Park Home Owners

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for park home owners.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I want to acknowledge the turnout, which is pretty impressive, given that we were voting so late last night. I hope it demonstrates to the Minister how passionate people are about this topic.

I am proud to represent six park home sites. In Rushcliffe, as in many constituencies represented here, mobile home sites can be found everywhere. They can be found on the edge of more urban areas, such as the Bassingfield Lane, Carlight Gardens and Greenacres sites near West Bridgford; in smaller village or town settings, such as Radcliffe Park in Radcliffe-on-Trent; and in idyllic rural settings, such as the Tollerton Park site near Tollerton village, or the Langar Woods site near Langar. As those who can count will realise, those are all six park home sites in my constituency.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Speaking of idyllic rural areas, there is none more so than my constituency of Henley and Thame. The average house price is more than half a million pounds, so park homes offer an affordable alternative, yet the 10% charge when people come to sell the homes makes it really difficult. Does the hon. Member agree that it is a good thing that the Government have launched a review, but that more detail is required on the timeline?

[James Naish]

Absolutely. I am sure that we will talk a lot about the 10% sales commission, but the hon. Member is right to raise it early on. I am pleased that the Minister leading on the reforms is here. I am sure that he will be listening closely to what Members have to say today.

Wherever they are located, mobile home sites are great places to live. They are radically different from the stereotypes of so-called trailer parks from the 1970s and ’80s. Among other things, they offer independence, security and supportive communities. Over the past 21 months, I have been fortunate to work with people from all six Rushcliffe sites on issues related to living in a mobile home. When I applied for this debate, I told the Backbench Business Committee that one thing I have tried to do as a Member of Parliament is to find a couple of policy areas in which small changes can make a big difference to a large number of people. I believe that park or mobile homes are one of those areas.

An estimated 160,000 people live in mobile homes in England alone. In effect, that is two whole constituencies of people, or the equivalent of the population of Northampton, Norwich or Reading. However, because of the geographical dispersion of mobile home sites around the country and the lack of critical mass—on average there are fewer than 100 residents per site—mobile home residents are talked about only sporadically. When they are talked about, warm words are rarely followed by action. I am determined that this Parliament will change that for good. To that end, I welcome the fact that in March this Government opened a call for evidence, which closes on Friday 29 May, on the 10% commission charge on park home sales. That is a significant step forward. I hope that today’s debate will ensure that the voices of park and mobile home residents are amplified and heard clearly by Ministers and civil servants as that work continues.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Park home owners across my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages have contacted me about the deeply unfair 10% commission charge. It is a levy that has not been changed in almost 45 years, and it falls hardest on the older residents, who make up about 80% of park home owners, so I was delighted to see the Government announce the long overdue review in March. Does my hon. Friend agree that after years of neglect by previous Governments, park home owners deserve real, meaningful reform that finally gives them the financial security that they need?

[James Naish]

Yes, and I will talk about that in a moment. There has been cross-party consensus on the need to make changes, but it will fall to this Government to make them. I am pleased that in advance of this debate, we saw that move from the Government, and I trust that there will be proper, meaningful change in due course.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I hear repeatedly from park home residents in my constituency that they do not understand what the 10% charge is actually paying for. They feel that they have very little leverage and are stuck in a system that they cannot challenge. Does the hon. Member agree that any review must go beyond another round of evidence gathering? This time, park home residents will expect real change.

[James Naish]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I will talk later about the different reasons that have been given for the 10% commission, which demonstrate in and of themselves that nobody is sure what it is for. It is a hangover from a past era.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I have had the pleasure of visiting Stonehill Woods Park in my constituency, a wonderful park homes community where I heard residents’ huge frustrations about the regulation of park homes, particularly the 10% sales commission. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should look carefully at all the evidence provided as part of the consultation, and at whether the 10% commission can be reduced or scrapped entirely?

[James Naish]

I trust that the Minister and his team will do exactly that. This is not just about the 10% sales commission; there are broader issues impacting park home residents. I will come on to those matters shortly.

Let me say two important things. First, mobile homes can be a very good housing option. They typically offer people a smaller, more manageable home in an attractive, close-knit community. The quality of mobile homes has improved considerably over recent years; the sites are often now home to a diverse mix of individuals and families, just like any other location.

Secondly, and critically, for most people park homes are not a second home or a luxury purchase; they are their only home. They therefore represent security, independence and a lifetime of savings, just like the bricks-and-mortar properties that most of us inhabit. That is precisely why protections for mobile home owners matter. We are talking about 160,000 ordinary people living ordinary lives in 100,000 increasingly ordinary properties, but they are underpinned by out-of-date legislation and perceptions. Rightly, the Government are looking at major commonhold, leasehold and fleecehold reforms to end the feudal leasehold system and the injustice of unfair maintenance costs, but as part of those wider changes, park and mobile home owners must not be forgotten. I hope that today’s debate will make sure that they are not.

On mobile homes, MPs from parties of all colours have talked over the years about mis-selling, poor maintenance, weak enforcement, opaque utility charges, disputes over pitch fees, sale blocking and the 10% commission charge when a home is sold. Most concerningly, MPs have often alluded to the imbalance of power between mobile home residents and site owners.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by residents of the Harden and Bingley Park on Goit Stock Lane in Harden. They feel trapped in their relationship with the site owner, which they have said does nothing. On the 10% commission, they want to give the whole of their estate to their family as an inheritance. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that residents feed their views into the consultation, and that we make sure that the deal between park home owners and residents is fair and proportionate?

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The consultation is being run for a reason. I encourage anyone watching the debate or emailing their MPs about it to go further and engage with the consultation, because I am sure that the Minister is looking forward to review those responses.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this valuable debate. I have a good number of park home sites in my constituency. Not only do they suffer the 10% commission, poor maintenance levels and high service charges, but they have atrocious service on the utilities that they have to buy through the park home owner. Some years ago, one site collectively was charged £100,000 for a water leak, which was £1,000 a home. I got that refunded from South West Water. The same site recently had blocked drains over a weekend, so people could not flush their toilets, and their Calor gas system was deemed unfit for use, so they had no heating. Is that an acceptable way to run a site? Does the hon. Member agree that residents need better enforcement and support, and not just from the site owner?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, let me say that this is an exceptionally well-subscribed debate. The Front Benchers’ wind-ups will start at 10.30 am, so I ask that interventions be short and sharp.

[James Naish]

Thank you, Sir Alec. I will press on, but the hon. Member is absolutely right and has touched on some issues that I will talk about. I congratulate him on ensuring his residents got their money back.

Most concerning, and often alluded to by MPs, is the imbalance of power. A park home resident may own the home they live in, but they are not in control of the land beneath or around it, and they often have a very limited say in related decisions. When the same person or entity controls the site, the pitch, the rules, the maintenance, potentially the utilities, and the conditions under which the home is sold, it is understandable that residents feel exposed.

That can and must change. It needs only relatively minor adjustments to legislation. I trust that the Minister and his team will prioritise that in the next parliamentary Session, given the tangible difference that can be made to the lives of 160,000 people up and down the country.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[James Naish]

I will press on and see where we get to. I will not go into detail about many key issues facing park and mobile home owners—I am sure colleagues will touch on them, as they have already started to—but I want to mention, up front, some key items that are common across all sites.

The first is maintenance and site standards. Site residents frequently report poor upkeep, damaged roads, drainage issues and neglected communal areas, despite continuing to pay high fees directly to the site owners. One of my six park home sites has repeatedly raised issues about poor waste disposal, leading to rats on site, and intermittent issues with water and heating quality. Such issues raise fundamental questions about transparency and accountability in how residents’ money is used.

Secondly, there is the transparency of pitch fees and charges. While preparing for the debate, I was made aware of several threats of eviction for non-payment of pitch fees and charges, some of which have been legitimately contested by residents. More than once, the management of mobile home sites has been described as the wild west. It is clear that stronger protections are needed to prevent unscrupulous practices.

Thirdly, the word “enforcement” has already been mentioned. In one case, a constituent of mine was chased for six years by a management company to pay for drain clearance that was not her responsibility. Although rights exist, and local authorities have powers, many residents feel unsupported when issues arise. They may be passed between councils, tribunals and advice services. They may fear repercussions for complaining. That creates an enforcement gap between legal rights and the ability to exercise them, particularly for vulnerable residents.

Fourthly, transparency over utilities has been raised with me by constituents at one of my weekly surgeries. Where residents receive electricity, gas or water via the site owner, it can be difficult to understand billing, fairness and eligibility for support. Residents need clear, enforceable rights to transparent billing, fair pricing and clarity on the Government’s engagement with Ofgem’s work on resale pricing.

Finally, there is the 10% sales commission, which has been raised several times today. For residents, that is a direct loss of equity, often at the moment when they need their money most, potentially to move closer to family, move into more suitable accommodation or fund care costs. The charge is poorly understood, insufficiently transparent and increasingly disproportionate, as the value of park homes has risen. In 1983, a park home sold for £12,000 would have generated a commission of £1,200, about 14% of an average salary at the time. In 2026, a park home sold for £160,000 would generate a commission of £16,000, about 42% of the current average salary. The commission is still 10%, but the cash value has grown substantially.

I recognise that site owners argue that the commission forms part of their business model and helps to support investment in sites. However, there are already routes for that to be done transparently. For example, under the framework in the Mobile Homes Act 2013, improvements to a park can be reflected in pitch fee reviews, which involve a proper process and residents being consulted. What residents primarily object to is effectively being charged twice by site owners: once through pitch fees and other charges, and again through a 10% deduction from the value of their home when they sell.

The inequity is reflected in the ever-changing justifications for the commission. Depending on who people speak to, it has been linked to road maintenance costs, the offsetting of pitch fees, the maintenance of site viability and/or the modernisation of infrastructure. No wonder residents are sceptical about how and where the proceeds are spent.

This debate is ultimately about fairness. It is about whether residents can enjoy the home that they have bought on the terms on which they bought it. It is about whether people can understand their bills, challenge unfair charges and sell their homes freely. It is about whether the law is meaningful in practice, not just on paper, and whether a 10% commission charge introduced decades ago remains fair and proportionate today.

I hope that the Minister will respond to several points. First, will the Government consider stronger protections at the point of sale, so that buyers are clear about the legal status of a site and their ongoing obligations before they purchase? Secondly, will Ministers review whether local authorities have the resources, expertise and duties needed to consistently enforce site standards? Thirdly, will the Government work with Ofgem to ensure transparent and fair utility charging for residents who receive energy or other utilities through site owners? Finally, will the Minister confirm today that, following the call for evidence, the Government are prepared to consider real reform to the current commission arrangements?

Park or mobile home residents are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for basic fairness, transparency and security in the homes that they have bought. Many have worked hard their whole life, invested their savings and chosen park home living because they believed that it would suit them and offer peace of mind. Like all of us, they deserve a fair system that protects them when things go wrong. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions and the Minister’s response to Members across the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[James Naish]

I thank hon. Members for joining the debate. We have covered the whole country—from the south coast all the way up to parts of northern England and to Northern Ireland, which of course has slightly different legislative foundations—and I am really pleased there has been such strong representation. I thank the Minister for outlining the timeline on the commitment towards the end of the year, and for providing clarity to park home owners.

Three things have come up repeatedly: the security that park homes provide, the need for greater transparency and ultimately the word that has been repeated by so many Members, which is “fairness”. With the Minister’s support, I hope we can make progress over this Parliament to ensure that park and mobile home owners have that fairness. I look forward to seeing the moves the Government make over the coming months.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,  

That this House has considered Government support for park home owners.

Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered productivity and economic growth in the East Midlands.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I want to start by telling you, as someone from London, about how great the east midlands is. Home to Derbyshire, Leicestershire, most of Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland, we are central to the country’s logistics network, with fantastic facilities such as Magna Park in Lutterworth, Daventry international rail freight terminal and, of course, the UK’s largest freight airport at East Midlands airport. We have deep industrial roots, with space engineering expertise in Leicester, biomedical sciences clusters in Nottingham, and nuclear and rail engineering proficiency in Derby.

We have a range of excellent universities, from Loughborough and Nottingham to Lincoln and Northampton, all of which have produced fantastic start-ups. We are home to major energy projects and developers, such as STEP Fusion, the world-leading fusion energy programme, and great British businesses such as Derby’s Rolls-Royce, which was selected as the preferred bidder to partner with Great British Energy to develop small modular reactors.

In short, our region’s potential is obvious to anybody who cares to look, yet despite our having 5.1 million people, 403,000 businesses and a fabulous location in the heart of the UK, today’s debate is likely to repeat messages that I know have been said many times in this place: that the east midlands is under-recognised, under-appreciated and still does not receive its fair share of UK Government investment.

That points to a national policy failure that the Labour Government must at long last address via a long-term commitment to four things: backing our region across all Whitehall Departments; sustained levels of public investment, to correct historical injustices; further devolution, to empower local communities across our region; and a coherent set of tailored policy interventions that will turn the page on a sustained sense of managed decline for many parts of our region for over 40 years. I hope we will hear those things from the Minister today.

Having led a local authority in Nottinghamshire before coming to this place, I know that the east midlands is often forgotten. Indeed, on three key criteria we remain on the wrong side of important UK averages: our median earnings are below the UK average, our unemployment is above the UK average, and our productivity is significantly below the UK average, at just 84.8% in 2023.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate; he is making a name for himself in the House for raising issues that affect his constituency, and I congratulate him on that. There are lessons here for all parts of the United Kingdom, so I thank him for raising this topic. Given that manufacturing alone supports almost one in 10 jobs in Northern Ireland, does the hon. Gentleman agree that strengthening regional productivity—whether in the east midlands, Northern Ireland or anywhere in the UK—depends on supporting advanced manufacturing, skills and supply chains across the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Always better together—let that be our motto.

[James Naish]

The hon. Member is absolutely right: there are fantastic advanced manufacturing capabilities across the country, including in the east midlands, and the supply chain and the skills chain are key to making them thrive. I will come on to skills in the east midlands in a moment.

Ahead of the comprehensive spending review last year, the all-party parliamentary group for the east midlands launched an inquiry into regional priorities. We received 34 written submissions and held an oral evidence session here in Westminster, with contributions from local government, business, infrastructure, skills and other sectors. This work was about trying to distil, from the people who know our region the best, what the most serious barriers to boosting economic growth and productivity are, and about determining what practical steps the Government should take to address them.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about our region and the help it needs. Does he agree that for our region to do well, we need more devolution—including where I am in Leicestershire—as he has in his county? Is he pleased that the Government set out in the investment strategy that more money has to come to our region, which receives two and a half times less money for transport spending—or used to? Finally, does my hon. Friend agree that local leaders on the brilliant councils in my region, who are doing a great job, need even more powers to help to ensure that our region can grow, thrive and prosper?

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have already mentioned the need for greater devolution. Of course, in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire we are seeing the dividends of that under Claire Ward, but I appreciate that Leicestershire still has some way to go to get the equivalent devolution. I absolutely support my hon. Friend’s call.

Before I share the recommendations of the APPG inquiry, I should say that I hope the Minister recognises that the inquiry’s very existence shows that we are serious about growth as a region. What is more, over the past 25 years we have delivered 35,000 more homes than our counterparts in the west midlands, even though the west midlands has a population that is about 20% larger. We are clearly taking our growth responsibilities seriously locally, yet despite that housing growth, transport spend per head in the region has fallen to just 54% of the UK average. That is not just slightly below, but 54% of the average—the lowest level of any UK region or nation. Rail funding per head is just over 40% of the UK average, and only around a third of the level seen in the west midlands.

The gaps have not emerged overnight: they are the product of choices over many years, under Governments of different colours, and they have had real consequences, shaping whether businesses grow, whether local labour markets function properly and whether people—my constituents—can access high-quality job opportunities. In short, inadequate investment has suppressed our region’s true potential. That is why the APPG inquiry was conducted. I place on the record my thanks to everyone who contributed to it. I believe its conclusions were fair and grounded, and we will make sure that the Minister receives a copy of the report.

The inquiry came to five primary conclusions. First, unsurprisingly, it suggested that the Government need actively to rebalance public investment, especially in transport, so that it better reflects housing and employment growth potential and delivery. I wholeheartedly welcome the Treasury’s Green Book being updated, but that in itself will not correct historical imbalances that must be addressed if we want places like the east midlands to maximise their potential. There is a genuine need for overcorrection.

Secondly, the APPG inquiry recommended that we pilot enhanced local employment hubs across the east midlands, devolving skills, careers and business support in a way that genuinely reflects local labour markets. One of the strongest themes in the evidence received by the inquiry was frustration with the fragmentation of the skills system. There are too many pots of money, too many separate agencies, too much inconsistency and too little flexibility, all of which hamper growth and productivity.

Thirdly, the inquiry recommended that we should expand women’s health hubs across the region, given the relatively poor life expectancy of women in too many parts of the east midlands. All genders and all age groups must contribute to closing the east midlands growth and productivity gaps, and targeted interventions will be required to realise that.

Fourthly, the inquiry recommended that the east midlands should play a central role in the country’s net zero transition, given its historical role powering millions of homes and businesses across the UK. Linked to that was the call made by more than 30 MPs to finally electrify the midland main line to Sheffield, which has sadly become a byword in our region for slow, uneven and stop-start infrastructure investment into a really important part of the country.

Fifthly, the inquiry suggested that the Government should reform how flood resilience funding is targeted so that it reflects social need and repeated risk, rather than underlying land values. Flooding can sometimes seem like a subject separate from growth and productivity, but in the east midlands, which has the greatest share of properties at risk of flooding from rivers or the sea of any English region, it is very much part of the same conversation. If we want growth, if we want to boost investor confidence, and if we want housing delivery and economic resilience, flood adaptation and mitigation are not optional extras. They must be seen as enablers for economic growth as well as for protecting food and energy security, which our region provides in abundance, especially in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire.

Together, the recommendations show that the east midlands is not looking for a silver bullet. Indeed, there is not one—although I will briefly put on the record the need for junction 24 of the M1 to be upgraded as a strategic priority for our road network.

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Does he agree that one way to redress the historical imbalance in transport spending is for a green light to be given to the fourth Trent crossing, which would link my constituency to his beautiful constituency of Rushcliffe? It would unlock economic growth and bring forward new jobs, crucially it would help with emergency planning in one of the biggest cities in the country, and it would be great for our region.

[James Naish]

On Friday, I was part of a conversation about the potential impact of the Trent sports quarter on Rushcliffe, and Nottingham Forest’s expanded City Ground proposal. The fact that we have only three crossings across the Trent came up several times, so I absolutely support my hon. Friend in that call for a fourth crossing.

Rather than a silver bullet, the east midlands needs a serious, joined-up approach to growth because infrastructure, skills, health, clean energy and climate resilience—the five points that I just raised—are not separate conversations. They all need serious consideration to determine whether our region can fulfil its potential in powering the national economy.

Let me be clear: the east midlands does not lack growth prospects. On the contrary, it is full of them—I know colleagues will make the case for their local areas. The question is whether our regional and national policy frameworks are agile enough and, more pertinently, fair enough to support those growth prospects. I do not believe they are. That is why we are here on our region’s behalf once again to call for a fairer settlement and a serious attempt to remove the structural blockers that are holding us back. We need the Government, who were overwhelmingly backed by voters across the region, to look at how poorly the east midlands is currently treated and to finally act to address that.

I hope the Minister will address a few points directly. First, does she accept that the east midlands has for too long received a persistently unfair share of transport and infrastructure investment? Secondly, does she accept that that acts as a material drag on our local economy? Thirdly, will she confirm what steps the Government are taking to ensure that investment decisions are better aligned with the scale of housing and employment growth that is already being delivered in our region? Fourthly, is she willing to take seriously, along with other Departments, the APPG’s recommendations on the need for tailored local employment hubs and women’s health hubs?

Finally, will the Minister give the House some reassurances that the east midlands will not be told once again that its time will come? Too many people in my constituency of Rushcliffe, and across our region, have heard that before, and have sadly formed the view that the east midlands is important, but not important enough—that it is valued in theory, but not in practice. I refuse to accept that, and I am sure that many colleagues present refuse to accept it as well.

The east midlands is a region of makers, exporters, innovators and workers. We are home to strategic industries, nationally significant infrastructure and major universities. We have delivered homes, created jobs, powered the country for generations and shown ambition. What we need now is for the Government to match our potential and ambition with commitment and action.

I will repeat the four things I mentioned earlier. The Government must commit, first, to back our region across all Whitehall Departments, working together; secondly, to sustained levels of public investment to address the historical inadequacies I have talked about; thirdly, to further devolving and empowering local communities across our region, giving them more powers; and fourthly, to creating a coherent set of tailored policy interventions, which will turn the page on 40 years of perceived managed decline. These four things cannot come a day too soon for the east midlands. I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions, followed by the Minister’s response.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[James Naish]

I thank you, Dr Huq, and all Members for their contributions. It came as no surprise to me that this was effectively a debate of two halves. On the one hand, we heard about the positives. The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) talked about the east midlands having the largest port in the country. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) reminded us of that fantastic football result in 2015-16, which is probably still the east midlands’ greatest achievement. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) talked about the Government’s commitment to nuclear and engineering capability. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) talked about an industrial presence, and it was good to hear about jobs returning to his area.

The truth is, however, that the east midlands is building back from years of under-investment. My constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), mentioned the need for flooding investment and better local government funding. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talked about the fragmentation of strategic and industrial leadership.

Many Members mentioned the lack of rail connections, which are so important for boosting our economy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) talked about the need for reliable public transport. I know she, and all of us here, will be seeking to work closely with our relevant local authorities and strategic leadership to make sure that is delivered for our constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) was absolutely right to talk about the importance of leading with public sector investment—not relying on the private sector, but moving forward with the public sector. That is what I hope our Government will be doing, and I believe they are seeking to do that, but we must put our foot on the accelerator when it comes to the east midlands because we are starting a long way behind other regions of the country.

I am sure we will continue to work across the House to promote the east midlands. With that in mind, I will invite all Members to room W2 at 11 o’clock so that we can quickly reconstitute the APPG for the east midlands and continue this work over the next 12 months.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered productivity and economic growth in the East Midlands.

Representation of the People Bill

James Naish Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have heard many say exactly that. In fact, a number of us have ourselves wondered whether, if we had known what we know now about the state of harassment and intimidation in our politics, we would have stood for Parliament. Of course, we have to fight against these threats, because if we do not, the next generation will be put off politics. It is on us all to take action to make sure politics is a safe space in which people can operate and candidates can stand forward, whichever party they belong to.

The intimidation and harassment of elected representatives is not, of course, unique to one party or one group of candidates; it is widespread in a way that I had never imagined. The industrial scale of intimidation and threats we experienced in the run-up to the 2024 general election was unlike anything I had previously experienced, and I suspect the same applies to many other Members. There was organised disinformation and death threats in a campaign conducted with constant concerns for physical security and the security of campaigners and decent, law-abiding people who want to participate in our democracy. In my constituency and across the country, many brave campaigners stood up for our democracy and bravely fought against that hatred, but they should not have had to work in such a hostile environment.

This happens not just during the election cycle or election campaigns. We have seen Members threatened with murder and receiving death threats on a regular basis. We have seen local councillor candidates being threatened. When I was working on this strategy last summer, I received a threat to my life. Two weeks ago, I received another threat. Sadly, this is now commonplace, with too many MPs, candidates and local representatives experiencing this hostility. So we have to redouble our efforts to stop this hostility and the chilling effect it is having on our democracy. We must have a zero-tolerance approach to those who wish to undermine our elections in this way, and we have to work together on that across the parties.

It is not just the thugs on our streets; it is the hostile actors, which we heard about in the Front Benchers’ speeches. Hostile actors are exploiting online platforms to flood the debate with disinformation and deepfakes. Disinformation online fuels intimidation, hostility and violence offline. That has been the experience of many of us during the last election and subsequently. The toxic ecosystem is connected, and this Bill begins to address that reality, but we have to do more. Alongside this Bill, we need the Government to do much more to tackle the very serious threat of foreign interference through the use of online platforms, not to mention the proliferation of online threats and the failure of platforms to take action. That means more action to stop platforms allowing threats and online hostility against those in public life and our citizens.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I would like to add to that list of issues that need to be tackled. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the role that the media play in our politics, the Government have a responsibility to think long and hard about what we do in that space?

[Rushanara Ali]

Absolutely. We all have such a responsibility, and I know of plenty of journalists in the media, particularly female journalists, who are being threatened and intimidated as well. This is a wider societal issue about making sure we can express ourselves freely and protect freedom of speech, but also protect those operating in our media, those in our politics and public life and, more widely, those participating in our democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

There is a lot to welcome in this legislation that we are debating this evening. In my view, extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds is a statement of confidence in the next generation and a practical step towards a more inclusive democracy. As I have told my constituents, my support for 16 and 17-year-olds getting the vote stems less from their being determined in adult, which has been contested this evening, and more from the need to balance our political debate. With a shrinking birth rate and an ageing population, the electorate are set to become more imbalanced over the coming years, so there is a practical reason for making this change.

I also welcome the Bill’s provisions to improve voter registration and to protect candidates and electoral staff from intimidation and abuse. On voter registration, I particularly encourage Ministers to take seriously the work of the Migrant Democracy Project. I believe we should use this opportunity to extend the franchise to more adult residents, not just younger ones, given that there are 4 million people in this country who cannot vote in a general election at the moment. I also note the Bill’s intention to strengthen transparency and security around political donations. As has been discussed extensively, those are vital changes.

As many colleagues have said, there is something important missing if we genuinely want this Bill to create a fair, secure and inclusive democracy. That is, of course, the decision to not look again at the central mechanism that decides who sits in this House. Under first past the post, millions of people can do everything that is asked of them—they register, turn out and vote in good faith—but still end up without meaningful representation and a sense that their voice truly matters. It is arguably getting worse. In only the past week, many of us have been out on the doorstep at the by-election, and I spoke to many people who were actively debating how to stop a particular party and were using their vote to achieve that particular end, rather than voting for something positive and something that reflected their views and their policy aspirations. Surely we can do better than fighting elections on the basis of the best worst option, which is how so many people see it.

I want to put on the record my support for the work of the APPG for fair elections and to urge Ministers to genuinely look at the call for some form of a national commission on electoral reform, so that modern Britain genuinely considers how we can ensure that every vote counts.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the final Back-Bench contributor, Bell Ribeiro-Addy.

Chinese Embassy

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have reviewed transnational repression through the defending democracy taskforce; we take it incredibly seriously, and I note the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I am here on behalf of my Department as the Housing and Planning Minister to make clear what the process is for making a decision on this embassy application.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

This debate on the mega-embassy is not just about a building and 208 secret rooms; it is primarily about national security and the safety of those from the Hongkonger, Chinese, Uyghur and Tibetan diasporas in the UK—approximately 700,000 people. We have learned that in 2018, the then Prime Minister committed to no delays in granting permission for the mega-embassy, which has an air of predetermination. What reassurances can the Minister give me and this House that that opinion has not compromised the independence of the planning process?

Local Government Finance

James Naish Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for being such a champion for his constituents, and for making sure that their voice is heard in the decisions we are taking. The situation he describes was chaotic and, as he said, people paid the price for that in their job security and in the services we all rely on. The difference is that we are taking a long-term approach, with a multi-year settlement, and funding according to deprivation means that where the need is greatest, the money will follow.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

On behalf of Nottinghamshire county council, I thank the Government for a £234 million—or 30%—increase over the course of this Parliament, which will make a huge difference, and for the 4.6% increase in core spending for my area, Rushcliffe. I previously raised with the Minister in writing the need to avoid cliff edges. The borough council was particularly concerned about the loss of the new homes bonus and similar mechanisms. Will the Minister expand on the decisions that have been taken? I also want to mention rurality, which really matters and drives up service costs; I hope she will meet me and other Nottinghamshire MPs to discuss that.

[Alison McGovern]

Members will be reassured to know that ample time is reserved in my diary to meet them in the new year, and I would love to meet my hon. Friend to discuss rurality and the other things he mentioned.

On new homes, we are making sure that councils get all the benefit for every new home they build. That is part of the settlement. We want to build 1.5 million new homes and we want councils to feel the benefit of that when they make the relevant decisions. I will happily talk my hon. Friend through the detail when we meet.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

James Naish Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress, as we are almost out of time.

On the key question of funding our strategic authorities, we absolutely recognise the vital role that strategic authorities and mayors can play. We are seeing this across the country—that is why we support devolution to mayors and strategic authorities.

On the point about Surrey made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), we want to see strategic authorities and mayors across the country, including in Surrey. However, we are also clear that if we want them to drive the change that we believe they can drive, we must equip them with the resources and powers to do the job that is required of them.

I have a lot of sympathy for the intention behind new clause 17. However, as I said yesterday, there is a new burdens assessment, which will always apply. When new responsibilities are placed on strategic authorities and mayors, the new burdens assessment will be applied to ensure that they are funded appropriately. Indeed, for the priority areas in which we are moving forward with devolution, we are providing capacity funding up front to make sure that they have the capability and resources to do the job at hand. This basic principle will always hold: when we give out responsibility, we will ensure that the resources are there to take on that responsibility well.

Members spoke eloquently about the need to ensure that we are providing strong neighbourhood governance, and we share that ambition. Some Members talked about town and parish councils, and others talked about neighbourhood committees. We are clear that it is down to communities to decide the form and function of neighbourhood governance. We want to see neighbourhood governance in every part of the country, and we will provide regulations that set out the principle of neighbourhood governance and what it should look like. In addition, we will provide non-statutory guidance to support communities as they embark on neighbourhood guidance.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) that we must have strong community engagement is one that we absolutely believe in. We will continue to learn from what we see on the ground and draw on insights as to how we can strengthen community engagement as we move forward.

My hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and for Stroud (Dr Opher) raised points about assets of community value and the environment. I thank them for speaking so knowledgably and eloquently about the value that environmental assets can provide. I can reassure them that environmental assets will be captured within assets of community value. Green spaces, parks, woodlands and community parks will all be captured within assets of community value. We will set this out in guidance, as we share the determination that environmental assets are captured within the provision.

More broadly, in terms of community right to buy, we have heard the argument that it is an absolute right. There is a huge opportunity with it, and we will continue to learn from insights on the ground about how it is working and how well communities are able to exercise the power. We will look to strengthen it as we move forward.

Let me address the points raised about local media. We completely agree with Opposition parties that we need transparency and public engagement when it comes to local governance changes, and we are committed to the cornerstone role that the local press plays in our democracy. The Bill makes a small, proportionate change to the publication of local authority governance changes, which is to be communicated to give local authorities flexibility and to allow them to use a range of different mechanisms. The change does not apply to wider publications on subjects such as planning. It is a very specific change to bring about greater flexibility.

Finally, I turn to the point that was made over and over again by Members across the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), for Crawley (Peter Lamb), for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). I recognise their contribution to the debate and their advocacy on the important issue of how we regulate our taxi and private hire vehicle system. I am glad to see that Members welcome the steps we are taking to put in place minimum standards. The minimum standards are an important first step, and we will build on them. We will consult on licensing becoming the responsibility of local transport authorities in order to improve regulation, and we are committed to engaging with our unions, including Unite, and with local authorities and operators to discuss how we can build on this step. We absolutely hear the point that this is urgent and we need to act.

I urge the House to support the Government’s amendments so that we can drive forward the biggest transfer of power in a generation. This is an exciting moment for the Government. We believe that we need to drive change, but in order to do that we must equip every level—from our regions to our local authorities and communities—to drive the change that they want to see in their places. We believe that this Bill is an important first step. We will continue to engage with Members from across the House to ensure that the regulations and provisions in the Bill are matched by tangible change on the ground. I know that hon. Members across the House support our endeavour. We must drive the change that we want to see in our places. [Interruption.] I will keep going. We will continue to engage constructively to ensure that we are playing our part. I hope hon. Members can see that we have engaged with the Bill constructively.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

James Naish Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Danny Beales]

I also voted against, in the alternative vote referendum, so we are united in our agreement on that.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I am a member of a new combined authority in the east midlands and there was no referendum on that. I do not believe that there was a referendum on the North Yorkshire combined authority either. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are different ways of engaging on this issue, and that putting councils with local representatives at the heart of that process is a good thing?

[Danny Beales]

I wholeheartedly agree. My hon. Friend’s comment speaks for itself. We can look at the Conservatives’ record, and at what they now preach in opposition.

Draft Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025

James Naish Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 General Committees

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I want to put on record my support for this legislation, but I would also like to flag the case of Amanda Walker. Her mother, Glenda, lives in my constituency and has been in touch with me about Amanda, who sadly took her life in 2024 because she felt trapped in a flat that she could not sell. Amanda had been involved in giving evidence to the House of Lords about her situation until she decided that she could go no further, and she brought forward some proposed amendments to the Building Safety Act 2022, which I appreciate is now in legislation. Will the Minister do me the courtesy of spending time with Glenda so that we can discuss where Amanda got to, and whether anything can be done to recognise her positive legacy in relation to the Act?

Indefinite Leave to Remain

James Naish Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and to speak as the Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe, which is proudly home to more than 2,000 Hongkongers who have arrived under the BNO visa scheme. That is what I would like to focus on today.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for opening the debate. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris) to his place as Minister of State at the Home Office, and thank him for joining us on his first working day in office.

I am here this afternoon to make a simple, principled case. The five-year pathway to settlement for BNO Hongkongers must be retained. This is about trust as much as law—about keeping our promises and the faith of the people who place their future in our hands.

The BNO visa route was created as a humanitarian lifeline in response to Beijing’s horrific national security law. The route is grounded in our legal, moral and historical responsibilities under the Sino-British joint declaration. It is not an economic channel, but a bespoke, safe and legal route for British nationals and their relatives fleeing repression in a former British territory where the rule of law and human rights have been ruthlessly eroded. That is why there has been rare, enduring cross-party support for the scheme since day one, and why any attempt to move the goalposts now would cut against the very reason the route exists.

Hongkongers uprooted their families on the explicit promise of a five-year pathway to indefinite leave to remain, plus one year to citizenship. To lengthen the timeline mid-journey would be seen as a breach of trust and would shake confidence in the UK’s credibility far beyond the BNO community. The numbers tell their own story, with almost 200,000 BNO Hongkongers now living in the UK. Crucially, the overwhelming majority came in the first two years after launch, and BNO grants now account for about 1% of total visas. We must appreciate that today’s debate is not about headline immigration numbers but about the welfare of a community that is already here. In Rushcliffe, as I mentioned, more than 2,000 Hongkongers are already on their five-year pathway to ILR. The impact will be on them.

Shifting the rules would hand Beijing and its regime in Hong Kong a propaganda gift: “You trusted Britain, yet Britain broke the deal.” We cannot allow that narrative to stand, which is why the Government must keep their promises. Extending settlement to 10 years would force a decade-long wait for home fee status for BNO students, pricing out the vast majority of BNOs currently studying for their A-levels at schools in my constituency from starting university until their mid-20s. It would also delay access to an estimated £3 billion in Hong Kong pension savings that can be released only once ILR is granted.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case on what those with BNO visas are being put through by this White Paper and the proposed legislation. In Dartford, I have been contacted by a large number of people on skilled visas who are in a very similar situation. Does he agree that, whatever the situation—whether people are on BNO or skilled visas—and whatever may happen with this legislation, they have come to the UK to contribute to our economy and society, and that the least we should offer is clarity on what they can expect from us, as well as fairness in not changing the terms on which they were accepted here in the first place?

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The consensus here is that we need to determine whether we as a country support the uncertainty of moving the goalposts, and I sincerely hope the Minister is listening to the sentiment in the room.

Because many BNOs lack consular protection and cannot safely renew travel documents, a longer route would also trap families. People would be separated, unable to travel for study, work or to see relatives abroad. To extend the pathway to 10 years would not be an act of administrative tidying; it would be a material downgrading of hundreds of thousands of British Hongkongers’ lives across the UK.

Meanwhile, the community is contributing civically and economically. Hongkongers are working, studying, volunteering, starting businesses and even serving in local government as councillors. They are precisely the neighbours and colleagues that we and my constituents in Rushcliffe want to keep. Many of them are also concerned about some of the broader immigration issues that have been referenced.

The five-year route was designed so that Hongkongers could put down roots quickly and securely. Extending the clock would defer integration, depress opportunity and waste potential. I therefore close by echoing the words of the tens of thousands of UK Hongkongers who will be watching this debate at home. I want to keep standing with Hong Kong. I want to keep our promise to Hongkongers. I want to keep the five-year route. That is how we honour our word: we support a thriving community that has so much to offer our nation. That is how we can show the world that, when Britain gives its word, it keeps it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend seeks to tempt me off topic slightly, but he has made an excellent point, and I have heard it. However, I want to go back to the fundamental point around consultation. We have heard from colleagues about its importance to people all over the country. It is only right that those who may be affected by the proposals have a fair and equal opportunity to make their voices heard. That is precisely why we are moving forward with the consultation: to ensure that any decision made is rooted in evidence, made with fairness and based on a clear understanding of its real-world impact. I hope that Members will accept that I will not prejudge the outcome of the consultation before it has taken place.

[James Naish]

I thank the Minister for his speech. The clock is ticking, and I would like him to recognise that. It is really important that the consultation is done quickly. With that in mind, does he know at this stage whether different groups will be carved out within the consultation? Will there be separate opportunities to comment on the BNO scheme, for example, and on other routes?

[Alex Norris]

We will be opening the consultation up for everybody to make important points about how the system relates to them. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), asked for clarity, and I can give it to her: everybody will get that important opportunity to say how the proposals would affect them. That takes me to some of the things that colleagues have said.

Chinese Embassy Development

James Naish Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman is asking for details, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment. On the particular issue of whether representations have been made, as I made clear in answering the initial question, the Home and Foreign Secretaries made a joint representation to the Planning Inspectorate ahead of the start of the inquiry, and that will be taken into account alongside all other relevant matters.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

From a response to a freedom of information request, which I have with me, we now know that just two protests at the Royal Mint Court site in February and March this year required the deployment of nearly 600 officers in total, including 101 in February and 485 in March. The FOI request reveals that the cost of policing these two protests alone amounted to £345,000. This is a staggering use of resources for a site that is not yet operational, and it reflects the serious concerns among the Hongkonger, Tibetan and Uyghur diasporas in the UK. These are communities that fear that the embassy will become a hub for transnational repression. What assessment have Ministers made of the cost implications of this proposed development on policing, and will they commit today to rejecting this super-embassy?