Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing this debate and for the excellent way that he presented the case. This issue causes unbelievable levels of stress for many of our constituents.

We should briefly contrast the complications of getting remedial action to bring about safety and security for our constituents in multiple-ownership private sector developments with the relative speed and efficiency with which local authorities dealt with the problem of cladding after Grenfell. My own borough of Islington surveyed every property immediately, discovered unknown suspect cladding in a couple of places, and got on with it straight away. The issue was resolved very quickly. That was in 2018, but here we are, eight years later, and I have a considerable number of leasehold properties that have been built over the last 20 years or so where the residents, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath pointed out, want to move on but cannot move or sell, and are paying massive insurance costs.

I say to the Minister that the excessive insurance costs many residents are having to pay are not their fault. The problem should absolutely not be their responsibility; it should be the responsibility of the developers that caused it in the first place. If those developers no longer exist or are not prepared to pay, surely the default position should be that the Government as a whole are prepared to pick up that compensation. People are getting deeply into debt just to insure their own flat, but at the same time cannot move on.

I want to make some quick points about local issues that I have raised many times with the Government. The first is about the Drayton Park development. I thank the Minister and her predecessors for at last getting to a situation where Government funding has been approved for Galliard Homes to help cover part of the fire remediation costs. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure me how quickly that work will now be completed. It has been subject to endless correspondence between my office, the local authority and many others just to try and get that remedial work done for the properties on Drayton Park in my constituency.

Secondly, there are the works that need to be done for Newlon Housing on the Queensland Road site, which is adjacent to the Arsenal football ground. Remediation works have been delayed, apparently mostly because of delays and complications created by Newlon. Again, I have raised this directly with the Minister and her predecessors, and I would be grateful if she could assure me that that work will now be done. Many lease extensions have been granted over the years, but the complication is that the people living there have not seen the work done. Now their lease is being eaten up as the years go by, and the value of the place is reducing, so they are losing out in lots of ways. That leads on to the wider issue of leasehold reform, but that is not the subject of today’s debate.

The final issue I want to raise is one that I have raised many times in the past, and I am quite unclear where we have reached on it. At Highbury Gardens, where Aviva is the head lessor, there was an issue about wooden railings on balconies that were deemed to be a fire risk. That issue has gone on for a very long time, and once again, the residents are stuck without any certainty about their future.

I will not take much more time, but I will just say that we have a responsibility to get this done quickly. When the fire happened at Grenfell, an enormous shock was felt all over the country. Everything that happened at Grenfell was disgusting and disgraceful—we know that, and we do not want another Grenfell anywhere else. Local authorities have managed, by and large, to get the issue sorted out, but it is the miasma of insurance companies, leaseholders, ultimate freeholders, developers that disappear and go bust, and fire safety engineers who are in short supply or, in many places, non-existent that is the problem. At the end of the day, all the stress lands on our constituents. That is not right or fair and we need to get it sorted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

My hon. Friend will know that I will definitely continue to lobby Treasury colleagues very hard, and any help from colleagues around the House will be helpful. In the meantime, the current system includes a new initiative looking at digital building control programmes. I can confirm that over £45 million has been invested in growing the workforce to help to address the key issue of capacity, streamline the process and support development. More is coming, but a lot more needs to come through the pipeline.

A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, mentioned the key issue of building insurance and the continuing financial strain felt by so many innocent leaseholders. They see their insurance premiums going through the roof, in some cases paying more than for their mortgages. In the remediation acceleration plan, the Government have committed to working with the insurance industry to explore options to address the insurance challenges faced by residents living in buildings that are undergoing remediation.

To strengthen the evidence base, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government launched the remediation programme insurance survey, a UK-wide survey of buildings in Government remediation programmes. The findings, first published in July 2026, provide the most comprehensive dataset collected to date on insurance costs, premiums and claims and remediation status across more than 2,000 buildings undergoing remediation. The evidence is informing ongoing engagement with insurers and wider work to understand how insurance costs can better reflect improvements in building safety as remediation progresses. The Financial Conduct Authority is undertaking a short and focused review of the multi-occupancy building insurance market, and the findings will strengthen the evidence base on the next steps.

The Government are also undertaking action to improve transparency and fairness in residential building insurance. We are proceeding with secondary legislation to prevent insurance commissions, which can be opaque and excessive, from being passed on by freeholders and managing agents as freeholders’ expenses, and to replace such arrangements with fair and transparent permitted insurance payments with a fee structure. Alongside that, we will introduce through secondary legislation a new transparency requirement for building insurance, including in respect of the disclosure of the relationships and financial arrangements among landlords, managing agents, brokers and insurers.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am pleased to hear what the Minister just said about looking at the fairness of the whole market for insurance, but the immediate issue is that many of our constituents have for several years paid exorbitant and very excessive insurance costs. This is not their responsibility or fault—they did not install the dangerous cladding or fail to inspect properly. They deserve compensation from the insurance industry for what they have been through, and if that is not forthcoming, the Government should have a default position of backing it up. Our constituents have suffered grievously through this problem.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising that point. He highlighted examples of various developments in his constituency, including Drayton Park and Highbury Gardens, underlining the fact that innocent leaseholders have continued to pay exorbitant fees for many years. It is really important that we get to grips with this, especially for new buildings. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will be discussing the matter in respect of the national planning policy framework and some other areas, and I will continue to discuss it as well. On the specific issue of backdating, it is important for us to look at clear insurance procurement—the pricing, the cover, the prescribed timeframes for providing information and the mechanism for challenging any future delays.

Together, the measures the Government have outlined are intended to improve transparency, strengthen accountability and help to ensure that residents have a clearer understanding of insurance costs. There is a lot of jargon and hidden figures. We need to make sure that the costs are clear and that when residents challenge them, they get the right information back so that they can assess what they are being asked to pay for.

Battle of Cable Street: 90th anniversary

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that communities must work with one another to deal with the challenges of our time—particularly the rise of racism and fascism, which we see across the world.

Far-right parties are winning elections across western Europe, so we must look seriously and carefully at our own history and how we overcame those challenges in the past. Fascism was not defeated in Britain in a single day, but no day contributed as much as 4 October 1936. I am pleased that the Minister, a fellow London MP, is here, along with my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), in whose constituency Cable Street is now situated after the boundary changes in 2024. We are here to debate the 90th anniversary and understand how the battle came to be.

By 1934, the British Union of Fascists was concentrating its efforts on building a menacing street movement in inner-city areas. In east London, the BUF had four large branches. Thousands of supporters were based in a diverse and economically struggling area, where the largest minorities were of Irish Catholic and east European Jewish heritage. About 100,000 Jews lived in east London, where shop signs were written in Yiddish and more than 100 synagogues and shtiebels were established. Fascists attempted to set Irish Catholic and Jewish communities against each other, accusing Jews of taking English jobs, smashing their market stalls and attacking and beating Jews returning from synagogue or from shopping.

On 26 September 1936, Mosley announced his intention to march provocatively right through those Jewish neighbourhoods and hold rallies with his supporters, but within two days 100,000 signatures were collected by the Jewish People’s Council—a local grassroots campaign formed only that year—to petition the then Home Secretary for a ban on the march to

“retain peaceable and amicable relations between all sections of East London’s population.”

Local mayors and local MPs including one of my predecessors, the great Labour MP George Lansbury, handed in the petition, yet shockingly the then Home Secretary refused and instead decided to send 7,000 police officers to protect Mosley and the blackshirts. Just hours after the refusal was issued, the Jewish People’s Council began to distribute leaflets calling on citizens of London to make sure the fascist march would not take place.

Far from being a spontaneous uprising, it took an extraordinary amount of effort to organise east London’s resistance. The Jewish People’s Council worked frantically to mobilise Jewish and non-Jewish communities locally, while Communist party, Independent Labour party and trade union branches all mobilised the area’s textile workers, dockers and railway workers.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

As one whose family members were part of that demonstration in 1936 against the march of fascism, I compliment the hon. Member on her wonderful speech. Does she acknowledge that when we commemorate the march on Sunday week in her constituency and her borough we will also be opposing the rise of the far right in this country and all across Europe? We should remember that in 1936 all of officialdom said to the people of the east end, “Shut up, do nothing about it and let them march.” The people refused to let them march—it was the biggest defeat that Mosley and the fascists ever had in Britain—and we should thank them for their bravery.

[Apsana Begum]

The right hon. Member is correct. The debate is about recognising those really courageous, brave efforts. He speaks of his family’s contribution, as his parents were at the battle of Cable Street; over the years, I have spoken to him about his parents’ stories.

By the time that the human blockade was formed, tens of thousands of protesters had gathered at Gardiner’s corner at Aldgate, hugely outnumbering the 4,000 fascists and their 7,000-strong police protection. It is important to remember that younger anti-fascists—children as young as 12—acted as runners delivering messages and directing for reinforcements. Far too often overlooked is the role of women, who leafleted and organised workers in the run-up to the march and in their thousands defended barricades on the day.

To clear a path for the fascists, the police brutalised protesters with truncheons and attempted to charge their horses through their path. Hundreds of Jews and anti-fascists engaging in self-defence were seriously injured or arrested, and later accused by the police of having instigated the violence. Police were unable to force their entry via Aldgate or Whitechapel after huge confrontations there and eventually closed in on Cable Street. They broke through the first barrier at Cable Street, but fierce resistance pushed them back. By late afternoon, Mosley was instructed to retreat westwards. The police withdrew, and that evening celebrations erupted across the east end of London.

As the daughter of migrants who moved to east London, I feel it is all too important to consider how community solidarity and resistance continued in the aftermath. The BUF did not disappear overnight, but anti-fascists were able to build on the battle to form a confident and united mass movement in the east end of London. Leafleting and public campaigning took place to keep out Mosley’s fascists in local elections held five months later, while initiatives such as the Stepney Tenants Defence League were pivotal in uniting the Irish and Jewish communities that Mosley had attempted to divide. Jews stood with Irish Catholics, and vice versa, against evictions and exploitation by landlords. They made it clear that their struggle was a class struggle, and this cut away at the remaining support for the BUF’s antisemitic politics in east London.

For me and for anti-racists across east London and far beyond, this is an enduring inspiration. Many of those present spoke movingly about the cross-community solidarity that they saw at Cable Street that day. They included people such as Charlie Goodman. Charlie was arrested at Cable Street and after three months in prison went on to fight for the republicans in Spain. He spoke of the

“Orthodox Jews with long silk coats and soft felt hats and the sidepieces standing shoulder to shoulder with Irish Catholics, dockers and Somali seamen…they all felt there was a need to be out there to stand on that particular day.”

In other words, they knew that an injury to one was an injury to all.

This, too, is how subsequent generations of east-enders have united in the face of hostile racist threats. Indeed, in the decades after Cable Street, east London’s Bangladeshi community, especially its youth movements and socialist and trade unionist allies, mobilised in response to the racially motivated murder of a 25-year-old textile worker, Altab Ali, in 1978. A huge demonstration marched Altab Ali’s coffin to Downing Street to demand their rights, while Bangladeshis and anti-racists together organised night patrols to protect communities from neo-Nazi threats.

In the 1990s, communities on the Isle of Dogs in my constituency came together to confront the British National party. Trade unionists, the Bangladeshi community and allies once again organised huge demonstrations and mobilised across communities to challenge the BNP’s support base. Ahead of the 75th anniversary of the battle of Cable Street, the English Defence League was marched off Whitechapel, and even more recently the United Kingdom Independence party failed in its attempt to drive a crusade towards mosques last October and in its provocations again in January this year. Generation after generation of east-enders have had to confront attempts to divide our neighbours, to target, attack and intimidate them and to spread fear in our communities. As the historian, educator and author David Rosenberg has often reminded us, the anti-fascists at the battle of Cable Street did not have a blueprint, but they left us one with their sheer courage.

As difficult as this may be for some, we must also pay attention to the catastrophically poor decisions from the police and political establishment at the time. The shameful decisions of the then Home Secretary amounted to tacit consent for the fascist assault in east London. His mounted police cracked skulls and arrested scores of protesters, some of whom received custodial sentences with hard labour for defending themselves and their communities. Six fascists were arrested, compared with 79 anti-fascists. Others, including the then Labour leadership, urged members to stay away from Cable Street that day. However, rank and file members, trade unionists and grassroots socialists all saw the necessity of defeating the blackshirts and continued to organise and mobilise.

The victory at Cable Street has been memorialised in the iconic Cable Street mural, a major piece of public art unveiled in 1983 on the wall of the former St George’s town hall. It depicts a chaotic scene of mass resistance and street battles, and is itself a grassroots piece of cultural resistance with its own fascinating history. I would like to know whether the Government will be working to protect that cultural heritage, particularly as it has, sadly, been vandalised numerous times. I know that, unlike in 1936, the Government have invested resources into building community cohesion and inter-faith activities in my borough of Tower Hamlets, and I am pleased that my local council, along with local voluntary organisations, have been awarded Common Ground resilience funds to build social connections across communities, complementing numerous initiatives from the Mayor of London.

Next month, on 4 October, east London will be standing together. Trade unionists, Jews, Muslims, Bangladeshis, Somalis, socialists and many thousands more will be at Cable Street once again to mark the history, legacy and values of all those brave people who stood together 90 years ago to say, “No pasarán! They shall not pass!” Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to them and to the organising committee, including the Jewish Socialists’ Group, who have done so much to immortalise the legacy of Cable Street, and tell us how the Government will honour the legacy of Cable Street and the anti-fascists of the day as we confront the rising antisemitism, racism and division of today? As my friend Rabbi Herschel Gluck OBE said:

“Cable Street isn’t just a place on the map. It’s a concept. It’s an idea. The message of Cable Street is that we must never let evil pass.”

Housing Needs: Young People

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing of this debate, Ms Butler. I have the honour to represent an inner London constituency, in which approximately a third of the population live in private rented accommodation. Among young people, that proportion is considerably higher because of the problems they have with access to social housing of any sort, which force them into the private rented sector or into sharing properties.

The stress they suffer is enormous, the overcrowding that happens in shared flats is horrendous and the way young people have to club together to try to pay rent, which for even a two or three-bedroom flat would be at least £2,000 a month in the private rented sector in my constituency, means they have no possibility of saving money for anything else. Their whole life revolves around work, trying to pay the rent and the other costs that go with it.

Their ability to access council or housing association accommodation is extremely limited, because there is an enormous waiting list with a terrible stress level and shortage of housing. Essentially, to be allocated council housing, a person must have quite profound special needs. I see the Minister nodding; he understands very well that this is an issue all across London. Communities are increasingly broken up because of the lack of access to anything that one could begin to call affordable housing.

There are a number of things that we could do about that. First, we could increase the levels of control over the private rented sector, something I have raised before with the Minister. I support the Renters’ Rights Act 2025—it is a big step forward, because it gives more security and power to the tenant vis-à-vis the landlord. However—and this is the big problem, particularly for London, the south-east and every other big city—the lack of rent control means that places become increasingly unaffordable, forcing young people out of these areas altogether. I hope, as a result of this debate, that the Government can give us some hope that they will be able to do something about young people’s housing, particularly in inner-urban areas.

There is also the issue of the administration of housing associations. I was a councillor before I became an MP, and I remember when housing associations were thought to be the panacea for all ills. In the 1970s, they were promoted as a wonderful thing: co-operatively and locally run, responsive to tenants needs, and the other things that we would always want.

These days, it is not even a little bit like that; we have enormous housing associations, owning thousands of properties across a very wide part of the country and the cities. There is very little response to tenants’ needs and, frankly, they are well out of touch. I spend a great deal of time representing the needs of tenants, particularly those of housing associations Peabody and Clarion Housing.

However, the housing associations have in many cases leased properties to special needs housing groups. That is often quite a good thing; for example, the Peter Bedford Trust, in my area, is a very good organisation that has done a great deal of work to help mainly, but not exclusively, young people with very profound and special needs. Sadly, a couple of weeks ago I learned that Clarion Housing Association is taking back a large number of its properties, leaving a large number of young, and middle-aged, people stressed and needing to find somewhere else to go. I hope the Minister can give us some indication of the Government’s thoughts on the democracy and accountability of the very large housing associations in particular, because there is a growing feeling of alienation from them.

Evictions are happening in the private rented sector because of the implementation of section 21 no-fault evictions. I am delighted that such no-fault evictions will end when the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 finally comes into effect; that is a huge step forward. My deep regret is that they did not end in July 2024, because as soon as the Act and its contents were announced the landlords took advantage by implementing large numbers of no-fault evictions ahead of the time when they will not be able to. It is too late to do much about that, but I urge that there be some thoughts about that.

The last thing I will say, in the 39 seconds remaining, is this: colleagues have talked about rising up the housing ladder and, while I understand the language and its use, the reality is that as a society we tolerate too much housing stress, homelessness and housing poverty. We need a principle of housing as a right, rather than the idea that housing is all about an investment for your own future. Surely housing should be for housing needs; that should be the primary consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman has made that point before, and he knows that I am well aware of the issue. We continue to keep under review measures relating to taxation, as well as looking at, as he knows, the additional powers that we might give local authorities to help them deal with particularly acute concentrations of both short-term lets and second homes. As I say, we have had this debate over many months on both the pros and cons of licensing regimes and planning control powers in that regard. It is an issue that we keep under close review.

We also have a number of Government-backed offers to directly help first-time buyers. That obviously includes shared ownership, which we continue to support while improving the model to strengthen long-term affordability, transparency and fairness for buyers. The lifetime ISA continues to be available to help aspiring buyers save towards a deposit, and the Treasury will shortly consult on a new first-time buyer product to replace the lifetime ISA and remove the need for a withdrawal charge.

As a result of all those measures, we have begun to see early improvements. First-time buyer mortgage numbers increased to over 329,000 in 2024, a 16% increase on the previous year.

As I have said, we are clear-eyed about the pressures arising in the mortgage market from instability in the middle east. Our assessment is that mortgage availability remains strong. Conditions are not comparable to late 2022, and first-time buyers should still be able to get on the housing ladder, particularly with support from brokers to find competitive options. However, uncertainty about interest rates may slow the improvement that we have been seeing in first-time buyer numbers, and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.

I should briefly turn to the home buying and selling process, because helping young people into home ownership is not only about raising a deposit or securing a mortgage. Transactions currently take nearly five months to complete on average, and around one in three falls through, leaving first-time buyers out of pocket and too often back at square one. That is why we are committed to reforming the process to make it quicker, cheaper and more transparent. As hon. Members are aware, we consulted on a package of reforms to do that, including ensuring that key information is available up front before an offer is made, improving the quality and accountability of property professionals, and introducing binding contracts to reduce the wasted costs and heartache that come when a transaction collapses.

I want to touch briefly on other areas of focus, because supply is not the only thing we have focused on. As hon. Members have said, we are on the verge of transforming the private rented sector through the implementation of our Renters’ Rights Act. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned when that Act “finally comes into effect”, and he does not have long to wait. From 1 May, the first phase of our reforms will give renters greater stability and security, stronger protections against unreasonable rent increases and an end to exploitative practices such as rental bidding wars and excessive demands for rent in advance.

We are also progressing the reforms necessary to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end, so that the dream of home ownership is made real for millions of young leasehold homeowners across the country. Again, I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesman that I would love to know what he means by “abolition”. Is it now the position of the Liberal Democrats that they would end approximately 5 million leases overnight and do what established commonhold associations across the country fear? The Liberal Democrats have to explain what they mean, rather than just throwing out terminology that does not correspond to a really difficult and challenging transition, which we are overseeing, away from the broken leasehold system and towards that commonhold future. We are progressing those reforms, switching on the powers that are already on the statute book and, as the hon. Member knows, progressing our draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill.

Our overall aim is expanded housing choice and availability, and improved security and affordability across tenures.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Before the Minister sits down, could he say anything about his Department’s approach to the large housing associations? I increasingly hear stories in my area—as the Minister probably does in his—that they are selling off properties when there is a change of tenancy to give themselves a capital asset, and they are then spending it somewhere else. It ends up with a process of social cleansing in the central parts of all our big cities.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am aware of the point that the right hon. Member raises. To respond to his wider point about oversight, like all affordable providers of social housing, housing associations are held to the standards overseen by the regulator following the very welcome introduction of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 under the previous Government. The regulator has the powers necessary to ensure that individual providers, such as the ones he mentions, are held to those regulatory standards. If he wants to follow up with some of the specific constituency cases he has mentioned, I am more than happy to respond.

This debate underlines a point that the Government accept without qualification and that I have heard from lots of hon. Members outside this Chamber: that the housing market has to work better for young people. That means: increasing supply, especially of social and affordable housing; supporting first-time buyers; fixing a home buying process that is too slow and uncertain; transforming the private rented sector so that it provides security and decency; and bringing the feudal leasehold system to an end by making commonhold the default tenure and improving the leasehold model so that existing leaseholders can more cheaply and easily enfranchise and convert to commonhold—which I hope they will do in very large numbers.

Social Cohesion Action Plan

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his points, which are well made. It is important that, even going beyond this strategy, our existing laws against abuse and hate crime are properly enforced up and down the country, but we expect and hope that the definition will help organisations and individuals to better understand what causes anti-Muslim hostility and therefore how we can prevent it from happening.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

All forms of abuse are appalling. All forms of targeted abuse—be they against Muslim, Jewish or black communities—are even more appalling. I would be interested to know why the word “Islamophobia” does not appear in the statement, when that is clearly an enormous problem in our society. I am unclear about whether the Secretary of State took any advice from the Muslim Council of Britain, which has often been very helpful in explaining to the wider community the consequences of Islamophobia. Does he not think that there must be much greater concentration on the role of the racist far right in our society, which, on social media and elsewhere, continually incites—subliminally and overtly—violence against identifiable minorities all over the country, with devastating consequences for the security, safety and wellbeing of many people on our streets?

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct: it is important that we tackle all forms of abuse and discrimination, no matter which minority group they target. That is why, in the case of the Muslim population, we have included the anti-Muslim hostility definition as part of our report. The language for that came from the working group itself, which of course included many senior and well-respected figures from the Muslim community.

Representation of the People Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

Let me make progress; I have given way a lot.

Similar reforms are already under way in Canada and Australia, and the time is right for us to follow suit. As we move towards automated registration, we recognise that we must look again at how the open register operates. Under the Bill, those registering to vote will be asked if they wish to opt into the open register, rather than opt out, as is currently the case.

There is also a moral dimension to this matter. We know that the least likely to be registered are those on low incomes, more often renting and more often younger. Our democracy is strongest when everyone can and does participate, and that is our aspiration.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

I will give way one last time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

This is an important point. The Secretary of State must be aware that large numbers of homeless people very seldom vote, because they do not have a point of registration unless they can find a church or somebody is prepared to host them. Is there a possibility that we can make arrangements for people who do not have any fixed abode but nevertheless are equal citizens like the rest of us and deserve the right to vote?

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is not currently part of the Bill, but I am always happy to keep the position under review. We want to remove obstacles to those seeking to vote and stand in elections. These measures include absent voting and a new power to obtain information to help people to understand the election process better.

The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, but in these times of profound change, that includes acting to defend our democracy. There are too many loopholes that allow foreign money to enter and seek to influence our politics. For instance, British voters face more stringent rules when donating to political parties than companies do—even shell companies and companies that are not based in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

That is our party position.

The importance of ruling out foreign interference in our democracy has been made repeatedly in the debate. Let me actually address the glaring foreign interference that we have, and which we saw in Gorton and Denton last week. I am sorry to say that it has not been mentioned in the debate so far. We have been talking about one disgraceful incident while mass abuse of our democracy has been going on.

It appears from the evidence of independent observers that as many as two thirds of polling stations had compromised voting in that election last week. As many as one in eight votes may have been cast under coercion—under pressure of family voting. That is a deplorable state of affairs, and it should be the focus of the whole House to understand what happened.

It is important that we speak truthfully and honestly in this place, so I will say what is clearly true and what we all know: we are talking about south-east Asian communities, as has been clearly and objectively demonstrated in the past. We are talking about people taking their orders on how to vote from mosques and from clans—often direct from Pakistan. We are seeing the criminal abuse of democracy by Labour—

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Danny Kruger]

I will finish the point and then certainly give way to both gentlemen.

We are seeing the criminal abuse of British democracy by Labour, and now by the Green party. This malignant new force has now occupied—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman has just made the most extraordinary allegation about an electoral process last week: he suggested that 12% of all votes were somehow or other invalid because of pressure that he claims was put on them. Has he got any real evidence, or is that just an easy assertion to make to grab some headlines on social media and elsewhere?

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely right that we have this debate. I am citing evidence provided by Democracy Volunteers, the independent observers who were present in the polling stations last week. It is important that we look into it. It is obviously impossible to tell definitively at this stage exactly what went on, but it is clear from these independent observers that serious abuse seems to have been practised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She rightly reminded the House about the role of the Chartists in Islington South. I remind her and the rest of the House about the role of Mary Wollstonecraft in the north of the borough, and of course the fact that “The Rights of Man” was written in her constituency at the Angel. Our borough has made a massive contribution to radical thought and radical development.

This debate should be much longer and wider, because we need to look at wider issues of democracy in our society. We have an elected House of Commons. We have an unelected House of Lords. We obviously have an unelected Head of State. We have a massive disparity in regional influences on political decision making. We do not really have regional government. We have mayors and a local government system that is essentially dependent on central government. We are not a fully democratic society by any manner of means. Indeed, this House of Commons is really meeting on sufferance of the Government. Its agenda is basically set by the Government. It is not an independent chamber of power over the Government; it is one that tries to hold the Government to account—there is a big difference. So we need to think a bit more about how our democracy could develop. Perhaps a good idea would be a commission on democracy, where there could be wide-ranging thoughts on democracy in our society.

The Bill contains a number of issues that I want to refer to quickly. I say that as a former agent in many elections, and as a parliamentary candidate in many more after that. The question of the funding of elections comes up all the time. Massive amounts of business money flows into politics both at election time and between elections, funding parties, so-called political interest groups and so on. We need to get a grip on this. Our democracy is being sold to the highest bidder, and it is getting worse and worse with the levels of political influence and money that goes with it.

There is also the question of the power of the media between and within elections. We need to extend broadcasting rules into print media during elections. As others have said, we need to look very seriously at the damaging interests of social media and the algorithms that go with it, which direct political views. It is almost impossible to find out how much money has been spent on social media campaigning.

Lastly, I will turn to the right to vote. I have raised the question of homeless people having the right to vote; if we had a universal registration system, it would be much easier to ensure that everyone who is entitled to vote is able to do so. While I absolutely support votes at 16, I also think we should extend votes beyond just Irish nationals to those who are legally resident in this country and have a stake in the future of this country, and should be able to vote accordingly.

National Plan to End Homelessness

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for his apposite question. There is extra money for supported housing in the strategy, and we will be monitoring the success of that. There is also money for recovery, because there is no doubt that people live with the trauma of homelessness for many years, and we need to help them move forward.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank the Minister for the statement and for the aspiration to end homelessness, which is extremely welcome. I have two areas of concern. One is the insufficiency of council house building happening at the moment and the way in which almost every local authority seeks, in their terms, to balance a development, which includes properties for sale or properties for a rent much higher than a social level. That means that, in constituencies such as mine, a social cleansing of an entire borough ends up taking place as people cannot get council housing because so much is being built for other people to make money out of.

The second issue is related to the private rented sector. Even though I welcome the end of section 21 evictions, they are still going on and will do so until May. Hundreds—actually, thousands—across the country have been evicted through that process. Can the Minister not do something to bring forward the abolition of section 21 and look at the real issue, which is rent control within the private rented sector, because we are subsidising it through taxpayers’ money?

[Alison McGovern]

I think I have responded a number of times on our ambitions for social housing and mixed communities. On section 21, the right hon. Member will have noted that we are investing more in this year to help councils respond to the crisis that we face now, as well as having long-term objectives.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. In my constituency, I have groups of volunteers who work very hard, including on the Anton river in Andover, and do a fantastic job. In fact, that river flows through part of the town centre, but gets lost, and it is about to be opened up with a new riverside park running down Western Avenue. I am pleased to say that I played a small part in that scheme obtaining a levelling-up grant from the previous Government.

People in my constituency value these chalk streams almost as if they are members of their family. They are part of the identity of towns such as Whitchurch, Overton, Andover and other villages in my patch and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. They would take the protection of those chalk streams almost as seriously as the protection of their children. Many Members—not just me—have campaigned for such statutory protection, and I would be interested in what the Minister has to say. I do not entirely accept his argument that spatial development strategies are completely inappropriate. As he knows, they can flag up areas of planning constraint and discuss corridors and green infrastructure. If there is a green infrastructure corridor, it is a chalk stream. Certainly in my part of the world, they are treasured such that a new mayor—if we have one next year—would be required to look at them as protected corridors and say as much in their plan.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member and support everything he has said about chalk streams and nature corridors. Does he think it would be helpful if the Bill went a bit further in trying to reinvigorate the natural world in densely populated urban areas? Since he has an enormous knowledge of London, does he not think that London would be so much improved if some of the unfortunately now underground rivers could be opened up, so as to give people a sense of what their natural world is really like?

[Kit Malthouse]

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Interestingly, he may or may not recall that when I was a Westminster councillor, we had a project in Westminster called “Hidden Rivers”, which signposted where those rivers were. If any Members find themselves on the platform at Sloane Square station, for example—just a couple of stops away—and look upwards, they will see a socking great big pipe going across the top of the platforms carrying the River Tyburn. It rises at Marble Arch, where Tyburn convent is, and where the Tyburn tree used to stand for hanging people. It flows down, across the platform and into the Thames. The same is true, I think in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, where the Fleet flows down towards Fleet Street and into the Thames. People value and treasure such rivers, and they should be protected. I want to hear a little more on that from the Minister.

For those of us who would support new settlements, for example, SDSs might be important for the protection of chalk streams, because they can point towards the areas where new settlements should be and protect such things as river catchments. For chalk downland constituencies like mine, that is key. While I accept that the Minister will get his way and get his party to vote for the second time against protection for chalk streams in this Bill, I would like to hear a bit more detail on what he is minded to do—I take him at his word—how firm that mindedness is, and when we can expect some of the protection to come forward, because this is an urgent matter on which many of us have campaigned for many years.

The second thing I lament about the Bill, and ask the Minister to clarify, is its impact on neighbourhood plans. I have asked him this question in the past, particularly in the light of new housing targets. Both my borough councils, Basingstoke and Deane, and Test Valley, have had significant increases to their housing targets. I do not mind that necessarily, but the question is where those houses go. I have encouraged villagers and communities across my constituency to take advantage of neighbourhood plans and to put them in place. The significant alarm now is that some of the local plan implications from the new housing targets that are flowing through are riding roughshod over those neighbourhood plans, some of which took years to put in place.

The Minister has given me an undertaking in the past that extant neighbourhood plans would not have to be varied in the light of those new housing targets, until they came up for refresh, and that constraints, such as protected landscape, would pertain. I would be pleased if he could reassure us on that point when he sums up.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

Today is a momentous day, because, subject to agreement from this House, the Renters’ Rights Bill will have completed all its stages and will therefore shortly become law. This House last legislated to fundamentally alter the relationship between landlords and tenants in 1988—I was just six years old. In the decades since, England’s private rented sector has changed beyond all recognition. It now houses not just the young and the mobile, but many older people and families with children, for whom greater security and certainty is essential to a flourishing life.

The need to overhaul the regulation of the private rented sector and, in so doing, level decisively the playing field for landlords and tenants is pressing. That is why we introduced the Bill within months of taking office. We promised that we would succeed where the previous Conservative Government had failed by legislating to transform the experience of private renting. I am delighted that we are now within touching distance of seeing the Bill become law. Before I turn to the final amendments agreed to in the other place, I want to put on the record once again my profound thanks to Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding through its House of Lords stages.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I, too, welcome the Bill becoming law. Personally, I wish that it also regulated rent levels, but my question is: how quickly will it become law to protect people? While this Bill has been winding its way through Parliament over the last year, many have faced the appalling situation of no-fault eviction. Many have lost their properties as a result, whereas they would have been protected had the Bill become law more quickly. Can the Minister give me some idea—so that I can give some comfort to my constituents who are facing no-fault eviction—of how quickly they will get protection, and will there be any retrospective element to it?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. We want to provide both renters and landlords with certainty about how the new system will be implemented. I will say a bit more on that in the course of my remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

To conclude, my constituents cannot wait any longer for these vital protections. They need a ban on section 21 evictions, they need a right for private renters to speak up against bad landlords, and they need these long-overdue rights granted. My generation in particular, which has been stuck in private rented accommodation for so long, really needs those rights. I fully support the Renters’ Rights Bill.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will be brief, because this is a time-limited debate. I welcome the Bill, although it has deficiencies, because it does not regulate the amount of rent that is charged. In my constituency, a two-bedroom flat in the private rented sector goes for about £2,000 a month, which is way above what most people can afford. There is a desperate need, in inner-city areas in particular, for rent regulation.

I am pleased that we are ending no-fault eviction, but I absolutely agree with the points made by the hon. Members for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) about the extraordinary way in which the Bill has been delayed. Thousands of tenants all over the country have lost a home that the Bill, had it become law, would have prevented them from losing. It is outrageous, the number of people who have become homeless or been forced to move to an even more expensive place. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that the no-fault eviction protection will come in immediately when the Bill receives Royal Assent, and that there will be no delay. Some of us are concerned that there has been too long a delay.

There are two quick points that I want to put to the Minister. The Bill requires local authorities to play a much greater role in the private rented sector, but they lack the resources to do that. Is there a guarantee that they will get the resources to ensure proper monitoring of the Bill, and proper support for tenants? In the same vein, the provision of housing advice has disappeared in many parts of the country, so the demand grows on local authorities and organisations such as Citizens Advice for advice for tenants. Many tenants are simply unaware of their rights. If they are unaware of their rights, they can be exploited by unscrupulous landlords—and sadly often are.

[Matthew Pennycook]

With the leave of the House, I will close this brief but thoughtful debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions. In the time available, I will respond to as many of the issues raised as I can.

Let me start by saying that I welcome the broad support for the Lords amendments expressed by both shadow Front Benchers. In our view, the amendments are reasonable and proportionate, and respond to legitimate concerns that were raised. They have the safeguards in place that we felt were needed, and we are happy that they are being incorporated into the Bill.

The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), raised the issue of supply. We acknowledge that it will take time for the sector, including build-to-rent providers but also landlords of any type, to adjust to this significant change in regulation, but we do not believe that the legislation will have a destabilising effect on the rental market, or a harmful impact on future rental supply, which, it should be noted, we are taking steps to boost, not least by providing more opportunities for investment in a growing build-to-rent sector.

According to the English housing survey, the size of the private rented sector has remained broadly stable since 2013-14. Landlords have been aware of successive Governments’ plans to reform the sector since 2019. It is worth noting that a study from the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence looked at whether regulation of the PRS over the past 25 years, in the UK and internationally, had affected PRS supply. It concluded that there was no evidence to support the assertion that non-price regulation impacts supply. We will, of course, continue to work with landlords and their representative associations throughout implementation. We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme, and we will, of course, continue to monitor trends across the PRS, including the supply of properties, to understand how the market is responding to our reforms.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the issue of rent controls. He knows that the Government are opposed to introducing rent controls. As I have made clear on many previous occasions, we do not support them, including rent stabilisation measures, because we believe that they could make life more difficult for private renters, both by incentivising landlords to increase rents routinely to a cap, where they might not otherwise have done so, and by pushing many landlords out of the market, thereby making it even harder for renters to find a home that they can afford.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about implementation. Following Royal Assent, we will allow time for a smooth transition to the new system. We will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules, and ensure the sector has enough time to prepare. As he is aware, the Bill will ensure that the new tenancy system for the private rented sector is introduced in one stage. At that point, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies. Existing tenancies will convert to the new system, and any new tenancy signed off on or after that date will be governed by the new rules.

As I said, I am glad that there is broad support for the Lords amendments relating to shared owners. It is worth saying that the Government will make provision during implementation to ensure that shared owner landlords with an existing tenancy will have an opportunity to provide the information in question to the tenant after the Bill comes into force. We want to take the time to get this right, and find a solution that works for shared owners. We intend to do that using the delegated powers to make transitional provision provided by clause 147.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), asked about various issues relating to the amendments about service family accommodation. In particular, he asked about investment. As I outlined in my opening speech, the Ministry of Defence has announced an additional £1.5 billion investment in SFA as part of a £7 billion commitment over the next five years to improving and modernising defence housing. That investment will unlock rapid work to tackle the poor state of forces housing, helping to support recruitment, retention and morale. As I mentioned, the defence housing strategy, to be published later this year, will also set out wider plans to improve service family homes.

It is also worth saying that redress is already available to service personnel, who already have a robust system in place for raising a complaint about the standard of their accommodation and receiving remedy or reimbursement. If not resolved, complaints can be escalated to a service complaint, for which there are further powers of reimbursement, charge reduction and policy redress, and ultimately to the employment tribunal in cases of potential discrimination.

Birmingham Bin Strikes

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the right hon. Member for taking my advice and not making this party political—a bit more refining and we will get there in the end.

Surely the right hon. Member would expect that the local authority would enter a trade union negotiation in good faith and would go as far as it can lawfully go in making a settlement offer that respects the workers who are losing pay as a result of equal pay, because that is surely the right thing to do. I hope he would not expect the council to disregard that entirely. The council rightly cares about its workforce, not least because many of them will be Birmingham city residents themselves, and it wants to make sure that it supports that process. The council, like us, was not happy that the offer was rejected by the union, but that is not to say that we cannot use this time for the conversation to continue, so that we can reach a resolution that puts the people of Birmingham first.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Could the Minister explain this? I understand the issues of equal pay, and I think equal pay is essential, important and legally necessary, but what we have here is a reduction in pay for a significant group of workers. How can they possibly be held responsible for the financial problems that Birmingham city council has? Is their case not entirely justified—that they are protecting their own wages and conditions, as any good trade union would do in any negotiations? Cannot he simply accept and understand that, and that be the basis on which a settlement is agreed, so that they can return to work?

[Jim McMahon]

The way the right hon. Member starts is where I would hope most local authorities do when looking at equal pay, but the reality is that there will always be winners and losers in equal pay where women have been underpaid for a long time. Councils have options here: they can either compensate and pay upwards for all the female workers in post to the comparable male worker, which for most councils in most circumstances will not be affordable, because there are huge sums attached to that; or, to make a package affordable, they have to equalise it out in consultation with the trade unions. That is exactly what has happened in Birmingham.

The issue in Birmingham is very particular to the waste service, where a previous agreement was reached that honestly does not hold when assessed against equal pay in terms of the tasks that are carried out by those workers. In the end, it does not pass the equal pay test, but that is not to say that we are not urging the council and Unite the trade union to continue negotiations to resolve this. We absolutely want the right outcome for the workers and the residents of Birmingham.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I strongly support what the hon. Lady is saying, and any specific protection for chalk streams. Does she feel that the Bill goes far enough on that, or is specific legislation needed to preserve these beautiful, almost unique things that we have in this country?

[Alex Brewer]

The right hon. Member has anticipated my next point. To ensure that development is approached effectively and sustainably, there must be legislation to protect chalk streams. The Government should use the Bill to expand the list of irreplaceable habitats that are severely threatened and include chalk streams in it. Mitigation schemes will not help these unique habitats. They need protection. Unbelievably, this is the second Bill in six months that the Government could have used to protect our precious chalk streams, as the Water (Special Measures) Bill also failed to mention them specifically.