Planning and Development: Bedfordshire

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered planning and development in Bedfordshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Mid Bedfordshire—indeed, all of Bedfordshire —has played its part in delivering new housing. My constituency was once home to the world’s largest brickworks at Stewartby. Our communities bear testament to our brickmaking history, with former clay pits now finding new life as lakes and homes for nature in the Marston Vale forest, and with former industrial sites, including the brickworks at Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick, set to be repurposed as places to deliver the homes and jobs of the future.

In the past month we have also had confirmation of the Luton airport expansion, the announcement of the new Universal UK theme park at Kempston Hardwick in my constituency, and the publication of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. That comes on top of the recent announcement of East West Rail, work being done to develop local plans in all three of our council areas— I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a Central Bedfordshire councillor—and the work of the Government’s new towns taskforce.

In this debate, I hope to highlight the ways in which the planning system can help shape the future of our communities in Bedfordshire, and some of the things that my constituents need assurance on from Government. I want to be clear at the start: I am not a nimby or a blocker, but if the Government are serious about building houses and critical infrastructure, we need to ensure that we do so in a way that is future-proof and resilient.

We need to turn blockers into builders, rather than create a new generation of blockers. In my experience, most of the people whom this Government have labelled as blockers are not ideological obsessives standing in front of the bulldozers of progress; they are people fed up with bad development. They are fed up of developers throwing up housing estates but not building communities, of soulless developments that could be found anywhere, and, most importantly, of developments that worsen quality of life.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. He has outlined some of the things being done in his constituency, such as using old industrial buildings for apartments. To add to his knowledge, in Northern Ireland we have been repurposing empty buildings in town centres, such as homes above shops—I said that to the Minister in a question just recently. Does the hon. Member agree that is something else that could be used to restore and build up our town centres while ensuring that we are not encroaching upon rural land, as so often happens across the whole United Kingdom?

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree. There is a lot of support for brownfield-first development, but also for gently densifying our towns and cities so that we have houses where people want to live within the existing infrastructure.

The Government have been elected with a clear mandate to build, build, build, and I accept that. But I hope that they will do the hard yards to plan, plan, plan, and ensure that the 1.5 million houses that they build are the right houses in the right places, as part of the right communities and with the right infrastructure. It is in that spirit that I bring forward this debate, because Bedfordshire is not a place that is standing still.

I congratulate the Government on completing the negotiations, begun by the previous Government, to secure the new Universal UK theme park at Kempston Hardwick. That will be a game changer for our local economy, and I will continue to support the Government, Universal and our councils as it progresses through the planning system, but to maximise its potential, it will be important to get the infrastructure right. That means we need to plan for the planes, trains, automobiles and accommodation. Through the planning system, we need to see work done to deliver the right accommodation that will be available in Bedfordshire for people to come and stay, hopefully to enjoy Universal and then stay a while in our towns and villages, spending their time and money enjoying everything that Bedfordshire has to offer.

As I noted earlier, I understand that Government have a mandate to “just get on and build”. I have some sympathy for their frustration with Members of Parliament like me who they see as trying to put the brakes on that ambition, but I hope the Minister will recognise that that is not my intention. I believe as fervently as he does that we need to deliver new homes for young people growing up right across Britain, but I believe we must do so in a way that is sensitive to our countryside and our communities, and that delivers the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure.

The current planning system is not working for anyone. Too often, it blocks good development and allows bad development—development that erodes local character, that builds houses but divides communities, and that comes without the right infrastructure, leaving new residents and old alike frustrated and unwilling to accept the further houses the Government want to deliver in their communities. As this Government’s planning reforms progress, I hope they will take time to consider how the planning system can more effectively protect the character of our towns and villages, and how it can seek to disarm those blockers that the Government are concerned about by addressing the things they are concerned about, not by tying their arms behind their backs. That is a harder job, I accept, but is anything that is worth doing in politics easy?

In Bedfordshire, I would like to see the Government give us the tools through the planning system to protect everything that makes our communities such special places to live—protections for our historic character and our villages, protections for our beautiful and unique countryside against unending and unplanned urban sprawl, and protections for the great British pub; indeed, I would like to see more of them built as our communities expand.

In Mid Bedfordshire, we have always done the right thing and taken our fair share of housing—we have even taken Luton’s surplus housing need. We have done everything we were supposed to do, but our communities suffer the effects of bad development. Still, residents in Maulden see development crawling even further up the slope of the Greensand ridge, as their flood risk steadily worsens. Still, residents in Wixams find themselves fighting for a GP surgery that no one locally seems keen to take ownership of. Still, residents find themselves fighting developers who are keen to pocket the profits of development but less keen to deliver on their promises of well-maintained green spaces, proper flood protections and local amenities.

Residential Estate Management Companies

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I commend the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for setting the scene so well.

I recently met one of the management companies in my local area, where residents had lodged a list of queries after their management fees went up by a substantial amount. They asked where the money had gone. It is difficult to see why fences still need painting when there is a bill for paint, and it is hard to understand why there is a bill for the upkeep of a sign that does not appear to have been cleaned in years. The difficulty with these companies is that, with no regulation of them, residents feel they are being done over.

It might be best if I quote one of my constituents and then offer a solution. My constituent said:

“I am writing as a resident to express serious concerns regarding the management of communal land. Like many homeowners across the UK, I am facing high and increasing charges for substandard maintenance, with no option to switch providers.

The company operates a monopoly in many estates, charging fees that are neither transparent nor fairly regulated. Residents are often left with poorly maintained green spaces despite paying substantial fees. Furthermore, there is no option for estates to collectively choose a different management company, leaving homeowners effectively trapped in an unfair system. I am asking for your support.”

She is asking me for my support, and I am asking the Minister to address this issue.

The solution my constituent suggests is introducing

“a cap on the fees that land management companies like Greenbelt can charge homeowners”

and creating

“a legal mechanism that allows estates to vote on who manages their communal land, giving residents the freedom to choose better service providers.”

She finishes by saying:

“Many homeowners across the UK are affected by this, and I believe it is an issue that requires government action.”

I look to the Minister to ensure that we address this issue UK-wide, and not simply in England and Wales. Residents across the United Kingdom face the same problems as residents in Strangford, and they must be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

There are undoubtedly issues around the purchase of homes on these estates. For example, it appears to be fairly common for residential freeholders not to be notified of their future liability for charges early in the conveyancing process. We are giving due consideration to those issues as well.

On the prevalence of future arrangements, the Government intend to seek views from a wide range of interested parties, including local authorities, management companies, developers and residential freeholders themselves. Our consultation will need to consider a wide range of trade-offs, including costs to homeowners, costs to local authorities, potential impacts on housing supply and the links with the planning system. As promised, we will consult on that matter this year.

[Jim Shannon]

Hon. Members have referred to opting out—in other words, if someone is unhappy with their management company, they can opt for another one. Would the Minister consider that, and would it be considered in the discussions he has with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the pertinent Minister?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Given the time available to me, I will have a separate conversation with the hon. Gentleman outside.

Before I conclude, I want to touch on the issue of managing agents, whose performance can present significant challenges, whether they are chosen by residents or employed by developers. Managing agents perform a critical role in managing and maintaining freehold estates as well as leasehold buildings, and the Government are determined to raise standards among them and drive out abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous agents. We remain fully committed to strengthening the regulation of managing agents of leasehold properties and estate managers of freehold estates. We are looking again at the report published in 2019 by the regulation of property agents working group chaired by Lord Best. At a minimum, we believe that the regulation of managing agents should include mandatory professional qualifications. That will apply whether the agent manages a building or an estate. We will consult on the detail of that matter this year and remain committed to publishing a draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill in the second half of this year to provide for enhanced scrutiny on the part of Parliament.

I again thank the hon. Member for South Devon for securing the debate and all those who have taken part in it. The Government intend to act, and act decisively, to protect residential freeholders on freehold estates and to reduce the prevalence of these arrangements over the long term. I look forward to ongoing engagement with hon. Members on all sides of the House—I welcome the shadow Minister’s invitation to that end—through both the forthcoming formal statutory consultations and more informal engagement across the House to ensure that we reform the system to the lasting benefit of affected homeowners.

Birmingham: Waste Collection

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That allows us to come to Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers to some very difficult questions. He will understand, of course, the absolute necessity of military intervention in civil life in Northern Ireland over a great many years. While it is never an easy option, does the Minister agree that if it is the only option to ensure that disease does not spread through the city—if a pay deal cannot be reached—action has to be taken, before the ill and the vulnerable pay the price of this stand-off?

[Jim McMahon]

As things stand, a normal service has returned to most streets at most times. The accumulated waste that was building up—which was not acceptable at all—has been removed. Some 26,000 tonnes has been removed; in most places at most times, the collection of bins is taking place as normal, and over 100 trucks a day are leaving the depots as usual. We hope that we do not return to the scenes that the hon. Gentleman has described, for the reasons that he expressed. That is not acceptable from a public health point of view, and has consequences.

Coalfields Regeneration Trust

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adam Jogee]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, and not for the first time. I would make that call not just for Derbyshire, but for Staffordshire, too.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Adam Jogee]

The hon. Member for Strangford, of course, wants to intervene.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is fast making a name for himself in this House on behalf of his constituents for his assiduity and commitment, and we congratulate him on that. I made some inquiries back home before this debate—and I was speaking to him yesterday—about those who gave so much for the energy needs of the nation and for the industries in my town of Newtownards. The coal used by those who owned the shops in Newtownards for many years, way back when coal was the main source of energy, came from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, so he has a close relationship with us from that point of view. Does he agree that it is past time that the Government helped to address the imbalance and disadvantage to ensure that the people in his constituency are rewarded for their hard work over all those years?

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. My wife is from Northern Ireland, so when he said he was making inquiries, I was worried how far that was going to go. He raises a very important point, both about the power of British coal and the importance of Newcastle-under-Lyme for many parts of our United Kingdom.

East Midlands: Local Authorities and Economic Growth

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this evening’s debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here to respond to the debate. As my constituency neighbour, I know he is as passionate about Nottingham, Nottinghamshire and the east midlands as I am. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my unpaid membership of two local authorities.

Ahead of important local elections across the east midlands, I am grateful to have this opportunity to lay out the importance of councils to our economy. Growth is this Government’s No. 1 priority. It will pay for our local services, our social security, from state pensions to universal credit, and our national defence. The Government are right to focus on growth. Under the last Government, we suffered a lost decade. Growth, income and opportunity were flat, and the east midlands suffered as a result. The gap between where we should have been on growth and where we are represents billions of pounds that could have been spent on essential public services.

The east midlands has been at the forefront of that decline, as a result of Conservative mismanagement. Our economy in the east midlands used to be strong, but deindustrialisation, a lack of investment and regional disparities in public spending have left us lagging behind other parts of the United Kingdom. The midlands was the industrial heartland of this nation. We have so much potential. We are the region that is most connected to the entire UK, with a distinctive mix of engineering, manufacturing, construction and sciences, but we now struggle to find the jobs, transport and opportunity that we had before. A lot of that comes from lack of investment, including a lack of investment in our local councils.

The east midlands receives the lowest level of spending per person across the United Kingdom. We receive the lowest level of capital spending and total spending. The facts speak for themselves: over the past 14 years, the east midlands was levelled down by the Conservative party. That inequity leaves our local government, our public services and our infrastructure investment billions of pounds short.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate and he is right to highlight the issues, but the growth commission set up by the mayor is key to investment and the east midlands must make the most of the freeport it enjoys, which the Chancellor announced just a few weeks ago. That gives hope and vision for the future, and it is important to underline those possibilities. With great respect to the Conservatives, they promised us a freeport in Northern Ireland but they failed to deliver it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be great if the current Government would designate a freeport for Northern Ireland? That is essential. As is shown in the east midlands, Government support is an essential component for economic growth that sows into the wealth of the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Here we go again. This is very similar to what we spoke about last week, so I will again put on record my thanks to the noble Lords for their work in pushing forward the amendments from the other place.

We welcome the business rates reform and look forward to a far more substantial overhaul of the system. However, we are deeply concerned about the proposals for hospitals. Lords amendment 1 sought to exclude hospitals and it is so disappointing that that was not accepted. In my area, in Dorset, both Poole and Royal Bournemouth hospitals would be caught by the £500,000 rateable value rule. Poole hospital has a rateable value of £2.1 million and Bournemouth’s is £3.3 million. World-famous hospitals, including Great Ormond Street, The Royal Marsden and England’s oldest hospital Barts, would all be caught up.

The Government have rightly been proud of the early delivery of extra NHS appointments, but keeping hospitals in the Bill risks real problems for local councils which might find themselves having to take difficult decisions to take the hit and not charge their hospitals the higher amount. To take away the discretion altogether, I ask Ministers please to remove the provisions from the Bill so that hospitals do not pay twice.

I share the concerns of the shadow Minister regarding the businesses that are on the cusp of the £500,000 threshold. The impact of flipping just over from the lower to the higher multiplier could be profound. So many businesses are already on the cusp, given the national insurance increases, the living wage and the impact of the Employment Rights Bill. The additional worry about tipping over into the higher threshold could see many fail to invest in their businesses for the future.

I will keep this brief, because we know where we are. We too do not agree with the taxation of education and we continue to support the Lords amendments to remove private schools from the legislation. The main reason that we feel that way is that we know that many parents of children who have additional needs choose the private sector because it is so difficult to get what they need in overcrowded schools that are falling apart at the seams. We therefore fundamentally disagree with the principle of taxing education.

The Government have made a good start on the Bill. We want to see a much more fundamental review of business rates. There is a long way to go, but we think that the amendments, if accepted, would demonstrate a Government who are listening. At a time when trust in the Government needs to be built, a Government who listen to sensible amendments would be most welcome.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Government for bringing the Bill forward, but I have to put on record some of my concerns—the Minister will not be surprised. He knows that it is never meant in an aggressive way; I put things forward in this way because it is important that my constituents have a chance to express themselves through me in this Chamber.

First, I echo the concerns of the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrats spokesperson in relation to hospitals and medical and dental schools. I have some concern over how that will trickle down, as it will inevitably, and put pressure on sectors where it does not need to be. The job of those three areas is to ensure that our hospitals can deliver the care and our medical and dental schools can produce the students with the expertise and knowledge to be the next generation of those who look after us.

My major concern, however, is about private schools. I know the point has been echoed many times, but I cannot let this occasion go without making my remarks, on which I have sought the direction of Madam Deputy Speaker and other parties. Members will be aware of the issue with private schools, and I have spoken about it on numerous times to put forward the argument for the faith schools in my constituency. Parents scrimp and save to ensure that their children can go to those schools and have the standard of education that they wish for them, and they have asked me to put that on record. The reason I persist in raising the issue is that I truly believe that some people of faith will be further disadvantaged when the Bill goes through. I know that that is not the Government’s intention, but it will be the reality, and for that reason I must put it on record.

Although the rating provisions will not apply in Northern Ireland per se, the disadvantage to our sector remains in the removal of the tax considerations, which will affect schools in Northern Ireland. That is where the issue is. For the mainland, the effect is quite clear, but schools in Northern Ireland will be affected as well. I wish to be clear that I oppose these provisions on behalf of faith-based schools on the mainland as well, because parents of children at those schools want the same as those who spoke to me.

I am a very proud member of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, and I believe that that extends to parents’ freedom to educate their child with a view to how their faith is worked into that education. Lords amendment 15 has been referred to by the shadow Minister and by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). For many parents, confidence that their faith will not be dismantled in the classroom is worth the financial burden of paying into their child’s education, but that is being denied by this legislation. I believe that they all deserve the opportunity to educate their child in a way that they wish, for which they will probably pay handsomely, but these proposals will adversely affect parents’ freedom to educate their child in their religious belief.

The option to home-school is one that parents may not have considered previously, yet may now feel is the only financial option available for them. Those parents may not feel qualified or equipped to deal with the skills that are vital to home-schooling, yet believe there to be no option as they simply cannot afford to pay the uplifted fees. That is the unfair burden that falls on the shoulders of those parents.

I firmly believe that the Government disagree with almost every Lords amendment because the Lords amendments interfere with the public revenue and affect the levy and the application of local revenues. The Commons does not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient. Basically that means, “We need the money.” I have been a Member of this House for almost 15 years and an elected representative for some 40 years as a councillor and a member of the Assembly, and never, ever have I believed that money is the bottom line, and I do not believe that many right hon. and hon. Members believe that. We cannot take faith-based education out of the hands of a certain class of people to punish those high-class schools with swimming pools. Let me assure the House that Bangor Independent Christian school, with its Sunbeams nursery schools, has no pool. Regent House prep in my constituency has no swimming pool either. There are small primary schools that will have difficulty operating when these regulations come into force, and that is simply not right.

I know that the strength of the Labour Government means that this Bill will pass, but I am urging individual MPs across the House to consider who will be punished and to urge the Government to review this tax raid on education, even at this late hour. We believe in the right to live one’s faith, and we cannot tax that right out of reach. That is where this Bill has gone wrong, and has divorced itself from the reality of the people that I represent.

[Jim McMahon]

I think I addressed the majority of the points in my opening speech that have been raised subsequently, but I thank Members for their contributions. We have heard the Opposition’s concern that the multipliers do not deliver on the stated intention of the policy as announced in the Budget. We clearly do not agree with that position. At the Budget, the Government announced their intention to introduce two lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, to end the uncertainty of the annual retail, hospitality and leisure relief. Also, as I set out in my opening speech, the relief was a temporary stopgap measure. Of course, it has been extended year on year, but it does not provide the certainty that businesses require. It has created a cliff edge.

During our last session—I cannot remember when it was; it feels like it was yesterday—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) seemed to acknowledge that the cliff edge that was built in the previous system was providing uncertainty to businesses and their ability to plan ahead. He must surely welcome the fact that this new lower multiplier—this permanent relief—gives all businesses, whether they are retail, hospitality or leisure, the long-term security that they have been asking for and, importantly, in a way that is sustainable and self-financing through the business rates system.

Through the Bill, the Government are taking steps to address all the issues that have been outlined. The chosen approach is both appropriate and prudent, and the challenging fiscal environment that the Government face requires it. Any tax cut must be appropriately funded, under our commitment to sound financial management, so the Government intend to introduce a higher multiplier for all properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. It is important to say this to settle some of the arguments: that will affect less than 1% of properties in England. Less than 1% will pay more, but that will fund the lower multiplier, as we all recognise. That will help our town centres and our high streets, and it is what we need to do. This approach delivers on the policy set out in the Budget, and on our manifesto commitment to transform the business rates system to make it fairer and fit for the 21st century, and to protect the high street.

Political Donations

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading the debate.

The Labour manifesto pledged to

“protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties.”

I am pleased that these important proposals are being developed. Both today’s debate and the 2021 recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life focus on foreign money entering the UK via companies and unincorporated associations, but I urge the Government, when they develop their proposals, to go further than that.

In 2009, Lord Campbell-Savours of Allerdale, who also happens to be my father, was involved in the tortuous debates in the other place before the passing of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. He and other Members worked to secure an amendment to the Government’s proposals. That amendment meant that individuals giving or loaning more than £7,500 to a political party must be resident or ordinarily resident and domiciled in the UK for the tax year in which the relevant donation or loan is made.

The Bill and the amendment were later given Royal Assent, but that clause, as with many other provisions of primary legislation, was subject to the development of commencement regulations. At the time, the Minister of State envisaged that secondary legislation would be completed not long after the summer of 2010. A general election interrupted that process. However, primary legislation is still in place, ready to be enacted—a quick win, one might say.

As has been said, the Conservatives enormously expanded the number of foreign residents eligible to donate to political parties in our country by removing the 15-year limit on British citizens overseas being able to vote and donate to a political party. Now, up to 3.5 million overseas residents can influence elections.

I am going to take on the baton handed to me by my father and his colleagues in the other place, some of whom are no longer with us, and urge the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Electoral Commission to take on the task of drafting the secondary legislation required to ensure that overseas residents who do not pay tax in this country are no longer allowed to influence the outcomes of elections with their money.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Member may not be aware that nearly $20,000 was donated from the United States to Sinn Féin’s 2017 Assembly election campaign—representing nearly one third of Sinn Féin’s spending in that election. Those who have been so exercised by political donations here have often done nothing to close the loophole that allows huge amounts of foreign money to influence politics in Northern Ireland. Nowhere else in the world would it happen that someone would be paying the bills of a foreign political party, yet that is what seems to happen with Sinn Féin. Does he agree that this loophole must be closed very quickly?

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

The hon. Member is quite right: I was unaware of that.

Under the rules set out the amendment, and made into law, these people would still be able to vote, and could even stand for election—arguably, that would be legitimate participation—but they could not spend money to disproportionately influence the outcome of elections in a country where they do not pay tax. Who runs this place should be a matter decided by those who live and pay their way here; it is they who live with the consequences of those electoral outcomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this important debate. I rise to speak on behalf of the 177 people in Bolton West who signed the petition.

Before I came to this place I dedicated more than a decade of my career to tackling bribery and corruption in all its forms across the UK, India, the UAE and the US, so I have a professional imperative to speak out on cleaning up our politics, as well as a moral one. That is why I have been campaigning on the issue week in, week out since I was elected to this place in July of last year. I was pleased to attend the launch of Transparency International’s “Checks and Balances” report in the autumn of last year, along with the anti-corruption champion, Baroness Margaret Hodge.

Having pored over the petition data in granular detail, I know that this is one of the rare issues that cuts across north and south, blue and red, and urban and rural. We all want our politics to be clean and fair so that it can deliver the very best outcomes for our constituents. For me, that is the heart of the issue that we are discussing. Our democracy relies heavily on donations to provide funding for parties and candidates to engage with the electorate.

However, recent scandals across all major parties involving donations being linked to criminal, unknown or potentially malign foreign sources have led to some of the lowest levels of public trust that we have ever seen. Only 12% of people trust political parties, and there is a corrosive view that politicians are all in it for themselves. The issue has become so severe that I argue that the very integrity of our political system is under serious threat. Our constituents will not cast their votes if they do not believe that their vote makes a difference. Without voting, of course, they lose their stake in our politics. Who can blame them? For far too long, successive Governments have failed to act on political finance reform, leaving our system vulnerable to exploitation by those who seek to subvert our much-cherished democracy.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting the Electoral Commission, which has warned that significant loopholes in our political finance laws allow money of unknown origin, and potentially foreign influence, to infiltrate British politics. Independent scrutiny bodies, including the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, have repeatedly warned about the risks posed by opaque political donations. That is why we desperately need what I hope will be a forthcoming elections Bill. I urge the Minister, in her response, to provide a clear timeline for that piece of legislation. We desperately need to close loopholes, empower regulators and protect our democratic institutions from foreign influence.

[Jim Shannon]

Continuing that line of thought, Northern Ireland will need to be part of such a new legislative ruling. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must all be subject to the same rules in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Phil Brickell]

I agree that we need to move across the entirety of the United Kingdom to clean up our politics. Time waits for no person, so we must act now. With that in mind, I would like to propose five key reforms, which I gently ask the Minister to consider.

First, and most importantly, the campaigning organisation Spotlight on Corruption has called for “know your donor” checks, which would legally require political parties to conduct thorough checks on the source of donations. If a donor’s origins cannot be verified, that donation should be rejected outright. As a former compliance professional for more than a decade myself, I know that such checks can be proportionate and risk based, avoiding excessive administrative burdens. This approach would align with anti-money laundering practices already established in the private sector and mirror existing requirements in the charity sector. If charities must conduct due diligence on their donors, why should political parties be exempt?

Secondly, has the Minister considered reducing the donation reporting thresholds to bring more donations into light? Coupled with the “know your donor” checks, I think that would improve scrutiny and put off lower-value donations from dubious sources.

Thirdly, there is a glaring loophole around shell companies. Under current rules, companies that have never turned a profit in the UK can still donate to political parties. That is an obvious weakness for potential foreign influence, and I am yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it is permitted. The solution is simple: the Government should mandate that a UK-registered company can only donate from the UK profits that it makes. That seems like a principle we can all get behind, and it would go a long way to protecting our much-cherished democracy.

Fourthly, as we have already heard, we must address the role of unincorporated associations, which provide a potential trapdoor for dark money entering our politics. Currently, candidates are not required to verify the ultimate source of donations received through these associations, effectively creating opaque slush funds. Forcing unincorporated associations to conduct better checks on the sources of the original donations would very quickly put an end to that risk.

Fifthly, despite the current political financing laws being riddled with loopholes, they are not even enforced properly. The Tories neutered the Electoral Commission and stripped it of its independence in the Elections Act 2022. What better way to return politics to service than by equipping the commission to hold all parties, including my own, to account? We could start by increasing its capacity for deterrence, by putting up its fining powers. In this era of plutocrat donors, the current paltry fines that the Electoral Commission can impose are hardly going to put wrongdoers off. As I understand it, enhancements to the regime in that respect would not even require primary legislation.

This is an existential issue for our politics. It is not about one person, one party, one donor or even one jurisdiction. Transparency International UK has found that between 2001 and 2024, nearly £115 million in political donations came from unknown or questionable sources, with £1 in every £10 donated to political parties having an unclear origin. Reflect on that for a moment. It is simply unacceptable. The early signs are positive, and I thank the Minister for her engagement with myself and colleagues on this matter already. It demonstrates that the Government understand why today’s debate is crucial. Failing to act sends a dangerous message that British democracy is for sale; we cannot and must not allow that to happen.

Local Government Finances: London

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend is right. It is important that we recognise the circumstances in which we found ourselves and that we point to the measures that this Government have taken to start to fix this endemic problem, which I will continue to explain.

Over and over again, the Tories passed the buck without passing the bucks. Our councils have had to deal with wider changes to legislation and other new duties and responsibilities, even as financial support has been repeatedly eroded. This challenge has been building and building. London’s population has grown by 900,000 in the last 15 years, with massive consequences for rising demand for services, particularly adult and children’s social care, special educational needs and disabilities, and temporary accommodation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. One of the biggest issues for all councils—London councils and other councils across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—is housing. The Government have committed to 1.5 million houses, and that is a commendable strategy to address the issue. Does he agree that, whenever the houses come through, the Government have to look at rental accommodation and price, which many people are finding it hard to manage? It is not just the provision of houses, but ensuring that people can actually rent and live in social and rented housing.

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. Member is right, but we cannot adjust the market situation without adding more houses to the stock. Once we have increased the number of houses, we can start tackling the private rented sector. We are doing so, and I hope that the Minister will expand on some of the measures that this Government are taking to bring our landlords into line and improve the quality of the private rented sector.

As a result of the problems I have described, London’s boroughs are facing an unprecedented financial crisis, one that threatens the vital public services that millions of Londoners rely on, including my constituents in Leyton and Wanstead. Our communities are strong, but we also face significant challenges, ranging from crime and antisocial behaviour to a shortage of decent, affordable homes and the need for better opportunities for young people. All those issues can only be addressed effectively if our excellent councils can invest in our future.

Many councils are now teetering on the edge of issuing section 114 notices—meaning effective bankruptcy—and those risks are increasing, because the drivers of increased costs have simply not been accounted for. Seven London boroughs, nearly a quarter of the total, require exceptional financial support for 2025-26 amounting to over £400 million, and London accounts for almost a third of the total national EFS funding of £1.3 billion. We need to seriously engage with these challenges and chart a sustainable path forward. According to London Councils, London boroughs are forecast to overspend by £800 million this year; particular pressures include homelessness at £330 million, adult social care at £200 million and children’s social care at £160 million. The cost to the public purse will be so much greater in the long run if we do not deal with this crisis now.

By far the most acute financial pressure facing London boroughs is homelessness. The scale of the crisis is staggering: London Councils assesses that one in every 50 Londoners is currently homeless and living in temporary accommodation, including nearly 90,000 children. First and foremost, this is a human tragedy. Like many other colleagues, I have been engaging with individuals and families who are suffering as a result of the housing crisis, including a very powerful visit that I had this Christmas with Crisis in central London. In addition to this human suffering, homelessness represents the fastest-growing financial risk to London’s local authorities, with our councils spending £4 million per day on temporary accommodation—a figure that has surged by 68% in just one year.

Construction Standards: New Build Homes

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered construction standards for new build homes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. It is an honour to hold this debate today on the construction standards for new build homes. I will start by thanking the tradespeople who work in my constituency—the brickies, sparkies, plasterers, plumbers, joiners and groundworkers, to mention just a few. I know first-hand how hard they work and how poorly they can be treated sometimes. It is important to note throughout this debate that the quality of the work of most tradespeople is something we and they should be very proud of. The quality of new builds is an issue for many of my constituents. Having one’s own home is a dream for many people across the country, including in my constituency of Sherwood Forest. Having a safe, affordable and warm home for all is something we should all strive for.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is clear that the issue is not necessarily with the workers, but with the developers. There must be rules and legislation in place to ensure that developers cannot cut corners or ignore the guidelines, and that they supply safe properties. If that does not happen, the Government need to enforce it, with fines if necessary.

[Michelle Welsh]

I thank the hon. Member for his important intervention. I will say more about that later.

Over 70% of people in Sherwood Forest own their own home.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member will know as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that we have already made changes through the national planning policy framework, and we have our new homes accelerator programme, which is already providing thousands of homes. The Bill is about building on those powers to ensure that we get Britain building. It was his Government who did not build the houses and the infrastructure that we desperately need and who were too timid to face down the vested interests. This Labour Government are on the side of the builders, not the blockers, and we are saying, “No more.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There is nobody who does not welcome the 1.5 million houses target, and it is important that we see those homes. Part of infrastructure is electric vehicle charging systems. Many people I ask about electric cars say that they are not getting one because there are not enough charging points. Clause 43 indicates that there will be more EV charge points. Is that something the Secretary of State will share with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland? I also understand that some of the standard accessibility requirements do not meet the standards. Can she confirm that that will be changed?

[Angela Rayner]

The Bill will streamline the approval of street works needed for the installation of EV charge points, removing the need for licensing where works are able to be authorised by permits, because we recognise that people need that critical infrastructure as part of these reforms.

We have taken more action in eight months than the Opposition managed in 14 years of government. We have reversed the damaging changes made by the Tories to the national planning policy framework and have brought green belt into the 21st century. We have ended the de facto ban on new onshore wind, and we are supporting local authorities with an additional 300 planning officers. Just this month, we set out reforms to put growth at the heart of the statutory consultee system.

Many would have said, “Stop there and allow the reforms to bed in,” but Britain cannot afford to wait. We have been held back for too long by Governments without the will to drive change. This landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill goes even further and faster.