Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

John Slinger Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Gideon Amos]

I almost echo the “Hear, hears”. However, that money would struggle to add about 1,000 social homes per year to the current 18,000, which is the closest thing to a target that we can divine from the Government’s policy announcements—about 18,000, 19,000 or maybe 20,000 a year. We need a whole lot more than that. The National Housing Federation and Shelter believe that we need at least 90,000 a year. The current level of ambition really is not high enough. I encourage the Government to focus their attention less on issuing thousands more planning permissions. We need planning permissions to keep coming through, but since we already have a million plots with planning permission not built for private housing, they should focus their attention instead on the delivery of social housing and on setting a target—if not this one, a target of some sort.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was going to come on to this point, but what practical steps would he suggest for his Liberal Democrat local government colleagues? I think it is fair to say that they do not have the greatest reputation for approving housing developments in their areas. He has, admittedly, said that he is more in favour of social home building than private dwellings, but what practical steps would he take to encourage his local government colleagues on his target?

[Gideon Amos]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question, which anticipates the Liberal Democrats being in government and in a position to ensure delivery of housing. I point him to Eastleigh council, which has taken over a development of 2,000 homes not being delivered by its developer. It has made it a local authority development and is now driving it through. I recently went down to visit Liberal Democrat-run Cornwall council. The previous Liberal Democrat administration set up a housing company that is building 180,000 homes a year—sorry, I mean 180; I wish it were 180,000—and is using the profits from that to build social rent homes.

I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me in my constituency, where we are building 400 council homes on the North Taunton estate and have retained our council housing stock. Sadly, because of right to buy, it is not the 30,000 units it used to be—it is now only 6,000 homes—but we are doing what we can. My colleagues in Somerset council are bringing new council houses to parts of Somerset for the first time in a generation. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at the activity of Liberal Democrat authorities on the ground.

New clause 1 would set a target of 150,000 social homes a year, which would something for the Government to aspire to. If not that target, what target will the Government set and when? The new clause does not require that many to be built; it is not a money resolution. It would simply require the Government to publish a strategy for what would be required to reach the target. If the Government are serious about the housing crisis, they should have no objection to setting a target of this kind. In our manifesto, we set an allocation of £6 billion a year towards that achievement. I appreciate that it would take a number of years to reach 150,000.

In the interests of time, I will move on to new clause 4, concerning borrowing restrictions on local authorities. I will give some “Hear, hears” to the Government for the Prime Minister’s words about reviving council housing and delivering a lot more of it, though I fear there are more words than pounds in his pronouncement. Shelter has commissioned research from Savills examining the impact of the housing revenue account debt on councils’ ability to build new social homes. The research found that writing off HRA debt could unlock between 190,000 and 284,000 dwellings.

Shelter also recently published research with Pragmatix Advisory that assesses the economic and financial case for cancelling HRA debt and investing in social housing. The central conclusion is that the policy would be compliant with the Government’s fiscal rules, while generating a substantial long-term economic benefit of £140 billion over a 60-year timeframe. My colleagues in Somerset council told me that if were not for the Government’s self-financing debt rules, they could build out another 630 council houses on top of the ones that I outlined to the hon. Member for Rugby.

I appreciate that the costs of writing off that debt would be significant—I am sure that the Minister has made that point—but if the Government will not write off all that debt, will they write off some of it? In our manifesto, the Liberal Democrats put an extra £2 billion a year into this area. Will the Government put in £2 million to write off some HRA debt? It is important to get councils building again. Those that have their housing revenue account maxed out have the political will, and in many cases the experience, to do so, but they lack the necessary financial headroom. If we want to get councils building, we need to look seriously at the HRA debt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

I am slightly bewildered. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who invited me in a debate in the Chamber to visit a pub in his constituency. I did not take him up on the offer, but maybe I should have, because I could have corrected him on a lot of the things he has just said. I am slightly bewildered by the nonsense that has just been spoken.

I was a council leader. The planning system is not why these houses do not get built. When I speak to developers in my constituency, lots of them say that it is now difficult to employ people because of the day-one employment rights that this Government have brought in. Lots of businesses speak to me about the increase in national insurance contributions. The Opposition have a plan to take £50,000 off the cost of building a new home, which will include social homes and increase the supply. This Government have done nothing to increase supply; all they have done is attack local councils for giving out planning permission. Local councils get punished when they do not have a five-year land supply, which is something that they have very little control over. The Government need to do much more to develop brownfield sites.

[John Slinger]

I very much like and respect the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that education and health resources, for example, in towns—where brownfield sites invariably are—are often relatively busy or full up, and face real challenges and pressures? Other conurbations such as villages, which admittedly do not have all the transport links that make town brownfield sites the most prominent in the planning system—let us not forget that they are prioritised by this Government—also need additional housing and social housing. Quite often, when I talk to people in those villages, their pubs and schools are struggling because they do not have enough people who want to use them.

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words; I have great respect for him too. He makes an interesting point, but it is a wider issue than that. It is about appropriate development in the right place, followed up by infrastructure.

I agree that brownfield sites are usually in the centre of towns. As I said on Second Reading, we are all fed up with driving past sites with all the hoarding up. The sites have planning permission: either they have gone through the planning committee, and the local council has said, “Yes, we will give permission based on these circumstances,” or unfortunately it has not, but permission has been won on appeal. It creates a certain feel in a town centre when someone goes down and sees all the hoarding up on the brownfield sites.

In the heart of my constituency, in Cheshunt, we have a care home waiting to be built. It is a long-overdue facility in the local community that we really want to see built, but it has been left empty for years and years, and we just see the hoarding up. It creates a real sense of loss of pride in a place when someone goes down to the town centre and sees site after site like that. We have sites in Hoddesdon that got planning permission in 2014 and have only just started moving through this process.

Lots of things affect house build-out rates, but this Government could do much more to give powers to local councils to get these brownfield sites off the ground, because there are thousands of sites across the country that have planning permission but remain unbuilt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Spencer]

The reality is that when one serves with such an august group of gentlemen, one’s own speech gets slowly whittled down after they have made theirs. However, these are pet projects of mine, because as I said earlier, I am one of those on the Committee who represents a rural community, and in Suffolk we have seen the reality of building houses in areas that are just not suited to it. We have had a number of major weather events over the past 10 to 15 years, and I have not read a single section 19 flood report that did not identify urban sprawl and house building in rural areas, on floodplains or on low-lying land as a major contributor to massive flooding risks in rural England.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston mentioned, many homes built in rural areas are not near schools, transport infrastructure or high streets. These are not houses that young people want to move into. I use this anecdote all the time, but in my village, which is in the middle of nowhere, we have had 30 units built on the side of the town. Not only are they too expensive, but we do not have any of the utilities that the young people we are trying to solve the housing crisis for want. At the same time, I have Ipswich in my constituency, and it is a mine of brownfield sites.

The new clause could be a huge opportunity for the Government to align their social housing policy with their broader economic agenda of empowering regions, because our economic future is in towns and cities. That is an inevitability: it is where the jobs will be made and where the growth will happen. That is where educational institutions—those anchor institutions, which are so important for the long-term economic viability of these towns—are based. That should not come as a surprise to hon. Members here representing Rugby, Wolverhampton and Durham. The Members for all those places would say, “We want jobs, young people and institutions that embed economic growth, and”—critically—“affordable homes to sit beside them.” What is the point of a thriving town without affordable housing?

[John Slinger]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the need for social homes—and for affordable homes, although we are talking about social homes here—exists not only in our towns, but in our villages? If we are to deal with the long-standing problems with the high cost of homes on the private market, we will need social homes across the range of conurbations in our country.

[Patrick Spencer]

We would not argue against that statement one bit. I am not trying to expunge social tenants from rural England. Suffolk is not just a load of farms and tractor driving; we have a lot of working-class towns. We need social housing, but we are talking about the future of social housing, the future of our economy and the future of our dynamism. We have always moaned jealously about the French, the Germans and the Americans for having dynamic economies with engines of prosperity outside the capital city, while we are stuck with a unimodal economy that is so rooted in London—it is crazy that I am making the Prime Minister’s arguments for him from the Opposition Benches, but anyway.

Surely this is an opportunity. If we are going to build 50,000 to 100,000 or 150,000 homes, and if we are going to tackle the 1.3 million people who are stuck on the waiting list for social houses, why do we not make sure that that is aligned with our responsibility for economic growth? We are all bored with hearing from experts, friends and family members about the lack of joined-up policymaking across Government. This Bill, which is not an inconsequential Bill but is one piece of a wide patchwork of legislation, is a good example of how we can align with a wider economic agenda that we can all get behind.

Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

John Slinger Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I fear that the hon. Gentleman does misunderstand the Bill in a number of respects. First, we are not abolishing or phasing out the right to buy. As I have persistently made clear, we want to ensure that the right to buy is available for long-standing tenants who have lived in—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can intervene once I have answered his first question. I refer to those tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years.

I have already made it clear in a previous debate that landlords can already consider the changing needs of tenants through a variety of methods, ranging from tenant surveys to direct engagement. They can already support tenants to downsize, to transfer or to mutually exchange their home if their circumstances change. The new clause would mandate, through primary legislation, a review of every secure tenancy once every five years. I simply put it to the hon. Gentleman—this picks up on the precise reason why the previous Conservative Government did not bring into force the provisions in their own 2016 Act—that that would entail huge administrative burdens for local authorities. We think, because we believe in the principle of secure tenancies in social housing—in terms of the benefits for tenants and for communities more widely—that we should not impose such a statutory review every five years. I am struggling to see how that is incompatible with trying to place the right-to-buy scheme on a fairer and more sustainable footing.

The Government are reviewing how effectively social housing providers are using their stock. That work is considering issues such as under-occupation, overcrowding and how landlords are supporting tenant movement. We will set out findings from that review and the next steps in due course. We think social landlords can, in some instances, make better and more effective use of their stock. That does not necessarily require, as a means to support them to do so, a statutory requirement to review every secure tenancy every five years.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Regarding social landlords reassessing the use of their stock, does the Minister agree that there needs to be more focus on the needs of disabled members of our community? My constituent Keeley Callan came to see me on Friday. She is disabled, and I would argue she is actually disabled by the social housing system because she has been waiting for at least five years to move into her own accommodation. That is totally unacceptable, given her equal rights to housing in law. Will the Minister briefly reflect on that as he sums up?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am sorry to hear about that case; if my hon. Friend wants to write to me with further details, I am more than happy to look into it. I would make two points: local authorities are best placed to decide the types of social homes their communities need and to plan for them appropriately. Local authorities also have a statutory duty to promote adaptations for disabled people in all housing tenures, subject to a needs assessment, and the Government provide the disabled facilities grant to support them. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with more details about the support that should be in place and the expectations that the Government have in respect of local authorities. If he wants to write to me, I am more than happy to come back to him on the particular points that might arise from the case he has mentioned.

We cannot accept new clause 58 and I have already spoken to new clause 40, tabled by the shadow Minister. I ask the Committee to support Government amendments 75 to 77 and I commend clause 17 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Secure, introductory and demoted tenancies: uncommenced legislation etc

Amendments made: 75, in schedule 3, page 41, line 1, after “143H” insert

“of the Housing Act 1996”.

This would clarify that this sub-paragraph amends the Housing Act 1996.

Amendment 76, in schedule 3, page 42, line 5, after “143J” insert

“of the Housing Act 1996”.

This would clarify that this sub-paragraph amends the Housing Act 1996.

Amendment 77, in schedule 3, page 42, line 23, leave out “to (10)” and insert

“, (9) and (10)(c) and (d)”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This would clarify that only sub-paragraph 10(c) and (d) are relevant to sub-paragraph (13). Sub-paragraph 10(a) and (b) concern introductory, rather than demoted, tenancies.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18

Rents for high income social tenants

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Battle of Cable Street: 90th anniversary

John Slinger Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the importance of that solidarity, which our hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse also highlighted.

It was local residents from many different backgrounds, including trade unionists, east-enders and those from migrant communities, who told the vocal minority, “Your hate does not represent us.”

Today, our Jewish friends and neighbours, in the face of antisemitism, need us all to stand with them again. This Government have taken a firm stance against antisemitism and are tackling it across businesses, civil society, health, education, culture and policing. That commitment is backed by action, including £32.4 million for Jewish community protective security, alongside a wider £251.1 million policing package over the next three years, a £1 million expansion of the Common Ground programme for communities facing antisemitism, and up to £7 million to tackle antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities.

In 1936 the fascists wanted to march through the east end because its boroughs were predominantly Jewish. Today it is also home to Muslims, and for that reason the far right today often try to whip up their hate through so-called demonstrations through the east end. They will not succeed, be it in Whitechapel or elsewhere in the country, for the same reason that they failed back then: London and Britain are home to good, decent people—people who are proud to be British across ethnicities and religions.

We are addressing the root cause of division through investment in cohesion and inter-faith initiatives. As we set out in our social cohesion action plan, “Protecting What Matters”, we are providing a further £800 million to bring communities together to decide where investment is spent in our neighbourhoods. Overall, our Pride in Place programme is providing up to £5.8 billion over 10 years to support 284 places. This will serve as a cornerstone of this Government’s support for communities.

We are also supporting inter-faith work, continuing to bring forward programmes such as Near Neighbours, which brings people together in religiously and ethnically diverse neighbourhoods, and growing Inter Faith Week to strengthen understanding and interaction between people of different faiths.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that peace walks, such as the one I attended yesterday in Rugby, where members of the community, members of different faith groups and people of no faith, walked between different religious establishments, are an important part of that inter-faith work, showing that ordinary people want to come together, irrespective of their background, faith or ethnic background, and unite as one community against those who would divide us?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. Many community initiatives, including many peace walks, some of which I have attended in my constituency, are so vital where people can come together—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) mentioned, local people, real people and trade unionists all coming together to show that solidarity.

We are taking wider steps to boost faith and belief literacy. But none of this can substitute for a very clear position that antisemitism, far-right extremists and political violence have no place in Britain. So I say to the blackshirts then and to the thugs now, we continue to say, “No pasarán! They shall not pass!”

Question put and agreed to.

Local Government Reorganisation

John Slinger Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

Financial viability was one of the key criteria against which we assessed all the proposals, and we selected the most viable options in all cases where that was before us. We would certainly not have accepted proposals that were not financially viable. I believe that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will benefit from the proposals because of the inward investment that will be brought into Devon, the jobs it will attract and the money that will be put into local people’s pockets. I know that he and I share a determination to correct the economic imbalances that hold back people who are living in Devon. They deserve more access to opportunity. Thanks to these proposals, that is what they will get.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State and his officials for all their hard work. I lobbied hard for a single unitary in Warwickshire, and I know that is not the decision that he has been made. There is pretty much near unanimity among politicians and officials at Rugby borough council and Warwickshire county council. Will the Secretary of State ensure that he looks at the disparities around tax income in the north of the county versus the amount of expenditure on services? Will he also ensure that towns and parish councils get a proper role, and that the role of MPs is protected, because it sometimes feels as though our role is diminished in this new ecosystem of government?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I recognise what a strong champion he is for his constituents. I am sorry that he did not get his preferred option in this case. We had to select the option that we believe will be best, against the criteria that we have published. He is quite right to be concerned about the voice of people living in distinct areas in the county. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 allows for area committees or town committees that can operate with the councillors who are elected on to the unitary operating within that particular locality. They can act as a scrutiny committee and call in those responsible for public services or other decisions affecting the town or rural area. That way, they can really champion their needs and hold to account those who are taking the decisions.

Local Government Reorganisation

John Slinger Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

The approach we are taking is to put power in the hands of people and communities so that they can take decisions for themselves, because all the evidence is that if people with skin in the game take the decisions, we get better decisions, growth and better public services.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

To add to the list of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), people who support a single unitary for Warwickshire include me as the MP for Rugby and the political parties at Rugby borough council and at Warwickshire county council. As the Minister considers her statement on Wednesday, could she give a little bit more thought to two important stakeholder groups in the new local government reorganisation world? One group is MPs—what role are we going to have when so much more power and responsibility is devolved? The other group is towns; we need to make sure that they have as much representation as possible. I know she has considered those things, and I would love to hear a little more about it.

[Alison McGovern]

I suggest to my hon. Friend that once I have actually made the announcement, perhaps we can have a chat about those things. As somebody who has had mayoral devolution in my area for more than a decade now, and who represents the great town of Birkenhead—recently shortlisted for town of culture—I have a lot of thoughts about this issue, which I will happily share with him.

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. and learned Member, as a former Home Secretary, will of course know that I cannot comment on ongoing investigations. The provisions of the legislation that we will bring forward—as with all legislation—will apply without fear and favour to members of all parties, as indeed does the bribery legislation that applied to Nathan Gill, a traitor who was the leader of Reform in Wales.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

At the time of the Boston tea party, the American colonists demanded, “No taxation without representation.” Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should instil the principle that there should be no ability, in a game-changing way, to influence representation without taxation? Will he elaborate a little on the principles in his statement?

[Steve Reed]

Philip Rycroft has recognised the concern and proposed what I think is a proportionate approach to dealing with it. I have accepted the figure of a £100,000 cap, which I think most reasonably minded people would agree is a very generous level of funding, for donations from British nationals who are living and paying their taxes overseas.

Community Cohesion

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of strengthening community cohesion.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important and timely debate. We are living in an increasingly divided world. Strong forces are pulling us apart; strong currents are dragging us out to sea. Powerful intoxicants of the snake-oil variety in commerce and politics, and with the social media companies and beyond, are undermining the sense of community cohesion that we innately know is so valuable.

Community cohesion offers a bulwark against those worrying trends. While our sense of community is under threat from online toxicity and barely concealed racism, it is the everyday patriots—the volunteers, the grafters and the hard-working people who run food banks and other organisations—who show us what community truly means. They show us what it means to be British. I will highlight shining examples from my constituency of Rugby, and argue that human interaction is essential if we are to stave off the threats facing our community cohesion.

Why is this happening? I believe that community hinges on human interaction. We are sociable beings, pack animals at heart—just ask the Whips. We require bonds with those around us, yet in an era of rapid urbanisation, fulfilling that innate need is becoming harder. As cities grow larger, people feel further apart, with 83% of the population now living in urban conurbations. For many, the sense of belonging is evaporating, supercharged by social media, where anything that anyone could wish to know sits at their fingertips, and people can be “friends” with someone they have never met.

Technology and social media detach us from one another. Friendly interactions have become electrical impulses down fibre-optic cables; abuse has been amplified by algorithms designed to promote conflict and by those emboldened by the shield of their keyboards. Never have we felt so far apart while being so close electronically—together, alone.

The deteriorating sense of community has started to manifest itself in ugly ways. People, organisations and vested interests are exploiting our fear, anger and alienation. Nowhere has that been more visible than in the demonstration of flags last summer, which in my eyes did not truly represent community.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. One of our vital tasks in creating stronger communities is to counter how patriotism and national symbols are abused by racists and the far right. I am grateful for the work that British Future and Hope not Hate are doing with me on this, alongside excellent local partners such as the Leyton Orient Trust. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the first steps in community cohesion is learning how to be strong and proud in diversity, and saying clearly that our flags belong to all of us, as do our streets and country?

[John Slinger]

My hon. and gallant Friend will not be surprised to hear that I will come on to make similar points. I often say in my constituency—as I did at the Chinese new year celebrations only a week or so ago—that our diversity is a strength, not the weakness that, sadly, so many people increasingly feel it to be. It is a strength, and I am proud to say that again.

The misuse of flags represents division, or even a thinly veiled warning. The infamous Overton window has shifted; values that we thought were sacrosanct—battles that were won—now need to be relitigated. Hoisting flags on lampposts, only to allow them to become torn and dirty, denigrates them. They should be flown high from civic buildings and other places with pride, not weaponised to intimidate.

I will never surrender the flag. It represents the diverse, plural, generous nature of our United Kingdom, but recent displays have left people feeling frightened, fragmented and as though they do not belong here. The problem is not patriotism. I support any true patriot, but no one group, party, skin colour, race or ethnicity owns patriotism. Anyone who wants to build this country up rather than kick it down—anyone who cheers on our national teams, works in our health service, educates our young people, volunteers at a food bank or drives the bus with a smile—is a patriot, and I commend them.

Those who stoke fear and division are not patriots. We saw fever-pitch, dangerous rhetoric last summer when Elon Musk and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon addressed the crowds. It is exactly that kind of language that now manifests itself, leaving my constituents, in Rugby of all places, feeling increasingly frightened.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important subject to the House. Liverpool Riverside has the longest established diverse communities in the country, and I am proud that we are a city of sanctuary. When I saw Tommy Robinson galvanising 100,000 people on the streets of London last year, it was very frightening and polarising. However, we have organisations working together. Together Alliance is holding a celebration of the diversity of this country on 28 March, and I recommend that everybody make every attempt to get there. I hope my hon. Friend will attempt to attend.

[John Slinger]

I concur with my hon. Friend. I commend her and all involved in that event, and I certainly will check my diary—no doubt my head of office is looking at my calendar to see whether there is any space. That is a very important activity, and I hope it is replicated across the country.

In Rugby, the main town in my constituency, I am sad to say that people came up to me after the Unite the Kingdom march to say that they felt not only uneasy, but scared. For the first time, they felt that they were being tutted at, and that people were saying things under their breath as they walked past in the street. They felt glared at. One woman, born and bred in Rugby, who has brown skin, told me as I campaigned that she did not want to go into town on a Saturday. That is absolutely disgraceful.

As an MP, I see my role in part as being a convener. We have the power to bring people together. I campaigned on the theme of “Together we can”. I continue to believe in that and want to espouse it. Last year, I convened an interfaith forum, bringing together leaders of different religions and denominations to discuss how we can strengthen community bonds. I regularly visit churches, temples and other places of worship, as other hon. and right hon. Members do. They play a vital role in promoting tolerance and nurturing belonging.

As an MP, I also have the honour of witnessing the dedication of others. Rugby is a shining example of a town forging community bonds—other constituencies are of course available, as a BBC presenter might say. There are too many initiatives to name, but the Benn Partnership stands out as a shining example of what could and should be replicated across the country. Its community centre in the heart of the Benn ward in Rugby offers meet and eat schemes and community lunches, alongside art and language sessions and very much more—I know that there are similar organisations run by members of staff and volunteers across the country. I hold Joyce Wooding and her team who run the centre in the highest regard.

The peace walk in Rugby, which I had the privilege of attending, is another example of different faiths and non-believers coming together and uniting the community. I have visited the Hill Street, Bradby and Binley Woods youth clubs, and seen their amazing work to bring young people together. I have been on patrols with Rugby’s street pastors, and with the community wardens, who are organised brilliantly by Rugby borough council. They, too, work to strengthen our community. The common denominator in those schemes is the human element and the concept of community: being part of a group larger than ourselves, and having obligations to it as well as receiving benefits from it.

When we meet people who look, speak and worship differently, we discover common ground—“It turns out that you watch rugby too. You enjoy a drink in the pub. You worship the same God, just in a different building on a different road”.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. Will he join me in recognising the work that brilliant charities such as the Derby County Community Trust do to bring communities together, whether through the Harrison’s Hub, where it provides meals for those across communities, or its provision of mental health support to men who need it? The work it does in integrating our communities is vital.

[John Slinger]

I certainly pay tribute to that important organisation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It knits together different elements of our community, providing support as well as joyous, fun things that people can do together, which strengthens the community.

Through encounters with people who are different from us, horizons broaden and bonds strengthen. We realise that we share the same worries, the same dreams and the same desire for peaceful, happy lives for ourselves, our families and our friends. Exposure to difference does not divide us, it draws us closer—or at least it should. It does not matter what someone’s colour, creed or religion is, or whether they have a religion. If they live in my community, they are my people. Building this cohesion is an active process: it never stops and requires constant nurturing. It is our job to educate children on how to act, to accept difference, to show kindness— a much underrated word—to tolerate and to love.

Different parties will, of course, take different approaches —from David Cameron’s big society to other models of civic renewal—but the principle is the same. If the mainstream fails to strengthen community bonds, others will seek to fracture them. It is not just an exercise in interfaith dialogue, although that is important. It is the other bonds that bring us together: clubs, sports teams, civic society, and public institutions such as libraries, museums and galleries—we have a brilliant one in the heart of Rugby—and faith groups, charities, jobcentres and schools that open themselves up to the community. Of course, as a Labour politician, I believe that the state, both locally and nationally, can, should and must help these groups and organisations, working in partnership with them and with business as well.

I also commend the Jo Cox Foundation, which I met recently, for its tireless work to build bridges where others build barriers. We all have a responsibility for community cohesion, and I am playing my part. The key challenge is to give more opportunities for people to answer the call: to ask not what the community can do for them, but what they can do for the community.

I will hold a strengthening community cohesion roundtable in March. Racism, xenophobia, myths and lies must be called out wherever they lurk. I know the Government are working hard and have been proactive in the face of an increasingly toxic and divisive force operating in our country. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has created various taskforces to deal with some of those issues, particularly around community cohesion, and I commend it for that. Can the Minister update us on the important work that her Department is doing?

In closing, those who strengthen the community are the true patriots: the volunteers, the neighbours, the quiet grafters. They strengthen the bonds between citizens and give us, especially young people—although I am not a young person, just for the record—opportunities to flourish. They ask not what they can receive, but what they can contribute to the community. They are the best of us, and I will champion them for as long as I have the privilege of serving as a Member of Parliament.

I will also do all I can to support the good work that the Government are doing across the piece, because it is not just in my hon. Friend the Minister’s Department that this work needs to be done, but in education, in culture, on the economy, for access to the creative arts and sports, and on housing, law and order, health and more. It is all part of building an ecosystem that creates community cohesion. I very much look forward to hearing the contributions of hon. and right hon. Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

I thank you, Dr Murrison, and the Minister, the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions; it was an interesting debate. We must be catalysts for community cohesion and create an unstoppable, positive chain reaction that will strengthen our communities. From what I have heard today, I am sure that we will do so.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Representation of the People Bill

John Slinger Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I make progress.

We are going further with our support for the Electoral Commission. The commission is the independent statutory body tasked with overseeing elections and regulating political finance in the UK, and its work is invaluable as the guardian of our democracy, but it requires stronger enforcement to meet today’s challenges, so we will strengthen its role and powers. Through secondary legislation, we will increase the maximum fine that the commission can impose from £20,000 to £500,000. We are also re-categorising administrative offences so that in most cases, they are punishable through civil sanctions; strengthening the commission’s powers to share information; and ensuring that enforcement is stronger, more responsive and collaborative. I have heard views from hon. Members regarding the commission’s strategy and policy statement. We recognise the importance of maintaining confidence in the commission’s operational independence and ensuring it can carry out its statutory duties effectively, so we will repeal in full the power for Government to impose a strategy and policy statement on the Electoral Commission.

We will legislate to protect the officials and staff who run elections, as well as those standing for election. We have all heard about the abuse, threats and dangers that scare people away from standing for election—many, if not most, Members in the Chamber will have their own stories and experiences. This has a chilling effect on our democracy, affecting the diversity of candidates and the quality of our political debate. We will not tolerate it any more.

The Government want people to feel safe and free to engage in our democracy; harassment and intimidation have no place in our elections. The safety and security of candidates and campaigners is essential to ensuring that the brightest and best put their names forward. That is why we will protect candidates, campaigners and office holders by adding a new, statutory aggravating factor for offences motivated by hostility towards them. I am calling time on the bullies and thugs who undermine our democracy. What is less well known is the effect that similar threats have on those who administer our elections—officials such as returning officers, poll clerks, and those responsible for counting the votes. These dedicated public servants perform a vital role in our democratic process, so we are legislating to disqualify from future elections anyone who seeks to harass, intimidate or abuse them in the course of their duties.

We have listened to, and reflected on, the experiences of recent candidates, and want to do more to support individuals to feel safe and secure in their homes. Under existing legislation, candidates can prevent their home address from being published on the statement of persons nominated and on ballot papers, but those acting as their own election agents do not have that option. The Bill will remove the remaining requirement for candidates to publish their home address, provided that they supply an alternative correspondence address. We will continue to work with our partners across central and local government and with the Electoral Commission to extend protections. I hope Members across the House will continue to work with us and share their experiences of how the authorities can best protect those who put their name forward.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference that investigated the security of MPs, candidates and wider elections. I put on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State and the Government in the round for the efforts they are making to ensure that, through legislation, regulations and other efforts, we do everything we can to protect our democracy from those who would intimidate candidates and everyone else involved, including officials. It is very important work, and everyone in this House and in our country has a responsibility to do everything they can to protect our democracy.

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to others who were involved with the Speaker’s Conference. They have made a huge contribution to the shape of the Bill and the detail of its final version.

New Towns

John Slinger Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), in particular for her moving comments about community. While obviously community starts with the people, it does need a bit of a boost from the planners and developers from time to time.

Seeing is believing when it comes to delivering the homes that the country urgently needs, and I have seen and been inspired by things in Rugby. Just as we have heard from hon. Members about how the old new towns inform the new new towns, the urban extensions to old old towns such as Rugby can provide some guidance and inspiration. We have a fantastic Housing Minister who is totally committed—as are the Government—to delivering on the 1.5 million houses commitment. That is vital, and will avoid a return to an era in which successive Governments failed to build enough homes for our growing population.

Whether in old or new towns, what our constituents want are first-class links to essential facilities such as GP surgeries, schools, green spaces, libraries and transport. In October 2024, I spoke about what I called the moon landing paradox—about how human beings can land a man on the moon and create artificial intelligence, nuclear power stations and the rest, but seem incapable of providing sufficient homes of sufficient quality at an affordable price for sufficient numbers of our citizens.

A regular refrain in my inbox is concern about Rugby’s expansion as a conurbation, which I appreciate stems from the fear that infrastructure and services have not kept pace with development. Like all MPs, I meet developers to ensure that the appropriate section 106 funding is used to alleviate these problems. In Rugby, we have a place called Houlton, an urban extension, and Urban&Civic is the master developer. In my view, it is a model of some success that deserves close attention because of key ways in which it has sought to overcome the stumbling blocks that often lead to public scepticism or opposition to new housing developments. That is clearly vital as the Government proceed with their plans.

Key to Houlton’s success was early investment in amenities, working with local and national stakeholders, providing confidence and reassurance, and demonstrating the tangible benefits of large-scale developments. For example, the early delivery of a 5 km link road to Rugby immediately mitigated residents’ concerns about congestion that could have occurred. It also enabled the accelerated development of St Gabriel’s primary school ahead of the first residents even moving in, and accelerated the development of Houlton school by seven years. I recently visited the primary school extension to that school.

Let us take that link road and imagine if instead it had been delivered in 2026, when the planning obligation required it. My inbox would quite rightly have been filled to the brim with complaints about lorries, road traffic, road safety and so on. Developers thought carefully about the amenities to put in place, which include a supermarket, cafés, restaurants, the Dollman Farm community hub, great pedestrian routes and more. I am assured that a parkway train station will also arrive, but like trains these days, it may take some time.

To replicate such developments and achieve this Government’s goals, we must be clear-eyed in our focus, maintain our vision and invest significantly—something I know the Government are doing with their £39 billion affordable homes plan, which is a priority for my constituents. What is clearly needed now is a resolute focus by the Government, which I believe they have, on working in partnership with developers and investors, and on making sure that the master developers or corporations have the resources and backing needed to deliver on the promises they make to our communities.

Housing and planning are a terrain littered with broken promises and unintended consequences. We have constructed an edifice of often well-intentioned constraints on Government, which on the surface exist to protect the environment, archaeological sites, local political opinion, wildlife and so on, but which in reality make it harder for developments to be brought forward quickly. Although I did not coin the phrase, I was the first MP to say in the House—it was last January—that we should “build, baby, build.” I stand by that statement. I commend the Government for moving quickly and boldly in reforming our planning system, having an ambitious home building target and insisting—often against the will of some house builders—on affordability and the provision of social housing. What I would like to see is even more of an “action this day” approach, which I am confident Labour Members will support, using every power available to us as a Government to overcome any and all impediments to the delivery of these new towns across the country and to get them started pronto.

I will suggest some ideas to the Minister. For example, we could stipulate five areas across the country where there are large populations of young people and pass legislation to allow modular housing developments. We could ensure that they are of high quality by running a competition globally and nationally for the best architects and engineers in the world to design small modular homes with up to two bedrooms for substantially less than the cheapest site-built home. I spoke about the moon landing paradox, and this could be something of a moonshot: an effort to show those of lower incomes and people starting their careers or families that we have their backs. We could further use the “prisoners building homes” model to innovate, reduce costs and simultaneously reduce reoffending. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on those moonshot-type suggestions.

Bold action is needed—it is essential if we are to truly make a difference for our communities—and that is exactly what we are seeing from the Government. More power to their elbow.

Local Government Finance

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I have answered a number of questions on rural areas, so I refer the hon. Lady to the answers I have already given. I have real confidence in the latest indices of deprivation. The data quality is much better, so we are able to meet the challenge she sets.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the settlement, which puts fairness at the heart of local government funding. I thank the Minister for the increased funding for Warwickshire, which will benefit people across the county and in Rugby. Would she care to comment on the fact that there is not a single Reform UK MP in the Chamber? Does that not indicate that Reform does not take local government seriously?

[Alison McGovern]

It certainly does. Our first duties as Members of Parliament are to listen to our constituents and to be in this House. My hon. Friend always stands up for his constituents, unlike others who are not here.