the other issues related to areas with large numbers of licensed premises, and will see the importance of that balance being in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

I will speak today in support of new clauses 64, 65 and 66, all tabled in my name.

As I said on Second Reading, my concern is that the Bill does precious little to strengthen accountability of existing devolved bodies, especially the Greater London Authority. It establishes simple majority voting in combined authorities as the default decision-making process, but does nothing to bring other authorities in line with this new standard. The London Assembly will retain its two-thirds majority requirement. A two-thirds majority has proved impossible to achieve in the London Assembly, which is why no budget or strategy has been amended in 25 years.

New clause 64 would abolish the two-thirds majority requirement to amend budgets and strategies. By allowing a simple majority, it would give Assembly members the opportunity to debate changes realistically, bringing mayors back to the table and ensuring proper accountability. Unlike other combined authorities, the Assembly cannot call in mayoral decisions, and London’s 32 boroughs are excluded from decision making; as a result, the mayor does not need to seek consensus, negotiate or even listen to opposing views. In a city the size of London, that effectively alienates and disenfranchises millions of people, leading to disengagement and distrust of London-wide government.

[Florence Eshalomi]

We should declare an interest, as the hon. Gentleman and I both served as London Assembly members for south London—the best boroughs. He speaks about there not being accountability of the mayor. Would he recognise that even after the voting changes, our current mayor won an overall majority and was re-elected for the third time?

[Peter Fortune]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I have tried hard to ensure that my new clauses are objective and would apply to anybody serving as mayor. If I could be cheeky, I can completely understand why she might not want to limit mayoral powers, being mindful of future ambitions that she might have.

New clause 65 would rectify the democratic deficit in London by giving the Assembly the power to direct that the mayor not take proposed decisions while they are under the Assembly’s review and scrutiny. It would also give the Assembly the power to recommend that the mayor reconsider a proposed decision. These powers should be standard for any devolved authority, and would ensure that the views of all Londoners are heard loud and clear by the mayor. The leaders of the 32 London boroughs have made a united cross-party call for a seat at the table as part of the devolution settlement for the capital, and I fully agree with them.

New clause 66 would start the process in delivering that new settlement, requiring the Secretary of State to consult on proposed reforms to the London Assembly, including proposals for greater involvement of London borough representatives in GLA decisions. I am firmly of the view that any new model must give the 32 boroughs a voice and a vote in London, so that not only my borough of Bromley but all London boroughs are able to contribute to and challenge decisions that impact them directly.

It is right that power is returned to our cities, regions and communities, but this must come with effective scrutiny and accountability of those who hold devolved power. There is a glaring democratic and accountability deficit in London, and anyone who is serious about the success of devolution in London will see that my new clauses are sensible first steps to rectifying that deficit. This is not political in nature. At this point, I note the excellent new clause 32, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), which also seeks to equalise that democratic deficit. As I said to the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), this is not political—indeed, the very make-up of the GLA means that these new clauses would return power to Assembly members of all parties, as well as empowering London boroughs and local councillors to do the job they were elected to do.

I urge the Government to embrace these new clauses, listen to London’s council leaders—the majority of whom are from the Labour party—and ensure that we have a properly accountable mayor in London and in all combined authorities up and down the country. It is difficult to see how anybody could seriously argue for less accountability.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

Just this week at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the new Secretary of State outlined that the Government will not be urging national development management policies to be non-statutory. That almost seems at odds with the Government’s direction of travel, which is towards speeding up the national scheme of delegation. Will the Minister explain why the Government are taking the approach of making the guidance non-statutory?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is conflating two entirely separate issues. We are committed to introducing a new suite of national policies for development management. We will consult on those before the end of the year. The Secretary of State provided a bit more detail at the Select Committee the other day. This particular amendment—Lords amendment 33—refers to the powers in the Bill to bring forward a national scheme of delegation, and I am making it clear that the sufficient consultation already built into the system does not require it to be taken forward via the affirmative procedure. I hope that reassures her.

Lords amendment 37 would exempt assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under part 11 of the general permitted development order. I have reflected on this amendment and agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and we think there are justifiable arguments for removing demolition of ACVs from permitted development rights. However, PDRs are established via secondary legislation, and it would not be appropriate to use this Bill to change particular development rights without consultation. As such, while we cannot support this exact amendment, I am happy to make a commitment today that we will consult on this change to the permitted development right for demolition at the first available opportunity. We hope that with this assurance, and a view to future opportunity for consultation on the matter, the House will reject Lords amendment 37.

Lords amendment 38 would require a spatial development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments. While I appreciate fully the positive intent of the amendment and reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to restoring and improving the nation’s chalk streams, I do not believe that it is a necessary or advisable means of protecting those vital ecosystems.

While strategic planning authorities will be expected to work closely with arm’s length bodies like the Environment Agency, they themselves will not have responsibility for regulatory systems governing water abstraction or pollution in catchment areas. The SDSs that they will be required to produce will be high-level frameworks for housing growth and infrastructure investment; they will not allocate specific sites. Importantly, as locally-led spatial exercises, local nature recovery strategies, drawing on river basin management plans, will be able to map out chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them, and SDSs will already be required to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to the strategy area. SDSs will also obviously be tested by an independent examiner against those requirements.

It remains the Government’s view that the protection and enhancement of chalk streams through the planning system is best achieved through the proper application of national planning policy. As I made clear on Report in the Commons, the measures in the Bill will not weaken existing protections enjoyed by those precious habitats, which are already recognised by decision makers in the planning system as valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value that should be identified and safeguarded through local plans.

That said, we have been giving this matter careful consideration given the strength of feeling expressed by the Commons on Report, and in the context of ongoing reforms to national planning policy. I am happy to make it clear to the House that I am minded to include explicit recognition of chalk streams in the new suite of national policies for decision making, which I referred to in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi)—and, as I said, we intend to consult on those before the end of this year. On the basis of that assurance, I urge hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 38.

Lords amendment 39 seeks to prioritise development on brownfield land, increase urban densities and minimise travel distances. The Government have a brownfield-first approach to development. Through the revisions made to the NPPF on 12 December 2024, we broadened the definition of brownfield land, set a strengthened expectation that applications on brownfield land will be approved, and made it clear that plans should promote an uplift in density in urban areas.

In September last year, the Government published a brownfield passport working paper, inviting views on how we might further prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land. Again, we intend to take forward those proposals in the new suite of national policies for decision making that I referred to a moment ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to those in the other place for their work in getting us to this stage. I am conscious of time—it is a Thursday, and many Members want to speak—so I will not go into great depth on the amendments. However, I welcome the changes that the Government have made in the other place, and the work of Ministers to reach a compromise to get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible. I particularly welcome the series of pragmatic Government amendments on environmental delivery plans. It is critical to ensure that any system to protect our environment is robust, and the measures outlined by the Government will go some way to quelling some of the fears outlined not just in the other place but by Members across this House on Report. I also welcome reforms to address water supply and encourage the building of badly needed reservoirs, as well as measures to ensure that developers have extra time to commence work when a court grants a judicial review. That sensible and proportional approach will ensure that permissions do not expire through no fault of the developer, and avoid any unnecessary repetition of the whole planning process.

As Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I wish to touch on two points that relate to the scrutiny we have in this place for planning and infrastructure. The first relates to Lords amendment 1, which is identical to amendment 83, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) on Report. As the Minister said then, this is

“about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made,”. —[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 756.]

However, we must be honest and say that even amendments to statements can have a massive impact on our communities up and down the country. Sometimes that impact is even bigger than that of Bills, which are subject to the full weight of parliamentary scrutiny.

I understand the point that the Minister made in Committee, which is that the system has led to unacceptable delays, sometimes for several months. I also know as much as anyone that just because a Committee recommends something to Ministers, it is far from a guarantee that the Government will change their policy. However, it is important that this change is not used to ride through significant changes without Committees having the chance to carry out proper scrutiny into how the measure will impact the lives of people up and down the country. It must also not be used to bypass scrutiny when a statement is amended so much over time as to become a de facto new statement. That is part of the role that we were elected to carry out by this House, and it is something that helps give confidence to the whole House that we have properly considered the statements before us. I heard the Minister indicate earlier that the Government will not accept Lords amendment 1, but I gently ask whether he can assure the House that Committees will still be included in the process of amending statements, and that they will not be sidelined when we engage proactively and in a timely manner with that process.

The introduction of this Bill is long awaited, after years of failing to unblock a broken planning system and to build on the scale that we desperately need. Research from Crisis found that nearly 300,000 families and individuals have ended up without a home of their own, while previous Governments failed to act, and as we know, some children do not even have a room in which to learn to walk or crawl. In reality that will not end overnight; it will end only when we have a system that consistently builds the affordable and social homes that we desperately need.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am not on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, but I can tell from hon. Friend’s passion that she is an excellent Chair. The use of temporary accommodation, which we have discussed before, costs local councils millions of pounds every year. Does she hope that the Bill, and the fast tracking of social and affordable housing that she talks of, will help to tackle that issue and bring down bills for local councils?

[Florence Eshalomi]

My hon. Friend is a proud advocate of highlighting that issue, which we constantly raise with the Minister. This is about ensuring that our councils are part of the building process, and the new social and affordable homes package—the £39 billion—will help to ensure that we build those homes. It is good to see that package. The prospectus was announced last week, and bids will be coming in from February 2026—build, baby, build!

Oral Answers to Questions

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and his Ministers to their positions. I very much look forward to welcoming them to meetings of the Select Committee; we are a fair and robust Committee. The Minister highlighted the inter-ministerial group, which the former Secretary of State chaired and saw as being very important. The issue cuts across all departmental groups. It is important, because within two months, as we go into the next year, and in the next financial year, we will see over 170,000 young children in temporary accommodation —in homelessness. That should worry all of us. The inter-ministerial group has met four times. Can the Minister confirm that the group will continue to be convened—and if it will, who will chair it?

[Alison McGovern]

The Chair of the Select Committee makes the case extremely well. If anybody in this Chamber is not worried about temporary accommodation, they are not paying attention; that is how serious this is. It is terrible for our kids, and for the taxpayer, because it is so expensive. I will follow up with her. A lot of work has already been done on the homelessness strategy. We want to get it confirmed as soon as possible. I will engage fully with the Select Committee on the strategy to ensure that we get it right, and we will come back to her shortly with the details of how we will do that together.

Birmingham Bin Strikes

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for outlining the Government’s work to maintain vital collection services for residents, who want to see their city cleaned up rather than another summer of this, given the recent heatwave.

Strike action has now passed the six-month mark. As the Minister just outlined, it is important that we consider the hardship felt by many of the striking workers. Many of them do not want to politicise this; they just want to do the right thing by their families. One recently told the BBC:

“Morale’s quite low… Everyone’s trying to stay strong and together, but it is very difficult. The union has tried to help us out with strike pay, but for a lot of people it doesn’t cover their…bills. It puts a massive strain on our family. Kids, money—money’s tight, credit cards are maxed out”.

Nobody should be put in that position. I hear the Minister’s calls for the commissioners, Birmingham and the unions to resolve this issue, but what more can he and the Government do to bring everyone around the table so that we can finally bring an end to the dispute?

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her comments—we agree on much. She speaks to why a resolution on this issue is so important. At the heart of this, there are working people with rent and mortgages to pay, who want a resolution. To be clear, the council has been in negotiations over many months and has made a fair and reasonable offer to Unite, which, unfortunately, the union rejected. The council has also worked hard to offer options to affected workers, including their transfer to other roles in the council at the same grade, and, in some cases, has agreed to upskill in-scope workers. A generous redundancy package is available for those who wish to leave the service; we have seen an uptake in that. In the end, none of us wants this to roll on indefinitely; we want to see a resolution for the affected workers and for the taxpayers of Birmingham, who quite rightly expect their local public services to be delivered to a good standard.

Strategy for Elections

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for the written statement and for her work behind the scenes.

We should welcome the opportunity for more people to be enfranchised. We should be very clear that one person losing the right to vote at the ballot box is one person too many. It is really important that we look at the issues around voter ID, and ensure more opportunities for people to have other forms of voter ID at the ballot box. It is important that we enfranchise our young people to vote. They participate in public life already, so they should also be entitled to vote.

It is really important to have system where it is easier to be registered to vote. When you move home, before you have even unpacked you get a council tax bill—the council already has your details—so it is good that we are looking at a system to ensure people are registered to vote. For far too long we have knocked on doors and people have said that they are interested but not registered to vote, so that is vital.

On ensuring candidates still feel safe, this is a big challenge and a threat to democracy. Will my hon. Friend outline what work she will be doing with the Electoral Commission on the intimidation and abuse faced by candidates?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We do need questions and answers to be short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; foreign interference in British politics is a growing danger to our democracy and it is right that we tackle it. Our changes will boost transparency and accountability in politics by closing the loopholes that allow foreign funding to influence our politics and elections. This evolving and sophisticated threat has made it all too easy to funnel illicit money from abroad to political parties, which is why we are introducing these checks. We will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows, in this Parliament.

[Florence Eshalomi]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is really important that Members of Parliament are accurate in our statements, and I just want some clarity. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) mentioned bags of postal votes, but you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that under the Elections Act 2022 and a subsequent statutory instrument—I served on its Committee as the shadow Minister for democracy—people handling postal votes will now be limited to handling no more than five postal votes for elections, plus their own postal votes. Does the hon. Member want to reflect on his statement about people carrying multiple bags of postal votes?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I take it that she has notified the hon. Member mentioned.

[Florence Eshalomi]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Obviously, the hon. Member’s point of order is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put it on the record.

Oral Answers to Questions

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

This afternoon, I visited Centrepoint, where I spoke to young people living in self-contained flats and met the staff who are working to support those young people. The Secretary of State will be aware that a coalition of 150 charities supporting young people are calling for a specific youth-focused section in the ending homelessness strategy; estimates show that would save £8.5 billion a year. Does the Minister agree that it is not only morally right but economically smart to have a youth-specific chapter in that new strategy?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)]

I commend my hon. Friend for her work on this really important agenda. I met representatives from the youth homelessness sector at a recent roundtable. We are determined to ensure that the concerns and interests of young people experiencing homelessness are integrated into our report on ending homelessness, and we are working with the sector to tackle the root causes of youth homelessness.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for this important and urgent debate. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is responsible for some of the biggest areas that impact all of us every single day, and I welcome the ambitious drive of the Deputy Prime Minister and her Ministers to deliver in those areas.

For too long, we have simply failed to build the homes that people need: the affordable homes for young people stuck at home or in the unaffordable private rented sector; the family homes for people whose kids have outgrown sleeping in the same room; and the social rent homes to get people off the social housing waiting lists and give the 164,000 homeless children a safe and permanent roof over their head.

I welcome that the Department is addressing head-on the financial distress that many local authorities are in. Last year, a record 30 local authorities received so-called exceptional financial support, which allows them to sell long-term assets or take out loans just to pay for their day-to-day costs. Due to the pressures they are under, some councils now have no choice but to hollow out their services in order to deliver vital services for residents. How can that be sustainable in 2025? How can it be fair that local people ultimately pay the price when their councils cannot fix up their town centres and have to cut vital services like bin collections just to make ends meet?

If the Department is going to get to grips with these dual crises and deliver on its ambitions, its plans to address them must be fully funded. When we look at the estimate and the recent spending review, there is good news for affordable housing and social housing, although I do have some questions for the Minister, which I will come to. On local authority finances, however, the Select Committee remains concerned that no new money is on the way. The spending review promises

“an average overall real terms increase in local authority core spending power”,

but only if local authorities increase council tax by the maximum allowable under legislation, passing the buck on to councils and raising the taxes we all pay in our local area.

If the Department is serious about ensuring everyone has access to an affordable home, we must end the decades of failure to build the homes we desperately need. That is why I welcome the Government’s ambition and commitment to deliver 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament, but evidence to our Select Committee from the sector has been clear: if the Government want to increase house building towards delivering more than 300,000 homes a year and reaching their target, social housing must be a substantial part of that mix. Ministers have said that the 1.5 million target is “stretching”, and the message we have heard from the sector is clear. In November, the Minister for Housing and Planning told us that, rather than a target of 300,000 homes per year over five years,

“The trajectory is an upward one”.

He said:

“The precise curve of that trajectory is dependent on factors like… the spending review settlement”.

We therefore warmly welcome the announcement in the spending review that the next affordable homes programme for 2026 onwards will be worth £39 billion. The estimate provides almost £400 million of uplift for the current affordable homes programme, which runs from 2021 to 2026. It is important that we continue to fund that if we are to reach the aim of 1.5 million new homes, but we need to start the building now, not towards the end of the decade. That is why I would be grateful to get some clarity from the Minister and the Department. Ministers have said they will publish a long-term housing strategy later this year, to set out how they will meet the 1.5 million target.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

This morning I met one of my constituents who is a care leaver, and she spoke of the huge challenges she faced in getting housing, partly because of the lack of affordable housing. Does my hon. Friend agree that supporting care leavers needs to be part of the housing strategy?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important intervention. It is clear that so many people desperately want to get their foot on the housing ladder and are worried about the precarious nature of private renting, which is why we welcome the Government’s ambition to end no-fault evictions, but there is much more we can do, and it starts with building the homes.

It is important that the Government set out their plan for reaching their target, instead of leaving it too late, so I have three questions for the Minister. First, when will the House have clarity on how much funding will be coming forward in each year of the 10-year affordable homes programme? The Government have said that spending will reach £4 billion a year in 2029-30. What does that mean until then? While the £400 million uplift accounted for the affordable homes programme is welcome, it is not clear that that is a sufficient rise for the Government to achieve their goal of 1.5 million new homes.

Secondly, when will we see the long-term housing strategy? The Government have said that the strategy will be published “later this year”. Now that we have the long-term certainty of 10 years’ worth of funding, housing associations are calling out for clarity—they want to get building the homes that we need.

Thirdly, what discussions is the Department having with Homes England about the design of the new affordable homes programme? What is the Minister’s view on how much of that funding should go to shared ownership or right to buy? My Committee has consistently called on the Department to set out how that target will be achieved by tenure, including the important target of social rented homes.

My Committee has been undertaking an inquiry into local government funding and we have heard that local government continues to be under severe financial strain. Local authorities across the country are being asked to deliver ever more, but simply have not been given adequate funding to do so. I welcome the Department’s day-to-day spending in respect of local government and the uplift of 22%—£2.5 billion overall—according to the proposed estimate.

However, the financial strain councils are facing is almost entirely driven by high-cost, demand-led services, over which councils have little control. Those services, which include the provision of social care and homelessness support, are vital and often relied on by some of the most vulnerable people in our respective areas. The cost of social care has soared over recent years. In 2023-24, local authorities in England spent £20.5 billion on adult social care—19% of the total service net expenditure. If children’s social care is included in that figure, it is over 30% of the total budget.

A significant proportion of the 22% uplift in the estimate comes from new money—over £850 million—for adult social care grants. I welcome that much-needed injection of funding. There is also an uplift of £684 million for children’s social care, but that figure appears to be somewhat inflated by a budget transfer from the Department for Education. While that uplift for the Ministry is welcome, it still may not be enough.

I want to touch briefly on homelessness and temporary accommodation again. Our first inquiry as a Select Committee in this Parliament deliberately chose to look at the sharp end of the housing crisis, and we published reports on children in temporary accommodation and rough sleeping. We found that at the heart of the crisis are over 165,000 homeless children and their families, who are often voiceless, out of sight and stuck in completely unsuitable temporary accommodation. That is also damaging council finances. I have repeated the figure before and I will repeat it again: councils spent £2.29 billion on temporary accommodation in 2023-24, which amounts to London boroughs spending a combined total of £4 million per day on temporary accommodation. That is not sustainable.

The estimate includes over £260 million in funding for the rough sleeping prevention grant, and an uplift of £194 million in the homelessness prevention grant. Again, while these uplifts are a positive step in the right direction, my Committee heard that the restrictions placed on the homelessness prevention grant are quite troubling for some London councils. The new ringfencing introduced for 2025-26 requires almost 50% of that grant to be spent on that specifically. The homelessness situation in the capital is not deceasing and boroughs are spending almost 80% of that funding on temporary accommodation. The Committee urges the Government to engage with councils to solve the issue, to ensure that we do not see a reduction in provision and to address homelessness levels.

The current system also has small, short-term pots of funding. We urge the Department to reform those funding streams to ensure that there is long-term sustainable funding, instead of multiple, short-term funding pots.

My Committee is concerned that there is slow progress on the inter-ministerial group that is developing the strategy. We know that the Department plans to publish that “later this year”. This area may not be in the Minister’s direct remit, but will he be more specific about when we will get that strategy? Given that we cannot end homelessness without building the social homes we need, could the homelessness strategy be published at the same time as the long-term housing strategy?

There is so much to welcome in the estimate for 2025-26. The Government are moving in the right steps and the right directions, but we need to hear the detail of the affordable homes programme funding, especially if we are to deliver a boost to housing before the end of this Parliament. We need to ensure that our local authorities are on a stable footing to provide for the most vulnerable in our society, whether it is those who need adult social care, people sleeping rough or families at risk of homelessness. I welcome the funding commitments outlined in this estimate, but I urge the Government to go further and be more ambitious in their funding and financial support for these priority areas. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to my questions.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the Minister and the 15 Members from across the country who have taken part in the debate, which shows the value we place on our local authorities. For far too long, our local councils have not always got the recognition they deserve, but they are the first line of defence for all our constituents, and it is right that they are properly funded to carry out this vital work.

The Minister outlined some of the key areas where the Government are making big changes, and it is important that we continue to press him on those key areas and ask these difficult questions—not because we want to, but because we see this day in, day out in our inboxes, and it is vital that we address it. We do not want any more councils declaring bankruptcy, we do not want any more section 114 notices being issued, and we do not want any more young people tragically losing their life because of the temporary accommodation they are living in.

It is important that we help the Government in their ambition to build the homes we need. The £39 billion outlined is a step in the right direction. Our cross-party Select Committee will continue to ask the Government these questions, because we believe that every single person across the country deserves a safe, secure home that they can call their own.

Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54).

Grenfell Tower Fire: Eighth Anniversary

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

On Saturday, we mark eight years since 72 people lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire—eight years of fighting for truth, eight years without justice, and eight years of too often glacial change. This will be the last anniversary before the tower starts to come down, and it will no longer stand as a painful symbol of injustice, greed and impunity on the west London skyline. As the tower starts to be deconstructed, it is even more important that we remember the 72 people who lost their lives, and I am sure that this House will continue to stand united with their families, the survivors and the community until justice is served and systemic change is implemented.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for making a powerful opening statement on the really important and tragic anniversary that is coming up. Of the 72 people who lost their lives, 18 were children. Some 37 residents were disabled, and 15 of them died. Does my hon. Friend agree that even though the tower will come down in a few years, the trauma, suffering, pain and anguish will live with the people of Grenfell for many years to come?

[Joe Powell]

I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for her intervention. I completely agree with her, and the legacy must be the systemic change that I talked about. Many of the people who lost their lives in Grenfell were disabled, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to laying regulations that will mandate personal emergency evacuation plans for disabled people, which is a crucial step forward. I know that the Minister has recently taken fire safety into his brief and will look closely at the resources to make sure that such plans are implemented and available for disabled people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing those statistics. I think the reality is that the money is there; what we need to do is go building by building and solve the problems. That is where I welcome the Government’s emphasis on devolving some of the decision making, for example, to a London remediation board, which might be something to look at for other parts of the country.

I am sure the House would appreciate an update on the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment on 4 September that all the companies found by the inquiry to have been part of these horrific failings will stop being awarded Government contracts. As the inquiry said, the companies that made the cladding and insulation products—Arconic, Celotex and Kingspan—behaved with “systematic dishonesty” and

“engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market.”

[Florence Eshalomi]

One glaring matter to arise from the inquiry was this mention of the corporate greed of some of the developers. It is right, as my hon. Friend says, that the Government will be looking to ban those contracts. Survivors have also asked for prosecutions to come forward. Does he agree that, in addition to the Government banning those companies from receiving other contracts, there should be additional funding for the Met police so that they can swiftly bring to justice those who were responsible for this?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for securing this opportunity to mark this weekend’s eighth anniversary of the tragedy at Grenfell Tower and the loss of 72 innocent lives, including, as we have heard, 18 children. Time has not diminished the horror, the pain or the impact of that day—the lives of families and the community changed forever.

My hon. Friend has raised an awful lot of important points, and I hope to be able to cover them all. They are in keeping with his outstanding advocacy for his community. In the building safety space, there is no Member I speak to more than him; we will be together again tomorrow. I want to put it on the record that he pushes and presses me, quite rightly, in the interests of his community, day in, day out.

The most important tribute, though, is to the community, because for eight long years they have campaigned and fought for truth, justice and change. The Deputy Prime Minister and I are resolute in listening to them. We want to ensure that the bereaved, survivors, next of kin and resident voices are heard, including at the heart of Government. We will continue to work until the lessons from the Grenfell Tower fire have changed the system that led to that tragedy.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the Minister for his words and for attending the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to give an update on behalf of the Government. The Committee heard from Grenfell United and survivors that for far too long social housing tenants were being ignored and dismissed. There is no recommendation or terms of reference in the inquiry on race or discrimination, but does he agree that the discrimination of disabled and black and minority ethnic residents was a contributing factor in the tenants being failed?

[Alex Norris]

It has always been clear to me, in my conversations with the bereaved and survivors and with families and next of kin, that the demographics in terms of race speak their own story, and that is similarly the case with disability. That is why it has informed our policy in PEEPs, which I will talk to shortly, as well as our entire agenda around residents’ voice in social housing, which I will also come on to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and I were in the very early stages of our time as Members of Parliament in 2017, and I know exactly where I was sitting during the discussions we had then—I can see it but 10 metres from here. As I have said in every debate of this kind since I have been a Minister, if we had said to ourselves then that in eight years we would have achieved as little as we have, we would have thought that a significant failure. It is a significant failure, and I want those watching this debate to know that we understand that. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater said that the progress is glacial. That is exactly right, and it behoves us to change that with real intent. That is my commitment and the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment.

Last September, Sir Martin Moore-Bick published the inquiry’s final report. It is a hugely important staging post and driver for action. The findings were clear: the system failed at every point—public, private, local, national. Families were failed. Residents’ voices were ignored. Dishonest practices were propagated. The Prime Minister has apologised on behalf of the British state for its part in the failures that led to entirely avoidable deaths. I want to repeat the Prime Minister’s words: it should never have happened.

We published our response to the inquiry in February. We accepted the findings and committed to delivering on all 58 recommendations and to going further through a broader approach to reform, including with regard to construction products. Last month we published our progress report on delivery, and we will continue to report on a quarterly basis. The next progress report in September will be a very big one, because we will also publish our full implementation plan, setting out how we will deliver the recommendations. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater that the legacy must be system change.

I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) says about it being a long time, and I know from speaking to the bereaved and survivors that they are frustrated that some of the recommendations will take time. The commitment I will make from this Dispatch Box is that nothing will take a day longer than it has to take. We are working with urgency and intent, and we will be very transparent as we do.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I appreciate that the Minister is working around the clock on this issue. I know that it is very important to him and that there are big challenges in his portfolio. Does he agree that because there are so many competing demands on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, including looking at building safety and the Minister’s new responsibility on fire safety, a clear way to ensure that the Government continue to keep focus on this issue is through a national oversight mechanism? It will help the Government ensure that there are clear deadlines and timeframes for the recommendations, which the Government have rightly accepted.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention; she pre-empts my next point. Before I move on, I want to recognise the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who said that he hopes that we will have opportunities to debate our progress. We have committed to an annual debate in this place about our progress, and we will have those debates until we have delivered on the recommendations.

Turning to oversight, we are committed to transparency, accountability and scrutiny. It is entirely right that the community, having been failed in the ways that they have, want to see very clear accountability. We will record all recommendations made by public inquiries on gov.uk by next summer, backdating it to 2024, so there will be public tracking of inquiry recommendations. That meets the commitment under the Grenfell Tower inquiry review.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green knows that I will refer to the points I made at her Select Committee. The Cabinet Office, as part of its ongoing inquiry work, is exploring how to improve scrutiny and accountability for all inquiry responses, so that actions can be taken more quickly. I would not want to run ahead of that. To address the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), we remain fully committed to a Hillsborough law, which will include a legal duty of candour for public servants and criminal sanctions for those who refuse to comply.

I turn now to justice, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater spoke with real power about. When I talk to the bereaved and survivors about whatever the matter of the day is, they always say to me, “Yes, Alex, but that is not justice yet.” I know that, and the Prime Minister acknowledged last year that the inquiry final report, while exposing the truth, does not yet bring the justice that families rightly deserve. Again, I am aware of the frustration in this area and the strong feeling that accountability has yet to be achieved. We continue to support the independent Metropolitan Police Service as it conducts its investigations—we know how important that is.

I want to touch on the tower itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater said, this will be a poignant anniversary because it will be the final one with the tower as it is. We will continue to work closely with bereaved families, survivors, next of kin and residents as we prepare work to carefully take down Grenfell Tower, starting in the autumn. They will remain at the heart of this work. As we look to the future, we are committed to supporting the independent memorial commission in its important work to create a fitting and lasting memorial determined by the community.

The Deputy Prime Minister and I will continue—as we have throughout—to meet with anyone who wants that, to listen and act on the issues we are raising and, more importantly, the issues they raise with us. I know that there is a lot of anxiety that as the tower is carefully taken down, the moment for the Grenfell community will be forgotten. Again, I want to give an assurance on that. I know that, with these colleagues behind me, that will never be the case, but for the Government it will not be either.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green said, this is a moment of trauma for individuals, so it is crucial that really good mental health support is available for the community. I and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), are raising that with the integrated care board to ensure that the right mental health services are there, the right screening facilities are there, and there is the right screening for children and young people, which is such a community priority. I will work with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater in that venture to ensure that those healthcare services are there.

It is clear and accepted that the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea also failed. The leadership has committed to change and has taken important steps forward, but we still hear from too many residents that they are not getting the experience they should. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have met the leader of the council, and we have challenged the council to become an exemplar as a fitting legacy for this tragedy. We will continue to hold the council to account until residents feel and see the change.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Lancaster West estate. I am conscious that even before that terrible night in 2017, residents there had lived on a building site for a very long time. They say that to me every time I see them. The council has a huge gap in funding—he said it is £85 million and I would say £84 million, but it is a significant gap either way. I will continue to work with him, the residents’ association—I know that its able chair, Mushtaq Lasharie, will press us at every opportunity, as he rightly always does—and the council on how to take the issue forward.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned PEEPs, which has recently become a responsibility of mine and of MHCLG. As he said, we are looking to lay secondary legislation as soon as we can. I am committed to working with disability groups to ensure that the guidance and the toolkit in its implementation is as good as possible. We have committed funding this year, and any future funding will be part of the spending review process, which is coming to its peroration tomorrow.

I agree with my hon. Friend’s points on the pace of remediation. I inherited a trajectory that took us into the 2040s. Our remediation acceleration plan—certainly for buildings above 18 metres with unsafe cladding in a Government scheme—concertinas that to 2029. We will be updating our remediation acceleration plan this summer to push even further on what we can do to get quicker remediation.

My hon. Friend mentioned the challenges around social housing and the impact that has not just on remediation but on building. Those points were very well made. We will announce our longer-term plans in that space shortly.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the Minister for being generous in giving way. One of the issues constantly raised by registered social landlords is that they cannot apply for the building safety remediation. Will we see an update on that in the coming weeks, and perhaps in announcements tomorrow?

[Alex Norris]

On a point of fact, RSLs can access the building safety fund and cladding safety scheme, but I have heard from them that the circumstances in which they can do that—basically, declaring a degree of financial distress—are difficult for them, and I understand that. I cannot be drawn on any events upcoming; all I will say is that my hon. Friend’s suggestion has an awful lot of merit.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

More than 55 Back Benchers hope to contribute, and colleagues know what time this debate has to end. It is unlikely that everybody will get in, so colleagues may want to reconsider and submit to speak tomorrow instead of today. I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am mindful of what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will try to keep my remarks short. I rise to speak to the amendments in my name. In this Report stage, I will briefly touch on why the Bill is so vital. It is fair to say that we all, as constituency MPs, have our frustrations with the planning system, but ultimately we must remember why this Bill matters. We are in the middle of a housing crisis. A generation of young people are spending more and more of their income on unaffordable private rents, while the dream of home ownership fades even further. We have 1.3 million households on local authority waiting lists for social housing and more than 165,000 children growing up in temporary accommodation. That figure has risen by 15% in the last year alone.

I am the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and our first report looked at the lives of some of the children in temporary accommodation. What we found was truly shameful. Families are living in damp, cold and mouse-infested homes. Babies are not able to crawl or learn to walk because of a lack of floor space. Most shockingly, we found that temporary accommodation has been a contributing factor in the death of at least 74 children in the past five years.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

As a fellow London Member of Parliament, I recognise everything that my hon. Friend has described. Was she surprised, as I was, to hear from the shadow Minister that the planning system is fine and should not change?

[Florence Eshalomi]

As I outlined in my opening comments, the planning system does not work. It is broken, just as we have a broken housing market and a housing crisis.

I mentioned the 74 children who died in the past five years; 58 were under the age of one. As Members of Parliament representing different parts of the country, we might disagree with aspects of developments in our constituencies, and we must not let developers off the hook when they often fail to deliver quality in new housing.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and she touches on developers. My new clause 67 focuses on developers’ obligations when they have committed, at the planning application stage, to deliver a certain number of affordable homes. Under my new clause, they would have to stick to that. They should not be given scope to use issues around viability or profitability to reduce the number of affordable homes that they deliver. Does she agree that that option should not be open to developers if they want to build homes?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my constituency neighbour for that important point. We have to be honest: the market facing developers is challenging. Their costs have increased, but we see waiting lists across our boroughs increasing daily. More and more people face an acute housing shortage. It is therefore important that when developers consult and go to planning committees with their development plans, they stick to what they have committed to. Developers must build the infrastructure that our communities need, and we must ensure that homes are built to the highest safety standards. We must be in no doubt that, unacceptably, we have for decades failed to build the homes that we need. If we want to give young people homes, stop families facing the scourge of homelessness, and ensure that every child has the best start in life, we must say yes to building more homes. In particular, not enough new social homes have been built. That is why I tabled new clause 50.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I completely agree that not enough social homes are being built. Does the hon. Lady think we should have a target for social homes in the Bill?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the hon. Member for that point, and I am coming to some of the points on targets; essentially, this subject is why I tabled new clause 50, and I am grateful for the support of colleagues from all parts of the House. Social rent, as we know, is the most affordable housing tenure, as the rent is calculated through a national formula. Usually, the rent is set at around 50% of local market rents. That is exactly the kind of housing we need if we want to make progress towards ending homelessness during this Parliament.

The Minister told the Select Committee that the Government want to prioritise the building of new social rent homes as part of their social housing ambitions. My new clause 50 would require the Government to set a national target for the number of social rent homes that they want to deliver per year. The target would not be binding on the Government or the sector, but it would demonstrate the scale of the Government’s ambition. Targets are important to how our planning system works in England. Local and national housing targets make sure that our planners, developers and housing associations know how many homes the Government intend to deliver, and they allow communities to plan effectively.

The Government have been clear on their overall national housing targets, but the Select Committee believes that the Government must set out how they intend to hit that 1.5 million target, and we want to ensure that includes a target by tenure. In the absence of a specific housing target, the number of new social rent homes has plummeted from hundreds of thousands in the 1970s to consistently below 10,000 in the past decade.

[Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, which we have discussed on the Select Committee. Does she agree that to reach the target of 90,000 social homes a year, we must set clear targets now? Otherwise, we will not be able to get a grip on the housing crisis when it comes to delivering socially rented homes.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my fellow Committee member for making that point. As the shadow Minister outlined, a number of key sectors have made claims and are worried about the target that the Government have set. It is an ambitious target, and we want the Government to hit it, but without urgent action, that might be difficult for them to do.

In the absence of such a target, far fewer families are getting off the waiting list, out of homelessness and into secure and safe affordable homes. As the new Select Committee has not endorsed a specific number of social rent homes, my new clause does not hold the Government to a target; rather, we want the Government to consider what is needed and, most important, what is possible within the financial constraints and the sector’s capacity. In recent years, several organisations have called for social rent targets at different levels. As we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), the most common figure is 90,000 social rent homes per year, which has been endorsed by Shelter, Crisis, the National Housing Federation, the Affordable Housing Commission, and the predecessor of my Committee in the last Parliament.

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

The hon. Member has made some excellent points about the need to set a target for social homes. I believe that the destruction of council house stock is one of the most regressive actions that the country has ever taken, and that we need to replenish that stock as a matter of urgency. However, I fear that 90,000 a year is not enough. Does she agree that we need to aim for 150,000?

[Florence Eshalomi]

The hon. Member makes a really important point. What we are asking the Government to do, in the new clause—and what many other Members across the House are asking them to do—is ensure that, within that 1.5 million target, there is a clearer ambition in relation to how many of those homes will be social housing. We need to take a step first before we start increasing that target, but I agree that 90,000 is a drop in the ocean, given the number of people across the country who are on the social housing waiting list.

When he was in office, the former Secretary of State—now Lord Gove—said that he wanted to see at least 30,000 social rent homes a year, which he called a “stretching but achievable” target. My new clause would give the Government six months after the passing of the Bill to set their own target. By that time, we expect the Government to have published details of a new affordable homes programme and a long-term housing strategy. The Minister has told the Select Committee that the long-term housing strategy will set out how the Government will meet their 1.5 million target, and we hope that will include a breakdown of the figure by tenure and a target for social rent housing.

My amendments 129 and 130 are technical amendments to the Bill’s planning fees ringfence. We know that local planning authorities are badly under-resourced. According to the Royal Town Planning Institute, one quarter of planners have left the public sector between 2013 and 2020. The sector has therefore welcomed the Bill’s plan to ringfence the revenues from planning fees so that local authorities must invest those revenues in planning departments. However, in evidence to the Committee, planning representatives told us that the current ringfence in the Bill was too restrictive, as it would not allow planning departments to spend the money on developing their local plans. The Minister is up to date with local plans, and, as he knows, local plan coverage is vital if the Government’s planning reforms are to succeed. The fact is, however, that only a third of local authorities have an up-to-date local plan in place. It therefore seems to be a missed opportunity that the ringfence, as currently drafted, would not allow local authorities to invest in plan-making using revenues from fees. The Government wish to see universal coverage of local plans, so I hope that the Minister might consider making this modest change in the other place to extend the fees ringfence.

With those local plans in place, and with the Government’s wider planning reforms bedding in, hopefully we will start to see real progress towards building the homes we so desperately need. But even then, we must face the reality that planning reforms alone will not to be enough to deliver 1.5 million homes during the current Parliament. The private sector will need to take time to adjust to the new regime, and developers will need years of lead-in time to bring forward those applications. The private sector will build homes only at the rate at which they sell without needing to reduce prices, whereas with social housing a family can receive the keys to a secure home as soon as it is built. We must remember that the last time England was building 300,000 homes a year, more than 100,000 of them were social housing.

The Government have promised to deliver the

“biggest wave of social and affordable housing for a generation”,

and that will require the biggest boost in social housing investment for a generation. In truth, the spending review will make or break the 1.5 million target. It is now time for the Government to be bold, and to deliver on their housing ambition. If they do so, they will find councils across the country ready to match their ambition.

I particularly welcome Southwark Council’s work, and the work of its outgoing leader, Councillor Kieron Williams, in spearheading the “Securing the Future of Council Housing” campaign. In just under a year, Southwark has joined 112 other councils across England in sending the clear message that it is there to get more homes delivered, and to fix the broken housing system. I urge the Government to match that goal, back up their stated ambitions, and set a social housing target following the spending review. We must ensure that social rent housing—the most affordable tenure—forms a substantial part of the new housing that results from the Bill.

[Several hon. Members rose—]