Community Cohesion

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing such an important debate at a particularly important moment. I want to talk about something that, sadly, we seem to talk about only during really challenging periods, but without which everything else becomes much harder—community cohesion.

My accent gives me away; I grew up in a town called Burnley, in the north-west of England. For most of my childhood, the only thing that I knew was culturally different about the place where I grew up was that our school summer holidays started two weeks before they did everywhere else. In the summer of 2001, however—which is 25 years ago this summer, shockingly—around the time of my GCSE exams, race riots ripped through my home town. I remember the fear and anger that they caused. For years afterwards, I remember that when telling people that I was from Burnley, all they knew about the place was defined by the race riots—that there had been that awful summer.

That period left a deep mark on me and contributed to who I am today, because it taught me that community cohesion is not a slogan, or a line in a strategy document; it is the difference between a town that can pull together when things get tough and one that fractures when it feels pressure. Those experiences shaped my politics. They shaped my belief that fairness and honesty matter, and that we must confront injustice directly and not pretend that it will fix itself. The riots also shaped my determination that the communities that I represent today should never feel that sense of division.

In Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, we are proud of who we are: a county town with deep roots, growing diversity, and incredibly strong traditions of volunteering and neighbourliness. We are home to people of different faiths, backgrounds and experiences. That diversity is a strength, but it only remains a strength if it is underpinned by public trust.

Community cohesion is built in small, everyday ways. It is built when a school brings parents together from different backgrounds around a shared commitment to their children’s future. It is built when local volunteers organise a food bank, youth club or community clean-up—which the people in my constituency excel at. It is built when faith leaders choose dialogue over distance, and partnership over parallel lives.

A few weeks ago, I brought together local faith leaders in Stafford for a multi-faith roundtable. Leaders from our churches, mosque, gurdwara and other faith communities sat around the same table. We talked openly about the challenges that face our communities— from misinformation online to the rising global tensions that are rippling into our local lives. It struck me that everyone in the room wanted the same thing: safe streets, opportunities for young people, respect and stability. There was a sense that whatever differences we had, we all belonged to the same place. That is what cohesion is. It is not about erasing difference; it is about recognising our shared commonality and humanity.

We cannot be complacent, however. We live in an age in which misinformation spreads faster than facts, social media algorithms reward outrage over understanding, global conflicts inflame local tensions in a matter of hours, and economic pressures can make it easier to burn bridges than build them. In that context, cohesion requires leadership. That is not an abstract thing; it is about standards.

When those elected to represent our communities use racist language, promote prejudice or undermine the dignity of others, it does not just harm individuals; it corrodes trust in everything and the institutions that hold us together. When councillors are forced to resign or are removed because of racist conduct, that should concern us all; I do not care what party they are from. That is not because of the headlines but what it signals about the tone of our public life. I think that leadership means refusing to normalise that kind of politics; we cannot strengthen cohesion locally if we tolerate that in our politics. As Members of this House, we must choose our words carefully to avoid stoking division for short-term political gain, and we must call out racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and all forms of hate, consistently and clearly.

It also requires investment in the places that bring us all together. Staffordshire had the third-worst cuts to youth services in the country, and I deal weekly with the impacts of those cuts. Community centres, libraries, sports clubs, and arts and cultural groups—they are not nice to have extras; they are the infrastructure of belonging somewhere. They are the places that 14 years of Conservative austerity have decimated.

Strengthening community cohesion also requires us all to listen. In my constituency, I hold regular coffee mornings and community meetings. In fact, at the one I had just this weekend, people talked about feeling left behind economically. I hear from families worried about the future. I hear from people who feel misunderstood, and when people feel ignored and unheard, resentment breeds.

Cohesion is also about fairness in action. It is about making sure that every opportunity reaches every estate, village and high street. It is also about good jobs, decent housing, strong public services and visible delivery. When people feel secure, they are more open. When they feel abandoned, they are more vulnerable to division.

Growing up in Burnley, I saw what happens when economic decline and racial tension collide. It starts, not with violence, but with really small fractures—with rumours, with a sense that someone else is getting more than you. If we want cohesive communities, we have to tackle the root causes. So I ask the Minister: what steps are the Government taking to ensure that towns, such as Stafford, that have experienced economic pressure over the years, are being supported with real investment and opportunity, rather than becoming targets for those who seek to inflame resentment and prejudice for political gain?

In Stafford, I see huge hope. I see schools where children of different faiths and backgrounds learn side by side and form friendships that defy stereotypes. I see local businesses that bring together apprentices and staff from across our community. I see volunteers who show up week after week for people they have never met before, and I see faith leaders willing to work together rather than retreat into silos. Community cohesion is not about pretending that we do not disagree; it is about how we disagree. It is about holding space for different views without dehumanising one another. It is about ensuring that our identity as a shared community is stronger than any single dividing line.

My message today is simple. Community cohesion does not maintain itself; it must be nurtured, as has been said, and it must be defended and resourced. It must also be modelled by us. In Stafford, we are choosing to build, not to blame; to listen, not to shout; and to stand up for fairness and not allow prejudice to go unchallenged. I know what the alternative looks like—I lived it. Division does not explode overnight; it is cultivated. I am determined that the communities that I represent will always be stronger together than they are apart.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I do not think there is any argument against the points that the hon. Member raises, and they reflect things that I am sure we have all heard as constituency MPs. When I visited one of my local synagogues on Friday, the people there talked about the difficulties that some of the children in that community had faced at school with the rising tide of antisemitism that they had experienced. That is part of the bigger picture.

We need to ensure that, as far as we can, we build a level of common understanding. When we talk about shared values, sometimes people are prone to say, “We have sharia law in some parts of the country,” or, “We have the Beth Din, which sits outside of the law.” Indeed, the canon law of the Catholic Church, which has been part of our Christian community for centuries, permitted marriage at the age of 14 up until that law was changed in 2019. Sometimes these misunderstandings are not simply about a view of Islam; they are about different communities and cultures. We need to ensure that everybody recognises that the rule of law and the freedoms that it brings apply to everybody in our country.

All of our citizens are free to decide that in the event of a dispute about a business, they would like a sharia court to be involved in settling it. If two Jewish business people wish to use the Beth Din to settle the matter, they can do that as well. That does not remove, under any circumstances, the freedoms and the protections that the law of the land gives to everybody in our country. That must always be there as a clear recourse.

I will touch on an issue that we covered a little yesterday in the debate about the Representation of the People Act 1983. The issue of electoral interference is one that sits with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but is of concern to Members across the House. I reflect on a session of the Home Affairs Committee that was chaired by the now Foreign Secretary, who asked our intelligence services what evidence there was of Russian interference in the Brexit debate, which was the issue at the time. The response was illuminating. The point our security services made was not that Russia, China or Iran is seeking a particular outcome in a political debate happening in the United Kingdom. What those sponsors of terror are seeking to achieve is division in the United Kingdom and a lack of coherence in our society. We must make sure that we are always vigilant and that our laws are updated regularly to take account of how we can resist that.

Moving to more local matters, a lot of the debate has revolved around what makes a community. I know you represent a constituency with a diverse range of local settlements that are different to those in London, Dr Murrison. When we think of community, we think of thriving high streets and places that people can feel proud of. We think of a strong economy and of places where people can get and keep a job that supports their standard of living and their opportunity. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reflections, because those things have been hotly debated in Parliament. We see the impact of rising taxes in the hollowing-out of our high streets. We know that 89,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality and 74,000 in retail since October 2024. The relentless rise in unemployment under this Government is putting enormous strain on the cohesion of our communities.

[Leigh Ingham]

Does the hon. Member agree that we saw a hollowing-out of state institutions that really matter to our communities during the 14 years of Conservative Government between 2010 and 2024? I refer to the point I made in my speech: under the Conservative-led Staffordshire county council, we saw the third worst cuts to youth services in the country. In fact, I spent last Thursday afternoon talking about youth justice with young people in my constituency who told me that they had never seen things so bad. Although I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s points are valid, would he accept that there is a heritage to where we are now and what this Government are dealing with?

[David Simmonds]

I would not accept that point, I am afraid. We can recognise, not least by simply looking at the statistics, that resident satisfaction with local government services rose continuously throughout the period that Labour have described as “austerity”. Any incoming Government dealing with a colossal legacy of debt will have to find ways to live within its means. Unfortunately, we seem to be set on the path of another colossal legacy of debt.

It would be helpful if the Minister addressed some points, and perhaps acknowledged the impact that her Government’s policies are having on the ability of businesses and our residents to find good, remunerative work. The first point, which the Labour leader of Sheffield has been particularly exercised about recently, and which the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) will know is of local as well as national interest, is the asylum funding situation for local government, which remains a major source of concern and grievance.

The Government are providing some funding to local authorities to help them to meet the very significant costs. Hillingdon is a good example. As a gateway authority to Heathrow airport, it has accommodated many thousands of unaccompanied children over the years, and, currently, very large numbers of Chagossians are fleeing to the United Kingdom from the consequences of the Government’s Chagos deal and huge numbers of people are being placed in temporary accommodation by the Home Office. Those numbers have been rising very sharply, very fast, and their processing means that the numbers turning up at the town hall have increased dramatically. That means that the pressure on local authority temporary accommodation budgets is rising relentlessly.

The Government refuse to say how much funding they are providing to local authorities to meet that cost, which is understandably fuelling campaigns by some in our society to say that those costs are not fully met. Does the Minister agree with her colleague Councillor Tom Hunt that the Government need to address this consequence of their actions?

Oral Answers to Questions

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We have committed to local growth funding to boost growth in Scotland. We have also delivered record investment to the Scottish Government, who have in their gift the ability to invest in communities and in programmes that will drive the prosperity of local areas. The hon. Gentleman should not be looking to national Government; we have done our part—now it is over to the Scottish National party.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

While I welcome the fact that the Red Lion in Sutton has had its asset of community value status extended by a year, that does not completely protect it from future planning applications. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this case, and that of the Railway Inn in Norton Bridge, to understand how the Government can best support these sites and save them for future community use?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Yes, I will meet my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman and I were both in this House for the entire period of austerity, which landed at the door of town halls more than almost anywhere else, so if he wants to look for someone to blame for the parlous state of council finances, I would recommend a mirror.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Several prominent buildings in Stafford have been left vacant for long periods, with landlords allowing sites to fall into disrepair with no intention of bringing them up to standard. Labour-led Stafford borough council is trying to act proactively to tackle these eyesores, but what advice and support can the Government offer to good councils that are seeking to address property hoarding and to unlock sites for regeneration?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are clear that we want to boost the power of communities to revive their places. This is why we are rolling out high street rental auctions, stronger and more streamlined compulsory purchase powers, the community right to buy, and Pride in Place, and we will work with any council that wants to take back control of its place and revive its communities.

Indices of Deprivation: England

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to hold the final Adjournment debate of 2025. I thank everyone for staying behind to join me, and I thank the Minister as well. From what I have seen in the headlines, I believe she had a busy morning.

People in Blackpool often feel forgotten by national politics, so it matters that their experience is the last issue debated in this Chamber before Christmas. Whereas colleagues in the House will be returning home to spend time with their families, this time of year is a period of struggle, rather than celebration, for many in my constituency.

Throughout 2025, this Government have begun to show Blackpool that they understand the scale of our challenges, but belief takes time when a place has for so long been held up as a symbol of decline, a poster child for deprivation and a stark reflection of the pressures facing our country as a whole. I hope the Minister will join me in demonstrating to my home town that it is not forgotten, and it is no accident that we have saved this issue till last.

In October, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government updated the English indices of deprivation for the first time since 2019, marking a rare and important moment to reassess Government action. The indices rank small areas in England according to deprivation across multiple domains. They look beyond income alone, taking account of housing, access to services, education, employment, health, crime and the living environment. Although it may feel like it for local people when their town is splashed across newspaper headlines, the indices are not a league table for shame; they are a tool for targeting Government action. If the 2025 indices do just one thing, they should convince the Government that action must focus on Blackpool.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

The new indices show that neighbourhoods in Stafford, including Highfields, Penkside, Rising Brook and Stafford Central, sit among the bottom 10% to 20% of the most deprived areas in the country. However, the depth of need is often masked at local authority level by more affluent parts of the borough. Recent data shows that Stafford Central is in the bottom 2% nationally for health need. Does my hon. Friend agree that such indices, alongside wider health data, give the Government a clear opportunity to target our record investment in healthcare, education and local government at neighbourhoods with the greatest need, including pockets of deprivation in otherwise affluent areas?

[Chris Webb]

I completely agree, and the Pride in Place scheme is a great start. I will come on to that later, but I want to see it expanded to many more of our communities, based on the new indices.

If we can turn around a town that contains seven of the 10 most deprived areas of the country, and 10 in the top 20, we can turn around the fortunes of the country. Rather than being a poster child for deprivation, Blackpool, where 38% of adults live in the top 10% of the most deprived areas in England, can be a poster child for renewal.

Property Service Charges

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I place on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for bringing this debate before the House, and to the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling time for it. From the number of Members present in the Chamber today, we can all see that property service charges are a problem across the entire country, but they certainly are for people in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages.

In the time I have, I will focus on just one of the estates where these charges are an issue: the Roman Heights estate in the village of Streethay, on the edge of Lichfield. The people who live on that estate know just how difficult managing agents can be. I have had dozens of households get in touch to tell me about the appalling service they have received from their managing agent— I will not name it, but I am sure it is the first name we would think of. Over the summer, I held a town hall with residents, at which I heard the same thing over and over again. Bills for management were coming through completely irregularly, sometimes with three bills for three years being received in the space of three months, which is interesting. There was absolutely no transparency about the level of charge, with demands to come up with huge sums of money at a moment’s notice. All the while, basic maintenance such as cutting the grass just was not being done, leaving residents wondering what exactly they were paying for.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is also from Staffordshire, for giving way. A constituent has got in touch with me to say, “It genuinely feels like they are stealing money from us.” Another said, “I just feel like we are a cash cow for these companies.” Does my hon. Friend agree that if managing agents and companies want to continue operating these services, they must increase transparency and make things more regular for their customers?

[Dave Robertson]

My hon. Friend is right. She is a very good friend, and often she has seen speeches before I give them, but she has not seen this one, and she gives me the perfect segue into my next point.

Transparency is so important. When I surveyed residents in the affected estate, 85% told me that billing was either poor or very poor. Some 79% have told me that the management of the estate was poor or very poor. I have written to that management company, and I am looking forward to meeting it, because its written response is simply not good enough.

Housing: North Staffordshire

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

It cannot be denied that we are in the worst housing crisis since world war two. I thank the Minister for his engagement; we have previously discussed this issue in relation to my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages. We need housing, but the village of Loggerheads, right in the north of my constituency, has been left in chaos due to large-scale housing developments that were allowed under previous Administrations, but put forward and built without the proper supporting infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour agree that while we desperately need housing—particularly bungalows—it cannot be delivered in the Conservative way, where there are houses but no infrastructure, and residents are left in limbo?

[Dr Gardner]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s points.

The land I mentioned also contains a large quarry full of valuable reserves of Etruria marl. A major concern of mine with new developments is the impact on transport infrastructure. Access roads in Lightwood are minimal: one connects to a route already beset by traffic and speeding, while the other country lanes cannot safely accommodate significant traffic.

I have seen that in villages throughout my constituency, where villages are cut in half by major roads but not given safe crossings and speed restrictions. In Tittensor, villagers have been campaigning for over 30 years for a crossing, and in Draycott in the Moors, a large development and an industrial estate brought promises of high-quality traffic management measures that were watered down to a final proposal that will be incredibly disruptive to residents.

Reform-led Staffordshire county council has not supported my attempts to deliver safer roads, and the separation of responsibility between National Highways and the planning authority makes it an exceptionally difficult issue to solve. I ask the Minister, when responsibilities sit between multiple authorities, how can we ensure that the wider impact of developments on surrounding roads is properly considered, with co-ordinated action to support affected communities?

On a similar note, within the village of Tean, developments have led to an increase in flooding and sewage outflow. Developers tend to meet their requirements to build suitable infrastructure and flood mitigations on site, but the problem occurs when the outflow from the estates hits the water company’s mains, which have often not been updated to cope with increased demand. We then see flooding throughout the village and sewage outflow killing our rivers and streams.

Although water companies are consulted, they often put the onus on the developer to address increased demand. As far as I understand, there is no statutory requirement on water companies—in my case, Severn Trent Water—to upgrade their infrastructure to meet new demand. Without that, I question whether consulting water companies is anything more than a tick-box exercise. I ask the Minister, what powers can we enact to ensure that new developments are supported by upgrading main sewer systems, the responsibility for which lies with the water companies to deliver at their cost?

Many of my Lightwood constituents are concerned that the draft local plan does not make sufficient use of brownfield land. I reassure them that Stoke-on-Trent city council is doing the most building on brownfield sites on record. In my time as a local councillor, I had many battles with developers and the local council over proposed developments. That is not to say that I do not support new housing, nor that I always support residents’ objections, but I am a fierce advocate of green spaces and a built environment that support health and wellbeing.

That applies equally to our urban areas, which also deserve green spaces; in the push for brownfield redevelopment, I do not wish to see our urban areas concreted over. Innovative thinking and the use of existing buildings is therefore welcome. I commend plans to improve urban centres with thoughtful developments, such as the Tams building in Longton, and to increase housing in our town centres, utilising empty buildings and the upper floors of shops.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will happily take that conversation up with colleagues in other Departments, and I am happy to write to my hon. Friend about heritage policy in the planning system more generally if he would find that useful.

The point needs to be made, and it needs to be made again and again, that there is not enough brownfield land on registers—and certainly not enough viable sites in the right locations—to meet the demand for homes across the country. That is why we have taken a different approach to the green belt. We are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over recent decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbourhoods from merging into one another. We have acted quickly to replace the haphazard approach taken by the previous Government to green-belt designation and release with a more strategic and targeted approach.

I emphasise that Ministers do not themselves determine what, if any, grey-belt land is released in any given local planning authority area. It is for the local planning authority itself to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist that justify doing so. In those instances, we expect it first to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting identified need for development, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land, optimising the density of development—a number of local authorities across the country are looking again at brownfield sites and exploring whether they can get additional density to make up housing numbers—and working with neighbouring authorities to assess whether identified need might be sensibly accommodated across borough boundaries.

Where those options have been exhausted, we expect local authorities to look again at green-belt land release. National policy makes it clear that, in those circumstances, local development plans must take a sequential approach: first exhaust previously developed land, then consider low-quality grey-belt land that is not previously developed, and only then consider other green-belt locations. Under our revised approach, the sustainability of green-belt sites must also be prioritised, and local planning authorities must pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey belt is sustainably located.

[Leigh Ingham]

The Minister and I discussed this issue just prior to the recess, particularly in relation to Eccleshall, where greenfield sites with really poor transport infrastructure, as well as poor sewage and water infrastructure, are being proposed for development. I gently remind him that we were going to meet this month or early next month to discuss that further. It would be great to have that meeting put in the diary as soon as possible.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am looking forward to that meeting. The relevant diary slots have moved around on several occasions, but I will ensure that it takes place in the very near future. We can discuss that and other issues.

Because we recognise the value that communities place on green-belt land, we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary development on it must deliver high levels of affordable housing; the provision of new green spaces, or improvements to existing green spaces, that are accessible to the public; and necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure. Our new golden rules, which are the mechanism by which we will deliver that public gain, will apply where a major housing development is proposed on green-belt land, released either through plan making or subject to a planning application.

Housing Provision in Stafford

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered housing provision in Stafford.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate.

To give some understanding of the local picture, Stafford borough is currently without an adopted local plan. A new draft plan was due to be approved just as the general election was called last year, but with that and the new housing targets, the process paused. While it is good that the work has restarted, getting a new plan in place for our area will take years, even in the best-case scenario. That matters because, in the meantime, communities such as Eccleshall are left exposed to speculative development without the protections that a local plan provides.

I attended a public meeting in Eccleshall two weeks ago, and the atmosphere was thoughtful, not hostile, and the message was clear. People understand that we are in a housing crisis, and they know we need more homes not just for this generation but for the next generation. People also want to stay close to their family. They want to contribute to their community and grow old where they have always lived, but they are also dealing with the consequences of past development in which infrastructure has not kept pace.

Those pressures are visible in Eccleshall’s drains, roads and local environment. Eccleshall’s sewage treatment works flooded 67 times in 2023 and has flooded 26 times so far in 2025. The aim is to have no more than 10 spillages a year by 2045—that is in 20 years’ time. It flooded again last Sunday, spilling sewage and waste water, which affected residents. That is the reality for people living there now, before a single additional home has been built.

I make my position absolutely clear: I know that we need more homes. Across Staffordshire and across the country, far too many people—including young families, pensioners and key workers—are being priced out of the areas in which they grew up, and that is true even in Eccleshall. That is the legacy of the previous Government, who made things worse.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Does she agree that housing must be provided for families, for single people and for elderly people? Newtownards in my constituency is providing a mix for everyone. Is that something she is trying to achieve for her constituents, in conjunction with the Minister?

[Leigh Ingham]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My dad does not work any more, but he was a bricklayer. He always said to me that if he had owned his own business, he would have built bungalows because there is always a need for them—this country can never build enough bungalows. We need a mix of housing, but he always said, “If you want to sell houses, build bungalows.” That is my dad’s life tip, if anyone is interested.

That goes to the point that we have not built the right homes in the right places. Pensioners cannot find smaller homes to downsize into; families are not able to settle for the long term; and people are being pushed away from their support networks and lifelong communities. We need to build, but we have to do it responsibly and with infrastructure. In Eccleshall right now, that balance has not been found.

Residents are understandably alarmed, as there are 10 speculative development proposals on the table for potentially over 1,500 homes. Accounting for families, that is likely to be more than a 50% population increase for a town of 6,500 people. That would stretch the resources of any community, but it would be overwhelming for a very small market town. To be very clear, not a single application has yet been approved, but the sheer number of proposals coming in simultaneously is creating real anxiety and uncertainty, because people do not know what might be approved.

More broadly, we have already seen how this can go in another part of my constituency, in Loggerheads. There, development went ahead without an up-to-date local plan. Developers insisted that infrastructure was adequate, but in reality there were no buses, few community services and precious little investment in support to new residents. The building continues.

In Eccleshall, planning officers are doing everything they can, but without a local plan, they are working with one hand tied behind their backs. The default position of presumption in favour of sustainable development leaves them vulnerable. The Minister and his Department are committed to fixing this broken system, and I recognise wholeheartedly that the challenges are not new—they were building up for years under the previous Conservative Government—but Eccleshall provides a case study of why councils need more tools and more flexibility to get things right.

Today, I want to offer four practical suggestions that would make a real difference to Eccleshall and other communities like it. First, we need faster and more flexible processes for approving local plans. Right now, it can take up to three years, in ideal conditions, and during that time councils and communities are left in limbo. If we want to plan properly, we need the system to keep pace.

Secondly, infrastructure must come first, not years later. The flooding in Eccleshall is a red flag. The system has not caught up with past development, let alone proposed future growth. With respect to that, I ask the Minister: what specific support is available to towns such as Eccleshall to help building to happen sustainably, without overloading existing stretched services?

Thirdly, we need to let councils assess housing proposals in the round, not one by one. When multiple speculative bids are in play, applications cannot be treated as if they exist in isolation. Local authorities must have the power to consider the cumulative impact and align decisions with community priorities.

Fourthly, we need strong protections for our best agricultural land. In Eccleshall, the sites under threat are all grade 2 and 3a, some of the best and most versatile farmland in the country. If we lose it, we do not get it back. We cannot build over the land that feeds us and call that sustainable.

In conclusion, no one—residents or developers—wants to see 10 disconnected developments forced on a community with no plan and no infrastructure. I want to be clear: the people I represent are not opposed to growth. They want to be part of shaping it, and to build homes in a way that is planned, not piecemeal, with infrastructure first, communities and the environment protected, and fairness at its heart. I ask the Minister to meet me—after recess; I will not I will not make him do it today—specifically to speak about Eccleshall. We have a meeting coming up to talk about wider housing provision in Stafford borough, but I hope he will not mind me asking for a separate conversation about this specific and unique case. I believe that we can build the homes we need in a way that is fair, sustainable and community-led, and that this Government want to do that. I hope this debate will be a constructive step towards making sure that happens.

Strategy for Elections

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important question. He will be aware that the defending democracy taskforce is leading the work on a range of issues—including, of course, in relation to the points that he has made. We are taking action to bear down on those issues, with a cross-Government approach. The Online Safety Act 2023 is important in relation to some of the points that he has made. As I have pointed out, we are also aware of the dangers of foreign interference and foreign state actors, and these reforms are really important to protect the integrity of our system and our democracy.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

As a member of the Speaker’s Conference, I have heard evidence that has shocked me to my core, so I know how much needed these reforms are.

This week I have held my first summer school with 16 and 17-year-olds this week. Twenty of them have been learning about how they can make a change not only in their community, but in the country they live in. Does the Minister agree that they deserve to have their voices heard at the ballot box, too?

[Rushanara Ali]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work to support young people to participate in our democracy. Young people can work at 16, pay taxes and join the Army. There is no reason that they should not have the right to a say in who represents them and the right to shape their future. They are passionate about the issues affecting their communities and country; I know that at first hand from the work I have done over the years to support young people in their leadership journeys and in participating in our elections.

Oral Answers to Questions

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answer: this Government have invested nearly £1 billion to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. As the Secretary of State has pointed out, we are dealing with the root causes of homelessness. That means investing billions of pounds to ensure that some 300,000 social and affordable homes are created over the decade, so that we can get people into the housing that is urgently needed.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Last week, nearly 3,000 people across Stafford borough were told at short notice that Homes Plus, one of our housing associations, is effectively scrapping the current housing waiting list. It also said that nearly 2,000 people no longer had a housing need, but it has not explained how it has come to that conclusion. People are confused, angry and scared. Does the Minister agree that this is unacceptable, and will he meet me to help me find a way forward for those who have been left in limbo?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will happily meet my hon. Friend about that concerning development. If she could write to me with the details in advance, that would be extremely useful.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes]

I make it a habit to agree with my hon. Friend and I will keep that tradition today. I do indeed agree, and she rather anticipates the points that I am about to make.

New clause 82 is so important because it provides key things that our children need. It would require developers to deliver and fund adequate play in their communities. It would ensure no net loss without equivalent provision as a consequence of development, but let me be clear: this is not about requiring every development to have a blanket requirement. It is not about holding every development hostage, because we know that development is important for growth in our communities. It is about ensuring that councils are well equipped and that planning authorities are supported to take a view in the round of what play sufficiency would be in a given area, and indeed to use contributions from developers to fund adequate—indeed, excellent—play provision.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I know that my hon. Friend is passionate about this issue, as am I as a signatory to this new clause. In my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, I have been working with a group of local parents on a joint campaign for safe, inclusive parks for neurodiverse children. Those spaces benefit not just neurodiverse children but parents who also need somewhere safe to go with their children and young people. In recognition of the cost of living crisis, does my hon. Friend agree that these spaces should be provided for all children, not just those who are neurotypical, and that they should provide space for their parents too?

[Tom Hayes]

My hon. Friend and I have talked many times about the importance of inclusive play, and I commend her as a fantastic champion for children with special educational needs and disabilities to access those play opportunities. I agree with her entirely, and one thing that my new clause 82 would do is to introduce a requirement for planning authorities to assess play sufficiency, particularly inclusive play sufficiency. That is a critically important point.

In a nutshell, we need to have national policy frameworks and national planning actions that will ensure that the voices of children and their families are properly listened to, that they are consulted on their needs, and that planning authorities are required and supported to introduce the outdoor play equipment and areas that can so enhance their life chances. In so doing, we would be building on the work of that last Labour Government that I was just talking about. If you ever want to enjoy a beautiful photograph that sums up all of what the last Labour Government were doing, have a look at Ed Balls and Andy Burnham on a swing announcing the 2008 national play strategy. It is a fantastic sight. Genuinely, you can see in their faces the joy that comes from play and extending play opportunities. You can see that they are Ministers who are fantastically enjoying their jobs, and that is because they are delivering for children. That 2008 strategy was a critical development in the world of play, and the play sector responded so positively to it. It came with £235 million of investment to provide up to 3,500 new or refurbished playgrounds. I still get sent photographs by people who have seen those playgrounds with the Department for Children, Schools and Families logo on them, with its beautiful rainbow, and we should have more of that.

To conclude, this Bill is critical for children’s development. This is also a pro-growth new clause because we have in our play sector small family businesses who contribute to our economy to the tune of £250 million and are powering employment and economic opportunity in our communities. Our country feels like it needs a lick of paint at times. We need potholes filling, we need litter collecting and we need playgrounds repairing. In so doing, we can bring hope back to our communities, and in doing that we can help people to feel positive about the potential for politics to make change.