Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I am pleased to lead the response on behalf of the Opposition, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes more than 30 years of business experience and interest in the property sector.

We support some of the principles, aims and ambitions of the Bill, some of which build on the work we undertook while we were in office—a time that included a record period for house building in this country. We will also highlight our concerns in a number of areas, including whether the Bill goes far enough to achieve its goals; the removal of a councillor’s ability to vote on individual applications; and the potentially toxic mix of disproportionately large increases to housing targets in rural areas, the grey belt “Trojan horse”, including the removal of any protection for villages, the move to strategic plans and of course the ambition to build 1.5 million homes. The Secretary of State is apparently keen on spotting elephants, but she seems to have missed a huge one, in that that target of 1.5 million homes is completely undeliverable.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

In chapter 2, proposed new clause 12H(3) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 mentions the draft spatial development strategy and brings in a raft of changes, including consultation with representative bodies on

“different racial, ethnic or national groups”

but also “different religious groups”. Is there a danger that we are pitting communities one against another? There is a legislative reason to do that, and I wanted to intervene to ask the Secretary of State about it, but can my hon. Friend, with his expertise, shine some light on why we are enshrining that provision into legislation?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is right to spot that requirement, and we will certainly be considering that when we table amendments to the Bill. We believe it is completely inappropriate that certain groups should get preference over other groups in consultations that might occur during the planning process.

The ambition to build 1.5 million homes is all well and good, but the Government have not yet set out exactly how they will do that. There are many questions about its deliverability, certainly in the context of the February S&P Global UK construction purchasing managers’ index, which described one of the biggest monthly falls in house building and construction on record. Indeed, the joint report from Savills, the Home Builders Federation and the National Housing Federation said that the Secretary of State would fall short of her target by 500,000 homes. The Government have not yet set out how many social or affordable homes they will deliver, or what measures they will put in place to help first-time buyers on to the housing ladder, particularly when they have scrapped Help to Buy and the stamp duty discounts, which helped 1 million young people to buy their first home.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that housing targets mean little if the Government do not get a grip on immigration, which is causing massive demand for housing?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. The increase in this country’s population is part of the reason why we have a rising need for housing, as well as for temporary accommodation. That all impacts on the system.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

The hon. Member talked about missed targets, and about affordability. In 2010, the first of 16 housing Ministers under the previous Conservative Government boldly claimed, as did many of his successors, that the Government would improve affordability of housing overall. While they were in power, affordability, as measured by the ratio between median house prices and wages, reduced from 6.85 to 7.7. Can he explain that failure to the House?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge that there were quite a few different housing Ministers during Labour’s previous tenure as well, but he makes an interesting and important point that I am happy to answer. Of course we want to build more houses to tackle affordability problems. I say that in relation to social housing, because during those 14 years, as well as delivering 2.5 million new homes, we delivered 750,000 affordable homes.

[Luke Murphy]

The point I was making was about outcomes. The previous Government committed to improving affordability and abjectly failed to do so. Can the hon. Member explain why?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I said, there is no question but that there are underlying problems in the marketplace. We delivered 1 million homes, which was our target, in the last Parliament, but of course we agree that supply and demand is part of the equation. It is not the only part, so we support the ambition to deliver more homes. We had a similar commitment in our manifesto, and there is a context for that within the overall framework for a higher target.

The Government must reflect on the fact that although the construction sector is an important part of the economy, it represents only around 6% of GDP. Growth in the other 94% has been killed stone dead by the twin human wrecking balls who are the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister. Having inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7, the Chancellor proceeded to trash talk the economy recklessly for six months, before hitting it with £70 billion per annum of tax and borrowing. If that was not bad enough, the Deputy Prime Minister introduced the Employment Rights Bill—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Wonderful. All Labour Members’ union supporters will applaud them for it. It will kill tens if not thousands of businesses, and potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout our country.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

We have already heard comments from Conservative Members about cases where planning permission has been granted, but nothing has been built. Almost every developer I have spoken to during this Parliament has said that that has one cause. It took so long to get planning permission—the Bill is designed to fix that—and while developers sought it, Liz Truss crashed the economy. Consequently, we had an inflation crisis and costs skyrocketed. Before the hon. Gentleman comments on our economic record, will he apologise for his?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is absolute nonsense.

Talking of confidence, according to a monthly survey by the Institute of Directors, business confidence in this country has collapsed since Labour took over. A high of plus 5 in July last year has collapsed to a covid-level low of minus 65. The Deputy Prime Minister’s Government inflicted that on this country.

There is a complete absence of business experience in the Cabinet. Having killed economic growth in most of the productive economy, the Government now resemble a clueless gambler at the end of a disastrous night in the casino—they are staking everything on a last-gasp gamble on the property market.

From 2013 to 2023, we saw the highest sustained level of new home formations in the past 50 years, surpassing even the levels in the 1970s. Since 2010, we have delivered 2.5 million new homes and 750,000 affordable homes.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in stamp duty that has been imposed on people creates a real challenge when it comes to encouraging more people to buy homes? If the Deputy Prime Minister could encourage the Chancellor to reconsider that, so that it is not so expensive to buy a new home, that would be an important reform.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. What have the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor got against first-time buyers? We helped 1 million first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder through Help to Buy and discounts on stamp duty. The Government scrapped both those schemes.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member reflect on the fact that although Help to Buy helped some people to purchase a new home, many others were priced out because of inflationary pressures and the exorbitant bonuses that were paid to the huge house building companies, which benefited the most from the scheme?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not disagree that there were some flaws in the scheme. Nevertheless, around 340,000 people made it on to the housing ladder through that process. They include people in my constituency and probably people in the hon. Member’s constituency.

We recognise the need to go further. That is why we commissioned work by Charles Banner KC on speeding up the planning and delivery of national infrastructure projects, and Nick Winser’s review on accelerating energy infrastructure. We are grateful to them for their work. When we compare their recommendations and others with the Bill, we believe that the Bill’s benefits have been significantly oversold. For example, on the infrastructure consenting process, measures to reduce decision times are welcome, but consideration should be given to removing specific critical projects, such as airports, reservoirs, nuclear power stations and national transport schemes from the judicial review process altogether. The nature restoration levy and environmental delivery plans to be delivered by Natural England could be welcome if they allow developers successfully to discharge the requirements of the habitats regulations, but there are key questions. What incentives are there for Natural England to set levies that are proportionate to the impact on the environment? Will they just become another tax and another deterrent to building?

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

The work done by the Conservative party on the NPPF was welcome, particularly in respect of its views on incorporating nature into the structure of the build, but it was unsuccessful. The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister talk about a win-win for nature, so can he give the House an assurance that the Conservatives will back the implementation of measures such as swift bricks? Swifts are cavity-nesting birds that have no other place in this country and are declining at a great rate. Will he back the incorporation of those as a mandatory requirement in new builds?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I can guarantee that we will support measures that we think will be successful. The hon. Gentleman brings up some of the work we tried to do in the previous Parliament, some of which was successful. Other things were unsuccessful, including our solution on nutrient neutrality, which was blocked by his party by about 100 votes in the House of Lords. The impact of that particular measure is considered negligible. We want to ensure that where any levies are put in place by Natural England, if the impacts are considered negligible, they are also negligible for developers.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree that more could be done to protect irreplaceable chalk stream habitats, particularly in the south of England? Does he also agree that one thing we could do is designate those chalk stream habitats to be irreplaceable and ensure that the Government specify clearly what permissions might be available there?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We could talk with the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) about making such amendments to the legislation as it passes through Committee.

I have other questions. Is Natural England sufficiently resourced to carry out its work? How long will it be before these plans are in place? Have the Government taken into account the inevitable delays due to judicial reviews of the environmental delivery plans? Is it not the case that the habitats regulations remain in place beneath this new system, so if a development does not show the overall improvement test for each identified environmental feature, as referenced in clause 55, the system will not apply and the developer will still need to build those bat tunnels and fish discos? Indeed, Sam Richards of Britain Remade states that it might set the bar even higher by requiring a net gain for that species. If an EDP covers one element of environmental impact but not others, the developer might have to pay into the levy and build the bat tunnel.

Have the Government also considered changes to section 20 of the Environment Act 2021, which this legislation is subject to? I am interested to hear the Minister’s reflections. Overall, we believe that it will take at least two to three years from Royal Assent for these EDPs to have meaningful effect. I am very happy to seek assurances from the Minister if that is not the case.

There are also understandable concerns about whether the route chosen will even deliver on its objective to protect the environment. The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management has stated that the Government’s approach means that our natural capital assets will be destroyed immediately, and it could take decades for any improvement.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, nature can be effectively compensated for only in certain circumstances, but landscape can never be replaced: once it is gone, it is gone. Does he think there should be scope in this Bill to recognise the special status of protected landscapes—what are now called national landscapes or national parks—to ensure that development in those areas is appropriate and does not permanently damage our precious landscape for future generations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. Constituencies such as his and mine that include those protected landscapes do not seem to have that considered or catered for in the housing targets, particularly the new ones that we have before us. Again, I am very keen to discuss with the Minister how we might address that.

On planning, we are very concerned about the national scheme of delegation, which will remove councillors’ right to vote on individual planning applications. If the Secretary of State does not believe that that is the case, I suggest that she reads clause 46 of her own legislation. This is particularly extraordinary considering that when Labour was in opposition, the former shadow Housing Minister said in a debate in this House on 21 June 2021 that the previous Government should

“protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 620.]

Clearly, the current Housing Minister is not doing that— he is doing the exact opposite through these rules—and he should be clear with the public about that, because sooner or later, that fact will hit home.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

indicated dissent.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very happy to have a debate with the Housing Minister—he is welcome to intervene on me. I suggest that he reads clause 46 as well. Of course, it is also a fact that 14 Cabinet Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary, all campaigned to block housing developments in their own constituencies. What hypocrisy!

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I have often found that the right of a councillor to insist that a matter goes to the planning committee, rather than be determined by officers, actually leads to the application going through where pettifogging officers would have refused it.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is right to say that the vast majority of applications are consented to by planning committees. Removing councillors’ right to vote on them is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and Labour must be honest with the public that that is exactly what is happening.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

That raises a broader point. At the moment, councils in parts of the country such as my constituency are being abolished by this Government, so there will be no democratic accountability down the line, and there will be no democratic accountability at council level through planning committees, either. They are removing layer after layer of protection for local communities such as mine, with huge amounts of green-belt land suddenly redesignated as grey-belt land, despite recently being high-grade agricultural land. Can my hon. Friend understand the concerns in communities such as mine about what these proposals are doing? They want to see more housing, but not at the expense of London seeing a housing target—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am concerned about the points that my right hon. Friend has raised. The Government talk about abolishing a layer of government, but they are actually introducing a new layer of government: the strategic authorities, which will have the ability to push housing from urban areas into rural areas such as my right hon. Friend’s and those represented by other Members in this House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will give way a final time, and then I will make some progress, if I can.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

On the environment, national parks are rightly protected, so when the Government impose housing targets on east Hampshire, all of that housing will have to go in the bits that are not part of the South Downs national park, increasing the housing pressures on what is essentially green-belt land but is not in the park. Would it not be better for this to be taken in its totality, and for the national park to be excluded from the figures?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree that, in order to be fair to areas that include protected landscapes and national parks, that should be a consideration.

The removal of powers from councillors will only become apparent to many residents when they see a green notice on a nearby telegraph pole and contact their local councillor to express their concern, only to be told, “I’m sorry, but I no longer have the power to ask for the application to be considered and voted on by the planning committee.” The Local Government Association itself strongly opposes these changes, saying that

“The democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system, and this should not be diminished.”

We also have concerns that the imposition of strategic planning will be used as a vehicle to force rural authorities to absorb urban housing need. This is of particular concern in many rural areas, given the disproportionately high increases in targets for rural locations. The Secretary of State has increased the national target for house building by 50%, so the average rural resident might expect that their local housing target has increased by a similar amount, but that is not the case. According to the House of Commons Library, the targets for major urban conurbations are up by 17% on average, while the targets in mainly rural areas have increased by 115%. For example, London’s target is down by 12%, Newcastle’s is down by 15%, Birmingham’s is down by 38% and Coventry’s is down by 55%, while Wyre Forest and New Forest’s targets are up by 100% and Westmorland’s is up by almost 500%.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Leicestershire is a prime example of where these things are happening. The target for Leicester city—where the infrastructure and plenty of brownfield sites are—is reducing by 31%, yet places such as Hinckley and Bosworth and North West Leicestershire are going up by 59% and 75% respectively. That sticks in the throats of people who want to see houses, when such areas are suffering. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is simply not right?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is totally unfair. In my view, it is cynical gerrymandering.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

On the exact same point, in Walsall our housing target is going up by a staggering 27%, while Birmingham is going down. With all the trash in Birmingham—thanks to the Labour council—perhaps people do not want to live there, but does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just the rural communities that have been affected, but those that are peripheral to the cities?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend is right to express her concerns. What everyone wants to see is fairness. We would expect everybody to carry a fair share of the extra housing, but that is not what is happening. [Interruption.] Labour Members should go and have a word with the House of Commons Library if they do not agree. They can check the numbers out.

The fact that housing delivery provided by new towns will not contribute to the targets will shock many councillors and local residents alike. Neighbourhood plans do not have to be consistent with the NPPF; they merely have to “have regard to” it. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether that will be changed? There is nothing in Labour’s plans about adequately resourcing or having process reforms of the Planning Inspectorate, which is clearly a key part of the system. Why has she scrapped all the work we did on design codes to move away from identikit housing towards building more beautifully?

We welcome the greater emphasis on local plans, but we would like to see more ambitious requirements for sites to be made available for small builders and for self-build. Currently, it is a 10% requirement on local authorities, but we would like to see a 20% allocation, as requested by the Federation of Master Builders. We would also like to see Homes England’s remit extended to include micro-builders.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

Does the shadow Minister recognise that, under the previous Government, communities were hindered in being able to shape proposed development by only a third of local authorities having up-to-date local plans?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with that, and I made the same point from the Back Benches on many occasions, including about Labour-run York, which has just put a local plan in place for the first time since 1956.

There are understandable concerns that compulsory purchase orders are an extension of the Government’s attacks on farmers. Tim Bonner of the Countryside Alliance said that

“giving councils more power to reduce the value of land is a step too far, especially in the context of…the inheritance tax fiasco.”

The Deputy Prime Minister and her colleagues should heed the words of National Farmers Union vice-president Rachel Hallos, who said:

“This Bill comes at a time when the UK farming industry is under immense financial pressure due to the loss of direct payments, extreme weather and the impacts of the family farm tax. So, farmers and landowners must be fully consulted every step of the way.”

Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether that will be the case?

The grey belt, which was sold to the public as a few abandoned garage forecourts, has now been exposed as the Trojan horse we predicted it would be. Although not directly part of this Bill, it clearly interacts directly with it. It has been described as a death knell for the green belt due to the removal of parts of the definitions and protections of villages. Villages can now merge together or into nearby towns.

To conclude, we will not oppose the passage of the Bill this evening, but we will seek to amend it in ways that do not undermine the ambition to accelerate the delivery of new homes while ensuring that there are checks and balances that protect communities, rural areas, farmers and the environment and that deliver well-designed, affordable homes for everyone, not least those on lower incomes and first-time buyers.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is not the case, and there has been a huge amount of scaremongering when it comes to the provisions in the Bill that relate to planning committees. I will deal with that particular point in due course.

Among hon. Members who do support the main principles of the Bill, there were of course understandable differences of opinion. Some expressed their unequivocal support for each and every one of its provisions, others conveyed their broad support while arguing for specific changes to be made or further measures to be added, but all were in agreement that this legislation must progress if we are to streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, as the House as a whole ostensibly asserts that we must. Therein lies the crux of the issue and the reason, I must say candidly, for the cant at the heart of some of the speeches that we have heard.

We can all profess in principle our support for the ends—doing so is, after all, risk free—but what matters is whether we are prepared in practice to also will the means. When it came to housing and infrastructure, the previous Government were not willing to do so, hence the dissonance in their final years between their stated commitment to building more homes and their decision in practice to recklessly abolish mandatory housing targets and thereby torpedo housing supply in a forlorn attempt to appease a disgruntled group of their anti-housing Back Benchers. Thankfully, this Labour Government are prepared to do what it takes to deliver the homes and the infrastructure our country needs. The Bill is transformative. It will fundamentally change how we build things in this country. In so doing, it will help us to tackle the housing crisis, raise living standards in every part of the country and deliver on our plan for change.

During the five hours we have debated the Bill, an extremely wide range of issues has been raised. I have heard all of them and I will seek to respond to as many in the time available to me, but I will not be able to cover all of them. I will therefore deal with the main themes and issues that have been raised in the course of the debate. I will begin, if I may, with the various points made in relation to nationally significant infrastructure.

Members made a variety of points covering issues such as national policy statements and judicial review, but most of the contributions focused in on the changes the Bill will make to consultation requirements for nationally significant infrastructure projects. As the House will be aware, the NSIP planning regime was established through the Planning Act 2008 to provide more certainty on the need for nationally significant projects. In its early years, the system worked well. However, its performance has sharply deteriorated in recent years, at a time when the need for it has increased dramatically.

In 2021, it took, on average, 4.2 years for a project to secure development consent, compared with 2.6 years in 2012. The documentation, as has been referred to by a number of hon. Members, underpinning consents has been getting longer and in too many instances now runs to tens of thousands of pages. Alongside an increase in legal challenges, uncertainty about meeting statutory requirements has led to greater risk aversion and gold plating throughout the whole process. The costs of delays obviously increase the costs of projects, and those costs are ultimately passed on to taxpayers for public infrastructure and bill payers or customers for private infrastructure.

The measures in the Bill will provide for a faster and more certain consenting process, stripping away unnecessary consultation requirements that do nothing to improve applications or meaningfully engage communities. They will, to use the phrase used by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), ensure that the NSIP regime is firing on all cylinders. I want to make it clear that the measures in the Bill are not the limit of our ambitions on streamlining the NSIP regime. In particular, I noted the calls from several hon. Members to consider addressing the significant elongation of pre-application periods resulting from the way in which statutory procedures are now being applied. This is an issue to which the Deputy Prime Minister and I have already given a significant amount of thought, and I commit to giving further consideration to the case for using the Bill to address statutory requirements that would appear to be no longer driving good outcomes. I can assure those hon. Members that the Government will not hesitate to act boldly if there is a compelling case for reform in this area.

Many hon. Members touched on the nature restoration fund. We are fully committed to making sure development contributes to nature’s recovery, delivering a win-win for nature and the economy. We will be taking three steps to deliver on our new approach. First, responsibility for identifying actions to address environmental impacts will be moved away from multiple project-specific assessments in an area to a single strategic assessment and delivery plan. Secondly, more responsibility for planning and implementing strategic actions will be moved on to the state, delivered through organisations with the right expertise and the necessary flexibility to take actions that most effectively deliver positive outcomes for nature. Thirdly, we will allow impacts to be dealt with strategically in exchange for a financial payment, so development can proceed more quickly. Project-level assessments are then limited only to those harms not dealt with strategically.

To those hon. Members who raised concerns that the provisions will have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection of existing environmental law, I assure them that that is not the case, something attested to by the section 20 statement on the face of the Bill in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister. Our reforms are built around delivering overall positive outcomes for protected sites and species, and are the result of significant engagement across the development sector, environmental groups and nature service providers. That is why, at the Bill’s introduction, we saw a range of voices welcoming the new approach it brings to unlocking a win-win for development and nature.

The shadow Secretary of State raised concerns about how quickly we will be able to implement environmental delivery plans. We are confident we can get EDPs in place fast. That is why we have been clear that we want to see the first EDPs prepared alongside the Bill and operational for developers to use shortly after Royal Assent. We are also looking for opportunities to provide up-front funding so that we can kick off action in advance of need, with costs recovered as development comes forward, which will allow us to get shovels in the ground and unlock homes and infrastructure more quickly.

Lastly, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) raised concerns about the CPO powers given to Natural England. If we are going to be successful in delivering a win-win for nature and the economy through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, it is vital that Natural England has sufficient powers to deliver the conservation measures required. Compulsory purchase is just one tool, and we would expect Natural England to consider using such powers as a last resort, subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight, including ultimate authorisation by the Secretary of State.

More broadly, the nature restoration fund will provide opportunities for landowners to work with Natural England to drive nature recovery, improving our green spaces for generations to come. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a radical change. Many public bodies with statutory powers have compulsory purchase powers, including local authorities and—as he of all people should be aware—health service bodies, as well as some executive agencies, such as Homes England.

I want to touch on planning committees before concluding. Several hon. Members raised concerns over our plan to modernise them; indeed, some suggested that our reforms are tantamount to removing democratic control from local people. That is simply not the case. The shadow Secretary of State asserted that residents would lose the opportunity to object to a planning application, which is incorrect. People will still be able to object to individual applications in the way they can now.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

How is what the Minister is saying consistent with what he said on the Floor of the House on 9 December, when he said:

“the changes are designed to… focus the time of elected councillors on the most significant or controversial applications”—[Official Report, 9 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 673.]—

which he is going to dictate? Will he, at the very least, publish his draft regulations on what he intends through clause 46 alongside the passage of the Bill?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will address that specific point in due course. The proposals are entirely consistent; we do want to make changes to where planning committees can determine decisions, but local residents will be able to object to applications in every instance, as they can now.

Planning is principally a local activity, and this Government have made clear at every available opportunity that the plan-led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of the planning system. Local plans are the best ways for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need.

Plan for Neighbourhoods

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to the Opposition spokesperson for those questions. He is right to say that this plan builds on the previous long-term plan for towns commitment, which is why we thought it prudent to retain the same recipient areas. That promise has been made, and it should be kept. However, when I entered the Department on my first day in government, and talked to civil servants, it was astonishing to find out that the programme—a £1.5 billion commitment made by the previous Government—was unfunded. It was funded through a reserve that had been spent three times over. That is simply no way to run a country. I am very pleased that we have been able to keep that commitment to those communities, because goodness knows there would have been disappointment had we not.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the plan’s place in the wider environment. Of course, we committed to the transition year of shared prosperity funding in the Budget. We are now in a spending review period, and as I said in my statement, we are committed to getting communities the tools and resources that they need in order to shape place.

To respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions on accountability, of course local councillors are still involved. We are talking about changes to broaden neighbourhood boards. We want local councillors to be involved; we would like local Members of Parliament to be involved; and in the areas where they exist, we would like devolved representatives to be involved. However, we think that the voices of people who work in the communities are also valuable, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not.

The hon. Gentleman talked about a lack of clear purpose. I think this is where we are in different spaces, because I believe in freedom to make decisions locally. I believe that expertise is held locally; the wisdom about communities across this country is held by the local community, rather than the Minister. That might perhaps be revelatory for a Minister to say. I believe that changing a community—whether through what we call local growth, levelling up, or any of the other things that it has been called over the past 60 years—is an inside job, best done by local communities, and that my role as Minister and our role as Government is to get communities the tools and resources that they need. We differ on that point.

Even the previous Government moved away from their affection for the bidding process by the end of the last Parliament. They understood that it did not work—that a debilitating beauty parade that pits communities against each other was not a very good way of getting money to those communities. However, another point of difference is that I believe in a longer-term allocative settlement that is more flexible and guided by people locally, whereas the Opposition believe in shorter-term bidding and central prescription.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Value for money.

[Alex Norris]

I believe that the best value for money is when communities have the tools and resources to shape place themselves, according to their criteria, rather than mine. That is how we drive change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The Minister mentions local government reorganisation. On 5 February, the Deputy Prime Minister stated:

“We are postponing elections for one year, from May 2025 to May 2026”—[Official Report, 5 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 767.]

but on 17 February, the Minister, in a written parliamentary question, said that

“new unitary…government will be established or go-live in 2027”

or 2028. Will the Minister confirm that these elections are not being postponed, and that they are, in fact, being cancelled for up to three years, meaning that councillors will serve terms of up to seven years? Will he also confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister may have unintentionally misled the House, and will he correct the record?

[Jim McMahon]

I can start by confirming that the Deputy Prime Minister did not mislead the House. The Opposition would do well not to muddy the waters. They know better than anybody what local government reorganisation means. Over the past few years, when they were in government, they postponed 17 sets of elections to allow reorganisation to take place. Although elections are being postponed in nine councils, 24 sets of elections will still take place this year. Let us not allow this to be whipped up into something that it is not.

We absolutely want to move at pace on reorganisation. We want to see proposals developed and presented early—the sooner the better—so that we can move to those shadow authorities, and so that local people can elect the new bodies that will deliver public services in their area and be accountable to them. To be clear, nobody will benefit—not the leaders of Conservative councils who have asked for postponement, nor members of the public—if we make the matter more confused than it needs to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Help to Buy helped 350,000 young first-time buyers and the stamp duty discount helped 640,000 first-time buyers get on the housing ladder with discounts of up to £11,000. Both are now scrapped. Is the Secretary of State pulling up the housing ladder behind her?

[Angela Rayner]

It is staggering that the shadow Secretary of State says that, given that so many people now cannot get housing because his Government failed to meet their housing targets. We will have a mortgage guarantee scheme and we will build 1.5 million homes so that young people and other people can get the houses that they deserve.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I will try again. The Government’s manifesto promised to preserve the green belt. Then grey belt came along, which was supposed to be a few garage forecourts. Now it turns out that grey belt will mean 640 square miles of green belt—the size of Surrey—are to be built on. Is this simply another broken promise?

[Angela Rayner]

I will also try again. Under the Tories, the number of homes approved on greenfield land increased nearly tenfold since 2009. Labour will be strategic in grey belt release, and we will have a brownfield-first policy.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

May I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement and the Government’s response to the phase 2 report?

I echo the Deputy Prime Minister’s sentiments, which are shared across the House. The tragedy of Grenfell, which claimed 72 innocent lives—54 adults and 18 children—will always remain a scar on our national conscience. I thank Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his team for their work. I join the Deputy Prime Minister in offering my deepest apologies to the bereaved, the survivors and the Grenfell community for the failures that led to that horrific night in June 2017—we all remember where we were that night. I also thank them for their constant and constructive campaigning.

The inquiry’s findings—decades of systemic failure, dishonesty and negligence—are a damning indictment of successive Governments, regulators and industry. The Government’s response, with its acceptance of all 58 recommendations, is a step forward, and I welcome the commitment to action. The creation of a single construction regulator, the appointment of a chief construction adviser and the consolidation of fire safety functions under one Department are long overdue reforms. So too is the focus on professionalising fire engineers and reforming the construction products sector, which the inquiry exposed as riddled with systemic dishonesty from firms such as Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex.

The Green Paper on construction products reform is a promising start, but it must deliver real accountability. Unlimited fines and prison sentences for rogue executives and, where appropriate, Government officials, cannot remain mere rhetoric. Ambition must be matched by urgency and scrutiny. Nearly eight years have passed since Grenfell, yet thousands still live in buildings with unsafe cladding and other fire safety defects. Although I welcome the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has accepted the majority of the recommendations, why has she not accepted the inquiry’s recommendation for a single regulator to oversee the testing and certification of construction products, leaving that instead with conformity assessment bodies? I remind her that the Building Research Establishment, which is itself a conformity assessment body, was strongly criticised for its conflicts of interest.

The remediation acceleration plan is welcome, but its targets of assessing all buildings by July 2025 and completing works by 2027 relies heavily on developers stepping up voluntarily. What actions will the Deputy Prime Minister take if they do not comply? Will she work to deliver solutions for non-qualifying leaseholders and those at risk as a consequence of other fire safety defects? This House needs concrete assurances that no resident will be left behind. I question the phased approach to implementation stretching beyond 2028. Justice delayed is justice denied. The Grenfell community has waited long enough for change. Why must they potentially wait another parliamentary term for full delivery?

What discussions has the Leader of the House had with parliamentary colleagues on the establishment of a public inquiries Joint Committee to monitor the implementation of public inquiry recommendations? What is the timetable for the new publicly available record on all public inquiry recommendations since 2024? On social housing, the extension of Awaab’s law and new standards are positive, but the Government must go further to address the inquiry’s wider lesson. Residents’ voices were ignored. Tenant empowerment must be more than a panel or a campaign; it needs legal teeth to ensure landlords act on concerns swiftly.

Justice demands accountability. The Metropolitan police investigation has our full support, but the pace must quicken. Those who profited from cutting comers or were criminally negligent must face consequences—not just fines but criminal charges where evidence allows. Grenfell must be a watershed—a legacy of safety, transparency and respect for every resident. I make our clear commitment to work with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government, on a cross-party basis, to meet that promise.

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his comments and the way in which he makes them. I hope genuinely that we can work together to continue this piece of work. I recognised in my statement the work of the previous Government, through the Building Safety Act and other measures, and we will continue to work in that vein.

I hope that the shadow Secretary of State recognises some of the work that we are already doing. We have brought forward a significant amount of legislation on social tenancy, on empowering tenants through the Renters’ Rights Bill, on protecting leaseholders, and on our remediation acceleration plan. The Government will deliver those legislative changes as soon as parliamentary time allows. The legislation commitments are detailed in the plan. That includes creating certainty on buildings that need remediation and on who is responsible for remediating them; making obligations for assessing and completing regulation remediation clearer, with severe consequences for non-compliance; and giving residents greater control in situations of acute harm where landlords have neglected their responsibilities.

The shadow Secretary of State asks about a single construction regulator. We accepted that recommendation in principle, but the single regulator will deliver the functions recommended by the inquiry, with two exceptions to avoid conflicts of interest: setting the rules for construction products and policing its own compliance. We will consult on the design of the regulator in the autumn.

English Devolution and Local Government

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for giving me advance sight of it.

Although we support the principle of devolving power to local areas, we are totally against the Secretary of State’s plans to abolish every county council and district council in England, and we are against the unprecedented mass postponement of local elections for at least one year. Today is a very worrying day for democracy in this country.

The Secretary of State is making local government less accountable to the people and more accountable to her. Contrary to her statement, she is not doing away with a two-tier system; she is simply creating a new tier of Orwellian-sounding strategic authorities that are closer to her and closer to Whitehall, for her to use as a pawn to implement this Government’s deeply unpopular socialist agenda.

The reality is that this is delegation, not devolution—not devolution but a clear centralisation. As Dr Andy Mycock of Leeds University set out in his recent paper on the Secretary of State’s plans, there are clear concerns about the potential

“power drain of back-bench local councillors if local government is seen increasingly as a delivery agent.”

Let us be clear that this announcement is a huge upheaval of local government right across the country. This was not a Government manifesto commitment, and the Secretary of State has no mandate for it. These are her choices, and she has put a gun to the head of local councils to force them into a decision with little regard for local people. This is not the invitation she claims in her statement; it is an instruction. No council should be bullied or blackmailed into local government restructuring.

Local government should be local to residents and respect local identities. We have a proud record of supporting devolution and, rather than this top-down approach, we have worked with local people to deliver devolution from the ground up. The Government have tried to claim that they are taking a bottom-up approach—indeed, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution said exactly that on the Floor of the House on 20 January—yet the Secretary of State admits in her statement that

“all two-tier areas should be making plans to move to simpler structures”.

Imposing Whitehall diktat on local people, rather than the locally led approach we followed, is prone to problems, especially when rushed.

How exactly will this restructuring put more money into people’s pockets, as the Secretary of State claims? What evidence does she have that it will mean lower bills for taxpayers? How is this consistent with the Prime Minister’s claim in March 2023 that council tax would not increase by a “single penny” under a Labour Government?

Does the Secretary of State accept that she has no electoral mandate for this huge upheaval? Does she also accept that these changes, which will mean that every single council employee in two-tier areas has to reapply for their job, will have an impact on local services, including planning delays? How will this impact on her plans to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament—a 50% increase on the 50-year record levels delivered by the previous Government?

Councils in areas of the country included in this announcement are carrying very high levels of debt—Woking and Thurrock, to name but two. What support will the Secretary of State give to authorities facing eye-watering levels of debt, and will this debt be written off? What is she doing to ensure that, as a result of today’s announcement, authorities do not embark on reckless asset disposal programmes and spending sprees? Can she confirm that elections will be delayed for a maximum of a year, or is it the case, as we have heard, that elections could be delayed by up to three years?

[Angela Rayner]

I have been very clear that Labour is embarking on a once-in-a-generation project to unlock growth in our regions, and to shift power out of Westminster and into local communities. From the shadow Secretary of State’s response, I cannot quite figure out whether the Conservatives agree or disagree with it.

First, this project will unlock billions of pounds to spend on frontline services, which is why councils have come forward and want to work with us to ensure that we deliver. It will be for local areas to decide whether they apply to the priority programme and respond to the statutory invitation to all two-tier areas. We have made no bones about the fact that we want to see reorganisation so that money and funding go into the public services that need it most.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman talks about money. We have put £69 billion into local authorities, which is a 6.8% real-terms increase. In contrast, there were 23% cuts in the last decade under the Conservatives. He talks about council debt, but it was his Government who pushed councils to the brink. He talks about the impact on local services, and we are working with councils to inject the money and resources they need so that they can deliver for local people. It was his Government who brought them to the brink.

I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about housing targets, because his Government failed to meet their housing targets every single year, leaving us with a housing crisis. He should be apologising for his Government’s record on housing.

We are proud of the work we are doing on devolution. We are proud that we are working with councils. We are proud that we are bigging up the work of our local authorities and, unlike the Conservatives, we will continue to support them.

Local Government Finance

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

May I first put on record my admiration for the fine work of councils, councillors and officers right across the country? That work is often carried out at the most challenging times against a backdrop of real financial pressures on those local authorities, not least the rising demand for adult social care, special educational needs, temporary accommodation and others. I do not think there was ever a time when we appreciated councils more than during the covid crisis—as well as during the cost of living crisis—when we saw the fine work they did and how important it is to have those councils and councillors helping local people.

I welcome the extra money provided in the spending review—a 6.8% increase in core spending power. I welcome the approach that the Minister intends to take with the multi-year settlement. That is a sensible way forward. I also put on record my respect and admiration for the Minister. He always takes a considered and responsible approach and has huge knowledge of the sector. I promise him that we will work across parties wherever we can on the things we agree on to try and make it easier for local councils to do the fine work that they do.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister is generous in giving way. He quite correctly praises councillors. Does he think, as we move forward with the changes, that it would not be a bad idea to start thinking about how we compensate councillors for their efforts? Many of them give up so many hours of their week and do vital work for very little by way of recompense. Does he agree that we should look at that?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I can only reiterate what the hon. Gentleman has said and what I said earlier: they do fine work and most do not do it for money but because they have the interests of their local communities at heart. That should always be the case, and those are the kind of councillors that we want. Where people have expenses to do their jobs, that needs to be properly compensated for.

Will the Minister accept that the majority of the extra money provided through the settlement is raised through council tax increases, which are effectively taxes on local taxpayers—that is, working people? As he is sensible and considered, does he regret the fact that the Prime Minister stood on a stage in Swindon on 30 March 2023 with the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, stating that he would freeze council tax for the first year they were in Government? That has not been the case. The Prime Minister quite clearly promised

“a tax cut for the 99 per cent of working people who are facing a rise in their council tax”.

His words were also that there would be

“not one penny on your council tax”.

We said then that those promises were not worth the paper they were written on. How right we were.

Under Labour, typical council tax bills are to rise by 5% in April 2025, in another increased tax on working people. That means that the average household faces an above-inflation increase of around £100 in their council tax bills in that year. All that will do in many cases is fill the black hole in council finances that Labour is creating due to an increase in national insurance contributions. Furthermore, it is quite clear that Labour is deliberately funding largely Labour-led urban areas at the expense of rural areas.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is one of the more reasonable of his party’s Front Benchers—not that he needs my praise.

Between 2010 and 2024, Stoke-on-Trent city council had a cumulative loss of £411 million. In cash terms, if the budget had been frozen and there had been no increases, we would have had that much more in spend. Does the shadow Minister accept that the damage that his party did in local government cannot simply be fixed in one settlement after seven months of a Labour Government?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have spoken before about the financial pressures all councils are under. That is principally due to rising demand on services; that is the reality. Eighty per cent of discretionary spend is on the three areas I referred to earlier. There is no doubt that there are challenging circumstances. Nevertheless, the vast majority of money raised through the settlement is through council tax, and much of the money raised for core spending power will go on national insurance rises. There are direct costs, but there are also indirect costs that are not covered. Many councils will be worse off as a result.

[Jim McMahon]

Just to be clear, even rural councils will receive a near 6% increase in their core spending power. It is correct that £600 million through the recovery grant is targeted at deprived communities, but we have followed an assessment of need right through the system, including that of rural authorities. The hon. Member must welcome that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will come on to that, but we do have a different perspective. The point that I am making principally right now is that there are rising costs on councils, both in direct costs through national insurance and through indirect costs, which are not fully covered by this settlement, and I think the Minister accepted that fact earlier in his remarks.

The reality is that rural areas will face higher council tax increases to make up for reduced central funding, despite the cost increases of providing services in rural areas. To give the House an easy example of this, my local authority, North Yorkshire council, spends more on school transport than it does on the whole of children’s social care. That is the cost of delivering services in rural areas. Despite that, the Labour Government have chosen to scrap the rural services delivery grant. They have said that they are repurposing it, but it is now clear that this has not been repurposed to support rural areas in the way that the delivery grant used to do, despite the higher cost of service delivery in those areas.

The chairman of the County Councils Network, Tim Oliver, has warned that rural areas will lose hundreds of millions of pounds due to Labour prioritising urban areas over rural ones in the way that it distributes funds. The Government are moving distribution away from a needs-based formula to one based on deprivation. He has warned that Labour’s funding formula will mean that rural councils would lose an estimated £190 million in a single year. He has also stated that, when taking into account the moneys needed to cover the costs of the national insurance increases, this is the worst settlement for county councils in four years.

[Mr Betts]

Can the shadow Secretary of State just explain his comments? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) that the hon. Gentleman one of the more reasonable Members on the Conservative Benches. He said that the Government are switching money away from a needs-based formula to one based on deprivation. Is not deprivation very clear evidence of needs in the community? What is the difference?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Of course there are some needs around deprivation, but that is not the entirety. The major cost drivers for local authorities are the things that I outlined earlier: adult social care, special educational needs and temporary accommodation. There may be some crossover, but the reality is that simply basing that on deprivation will not work for all authorities; some will be worse off as a result of moving from need to deprivation.

[Natasha Irons]

I had hoped that we could move away from this pitting area against area. I can assure the shadow Secretary of State that I am from an urban area with high deprivation, but with very high transport costs for children to get to special educational needs placements, and also massive temporary accommodation costs. Perhaps we need to move towards a better model that takes in all the issues we face in all of our areas. In that way, we are not fighting each other, but working together to get better local councils across the country.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not want to be party political, but it is not us who are changing the formula. The reality is that this Labour Government are robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is a zero-sum game. If they move the formula around, some councils will be worse off and some will be better off. I want everybody to be treated fairly, but this is a very difficult situation against the current spending round.

The Labour Government’s approach is particularly worrying given their intention to move to a new fairer funding formula. “Fairer to whom?” we might ask, given the point we have just made. Labour’s broken promises on this are clear and follow similar promises broken on the fully costed and fully funded manifesto: the family farm tax, the family business tax, the winter fuel allowance, the rise in employer national insurance contributions and, of course, that statement about “not one penny more on your council tax,”

[Andy McDonald]

We were doing so well. We were talking about fairness across the board and not pitting one against the other—so far, so good. But given the shadow Minister’s comment, may I just remind him of the words of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), in the garden in Tunbridge Wells, where, when talking about his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he mentioned having transferred funds deliberately away from deprived and challenged areas to more affluent ones? Surely we have to call out the record correctly, and if we want a fresh start, let us have a fresh start.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was talking about fairness, which we all believe in. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) will have a different perspective on fairness from other people. The reality is that there is a political division here. One thing that we must agree on is that the statutory duties on councils should be properly funded. My concern is that that will not be the case, and lots of those pressures fall differently on rural councils compared with urban councils.

[Gareth Snell]

Under the formula that has been proposed and on which we will vote this evening, Stoke-on-Trent city council will receive a recovery grant of £8.2 million. I hope that the shadow Minister is not saying that, were the Conservative party still in Government, we would not receive that additional cash, and would therefore be £8.2 million worse off.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is interesting, because the loss of the rural service delivery grant cost my local authority £14 million, so it depends where we draw the line and what the priorities are. The change in the rural services delivery grant is robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is the reality.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

My residents in North Durham are in a local authority area, County Durham, that is rural and deprived. I assure the shadow Minister that the previous version of the formulas was not designed to help that kind of rural authority. It may have helped wealthy rural authorities, but it did not help areas that suffered from both the difficulty of providing services in a rural area and the extreme need caused by deprivation.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We all have different views on this matter. Many parts of my constituency are not wealthy and have deprivation that is not sufficiently catered for by some of the formulas. That is what we are concerned about. We are keen to see fairness across the board, so we will scrutinise Labour’s plans very carefully on that basis.

The Labour Budget promised a big increase in council spending and the return of the sector to sustainability through a comprehensive set of measures to support local authorities in England. As I said, the Government also promised multi-year settlements, and we support those intentions. However, most of the money provided to local councils under the settlement will be through council tax rises for working people. A number of the rises breach the 5% referendum limit principle. Referendums on council tax rises of up to 9.9% have been waived by the Secretary of State, so local people cannot have a say on these dramatic increases. That means that local residents in the Windsor and Maidenhead borough, Birmingham, Bradford and Newham all face increases of more than 5%. Birmingham is notable due to the mess that Labour made there, which Labour is now forcing residents to pay for, rather than taking responsibility. The Liberal Democrats are also raising council tax without allowing Windsor and Maidenhead borough and Somerset residents a say on how they feel about the increases.

Council tax rises make up the bulk of the settlement, and rather than Labour delivering on its claims that it would fairly fund local government, it is pushing the burden on to taxpayers. The Government have also increased that burden with their jobs tax, which will negatively increase costs on local government finance. Although they have provided £515 million to cover the direct costs of employer’s NI, the Local Government Association has estimated that the national insurance contribution hike will cost another £1.13 billion for increases being forced upon providers of outsourced services.

The costs of those outsourced services will inevitably increase, but the Government are providing no money to cover that. Councils and residents will have to pick up the bill. Council tax receipts in 2025-26 are forecast to be in the order of £50 billion, yet Labour’s nonsensical Chagos islands deal is rumoured to cost up to £18 billion. That is equivalent to a one-off £820 deduction from a typical council tax bill. Alternatively, it could have paid for a council tax freeze for the whole of this Parliament. As with all things, Labour is wasting taxpayers’ money rather than giving them a tax cut.

The settlement will make it more difficult for councils to deliver on residents’ priorities, be they social care or potholes, which I note Conservative councils have a better record of filling in. It is an undeniable fact that Labour and the Liberal Democrats deliver worse services and charge more. From Whitehall to town hall, under Labour, people pay more and get less.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

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

Holocaust Memorial Day

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is my privilege and solemn duty to open this debate on behalf of the Opposition. I thank the Minister for his very thoughtful remarks.

The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day, “For a better future”, encourages us to reflect on the lessons of history and on the steps we must take to ensure that such atrocities never happen again. This Holocaust Memorial Day also marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, a place where more than 1 million Jewish people lost their lives—part of the 1.1 million victims who also included the disabled, members of the gay community and political opponents of the Nazi regime.

We should always strive to stamp out the evil that is antisemitism. It has no place in our society, or any society. Earlier this month, like others, I was honoured to sign the Holocaust Educational Trust’s book of commitment, and today I am honoured to speak in this important debate. I pay tribute to the trust for its outstanding work in keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive through educational outreach and keeping the Holocaust in our curriculum for more than 30 years. I also thank the survivors of the Holocaust for the work they have done to educate past, present and future generations on the horrors of the past and to give us lessons for the future.

My party will always support the Jewish community, so it was encouraging to see the Leader of the Opposition engaging with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Community Security Trust to discuss the challenges facing the Jewish community. As part of my role as shadow Secretary of State, I am meeting the Jewish Leadership Council in February, and I look forward to engaging with it and other Jewish organisations in the future. Our party will continue to engage with the community in opposition, and together we reaffirm our commitment to tackling antisemitism, promoting community cohesion and holding this Government to account on these critical issues.

This debate and this period of reflection come at an important moment for the middle east, which we hope will usher in a sustainable end to the conflict. Every single hostage must be returned safely home and reunited with family and friends after 15 months of the most unimaginably cruel captivity at the hands of Hamas. We have firmly in our thoughts the victims of the 7 October terror attacks—those who lost their lives, and those whose lives have been changed forever. This was the worst terror attack in Israel’s history. We are all relieved to see the first returns of hostages back to their loved ones under the recent ceasefire agreement, including, as the Minister says, the British-Israeli national Emily Damari. We pray for their good health, and I sincerely hope they can now begin to rebuild their lives after the most unimaginable trauma. None of the hostages or their families ever deserved to be put through this nightmare.

Remembering the Holocaust is something that we must continue to do every day and every year; it cannot be forgotten. This debate is just one way of doing that, and it is the responsibility of all of us to do so in our own way. Indeed, my wife and I took our children to the Holocaust galleries at the Imperial War Museum, which was a very solemn and sobering experience for us all. That day we also visited the Kindertransport memorial at Liverpool Street station. How proud we should be of those people, such as Nicholas Winton, who played their part to help Jewish people flee the horrors of Nazi persecution, saving countless lives and offering hope to those facing darkness.

It is also important that we take this opportunity to remember all those killed in genocide around the world. We remember the atrocities in Rwanda, where over 800,000 people were murdered. This year also marks 30 years since the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia, where more than 8,000 mainly men and boys were killed in just a few days by Bosnian Serb forces. Most were killed in an organised and systemic fashion, blindfolded and shot. While it was mainly men and boys who were murdered, thousands of women and girls suffered unthinkable violence and sexual abuse, including rape and torture, with thousands more, including children and the elderly, abused and displaced.

Those horrors remind us of the vital importance of standing against hate wherever it arises. That is why this debate on Holocaust Memorial Day is so important. We must stamp out antisemitism and stop it impacting the lives of British Jews and Jews around the world, but we also owe it to the memory of all victims of genocide to educate future generations and to work tirelessly to prevent history repeating itself. Let us honour their memory by building a better future, free from hate, division and violence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The increase in housing delivery that the Secretary of State is committed to requires a 50% uplift across the board in housing numbers, yet according to the House of Commons Library, urban and major conurbations have seen an increase of 17% while mainly rural areas are seeing an average increase of 115%. How is that fair?

[Angela Rayner]

The shadow Secretary of State will know that our mandatory housing targets were based on affordability and were introduced to ensure that people are able to get the houses they desperately need. His Government removed the mandatory housing targets, we saw speculative development, and they failed, year on year, to deliver the housing that this country desperately needs. We are going to deliver the houses where they failed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that everyone should be treated equally and be seen to be treated equally before the law, including planning law?

[Angela Rayner]

I do not know where the shadow Secretary of State is going with this, but yes, I think people should be treated equally.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Great. Why, then, is it that the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have all intervened in the planning application for the Chinese super-embassy, overriding the wishes and concerns of local residents, the local planning authority, the Metropolitan police, the security services and, most likely, the incoming US President?

[Angela Rayner]

These are live issues, but the security of our country and nation always comes foremost, and that is always what this Government think of first.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank the Minister, and indeed my shadow Ministers, the other Opposition spokespeople and all parliamentarians who have helped with the passage of the Bill, as well as the Clerks and officials—not that I would like to see the Bill progress any further. Aristotle, in his book “Politics”, over 2,000 years ago—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order!

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Over 2,000 years ago, Aristotle talked about deviant government. Alongside tyranny, he placed democracy. He said the risk is that, sooner or later, a Government will come along who represent only their own interests and those of their supporters, and that that Government will pursue the politics of envy. Let us see who the Minister’s supporters are. They are not the 12.6 million pensioners in this country, if we judge by the winter fuel allowance; not the 89,500 farmers whose livelihoods will be damaged by the family farm tax; not the 5 million businesspeople who will be damaged by the changes to business property relief, who employ 14 million people and pay £200 billion a year in taxes; not those people who live in rural areas; and not the families of the 550,000 young people who are in private and independent education. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies—this is not scaremongering —90,000 of them may go back into the state sector as a result of the Government’s choices.

The Government have the gall to say that the fact that business rates or VAT do not apply to school fees is a tax break. It is no more a tax break than there being no VAT on housing, children’s clothes or food. Those measures are there because we should encourage people to pursue education, particularly those who scrimp and save to send their children into private education.

What about businesses? Businesses are suffering on the back of the employer national insurance rise of £25 billion a year, and are worried about the future because of the withdrawal of business property relief and agricultural property relief. The reality is that this Bill means a cut in support for many of those whom the Minister said he seeks to protect—people who work in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. The 75% discount is down to 40%. That will mean a tangible difference for the average pub of £5,500 a year. That comes on top of the huge increases in employer national insurance. Some 250,000 businesses will be worse off to the tune of £925 million. That is the tax charge he is placing on those businesses he says he seeks to protect. If he is honest with them, those taxes will go up again in April 2026. That is the reality of the situation.

What promise did Labour make before the election? They said they would scrap business rates completely—another broken promise. In their manifesto, they said they would change the balance between high streets and the online giants. That is not what the Bill does. The Bill also taxes breweries, airports, football stadiums and bricks-and-mortar retailers such as John Lewis, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons. That is the reality behind the Government’s changes: not scrapping business rates, nothing on the online giants and big taxes on many businesses. This is the politics of envy. It is the tyranny of socialism, and that is why we will vote against the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I draw the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is not wrong, spurious or specious to stand up for 11 million tenants. We know that tenants and landlords are two sides of the same coin. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we agree that tenants need a better deal, but this Bill will not give that to them. The Minister is following in the footsteps of Scotland. The Bill will reduce supply and push up rent, and that is why we are against it—