Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I appreciate the question, and I recognise that my hon. Friend has been a champion over a long period of time for jobs in her community. I do not take her representations at all lightly, but there is not a part of the country where investment is not desperately needed to improve the visitor experience and the experience of people who live there. If we get this right—it will be down to our local mayors and local leaders to implement the investment—the truth is that everyone will benefit from the improved visitor experience.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Liberal Democrats have long championed our high streets, tourism and hospitality sectors. While we strongly support devolving economic powers, businesses are already struggling under mounting costs, a VAT rate higher than that of our international peers and the Government’s national insurance contributions hike. Without support, an overnight levy risks looking less like genuine devolution and more like another short-term tax grab. If Ministers hand local mayors and foundation strategic authorities the power to introduce levies, they must bring forward vital sector relief—an emergency 5p VAT cut, relief from NICs and so forth—and must not reduce local government funding as a result. Can the Minister confirm when this House will see full details of the levy? Specifically, will Ministers implement a cap and sector support to protect local tourism and hospitality?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being the champion she is for Bournemouth. I would reflect on how the experience there, with the cuts to local government over many years, has impacted the services on the ground that would have been provided—both the neighbourhood’s quality of place and the economic focus on tourism. We need to start rebuilding them, and this may be one way of doing so.

On the lessons learned, places may approach this with a flat rate, so no matter where people go, everyone will pay £5, or whatever. However, we believe that at its core this has to be fair and proportionate, so we ask ourselves, “Why should somebody visiting a guest house in Blackpool pay a flat fee in the way somebody visiting the Ritz here in London would?” That is not fair or proportionate, but a percentage rate is.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us try Andrew Snowden, who represents a nearby constituency.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. First we had a jobs tax that reduced the number of jobs in the economy, then we had a schools tax that reduced the number of children in independent schools, and then we had a farm tax that reduced the number of family farms. Given that correlation, have the Minister and the Government learned anything from this socialist tax-addicted way in which they are governing the country, and will the tourism tax do anything other than reduce tourism?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I welcome the visitor levy and the investment it will bring to London’s visitor economy. Has the Minister been listening to London Councils, which wants 50% of the money raised in each borough to return to that borough, so that businesses know it is going back to the things that they want, such as cleaning Putney High Street?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just help Members who have been here a long time? Looking at the Minister is not how we do it; questions to the Minister must go through the Chair, because that is how we try to keep a balance. Some Members have only been here a few years, I know, but please try to make this work.

[Jim McMahon]

We have designed the policy to allow as much local flexibility as possible. That recognises that the approach in different places will require flexibility to take into account local circumstances. In practice, that means it will be for local areas, including London, to decide how they invest the money that comes through the system. However, our expectation is that there will be partnership and collaboration between local government and our regional mayors, where they exist, and with councils that are members of foundation authorities in other places.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Welcome back!

[Angela Rayner]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to have been appointed Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and it is great to be back answering questions from this Dispatch Box—in fact, I like it so much that I thought we would do a statement straight afterwards as well. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), and his team for their hard work.

Our new national planning policy framework strengthens support for green spaces by requiring local plans to set standards for green infrastructure and increase support for new and improved community facilities and public service infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the right hon. Member for her question. We have set out our targets within the national planning policy framework and local plans, and I encourage authorities to make sure that their local plans are up to date. Natural England’s standard on accessible green space stipulates that everyone should have access to good quality green and blue spaces close to home for health and wellbeing and contact with nature. Hopefully, the right hon. Member will be able to see that we are putting things in place to ensure that we have the housing and the green spaces people want.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place alongside her team. Guildford borough council’s latest green-belt assessment found that 92% of its green belt now meets the Government’s grey belt definition, and its assessed housing need has been doubled by the Government from 562 to 1,168 homes a year. That has left many of my residents worried about the loss of green spaces, about unsustainable development without appropriate infrastructure and about the loss of the distinctive historic character of their villages.

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential impact of planning policy on green-belt land in my constituency, which falls within the Guildford borough area? Can she outline what steps her Government will take to protect green spaces for communities by ensuring that developers are directed towards genuine brownfield sites first, rather than development being concentrated on land around Guildford that was previously protected by the green belt?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government are undertaking a number of pieces of work to look at what more we can do to revitalise our high streets. The Secretary of State and I are looking specifically at what more we can do to arm local authorities with the powers they need to bring empty homes back into use.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Planning permissions for new homes, of which there are already around 1.5 million, are one thing, but getting those units built is another. With Savills reporting that two thirds of London boroughs have seen net zero new housing starts under the Mayor of London, what proposals do the Government have to ensure that units with permission actually get built, rather than concreting over our green belt?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I just said to a previous question, we are looking at what more we can do to give local authorities the powers they need to bring empty homes back into use. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on specific applications being made, but councils can, through section 106 agreements, seek to negotiate with developers to bring forward the necessary infrastructure and amenities, and affordable housing, on particular sites.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Minister, welcome!

[Florence Eshalomi]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Young people must be seen and heard. We are giving 16 and 17-year-olds across the UK a vote in elections. We are working across Government and with our partners to prepare them to exercise that right, including through our £2.5 million Democratic Education Fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally Jameson]

That is probably a question best directed to health oral questions. The Government are committed to working with all areas as part of our devolution road map to ensure that authorities and health providers can deal with the devolution we have planned. I would be happy to meet with the right hon. Gentleman to discuss that further.

[Mr Speaker]

I allowed the question on the basis that it was about funding that follows housing growth, so I think it was fair.

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

With the Government having earlier today briefed the media that much of their devolution programme is being paused, with only Surrey looking like it is going to get its way—I am sure it is the subject of relentless lobbying by Labour Back Benchers—can the Minister tell us how many of the new mayors promised by this Government after their election will be in place by the next general election?

[Sally Jameson]

Following questions, the Secretary of State will be making a statement on that very issue, setting out what we will be doing in going further with local government reform and with mayors.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s indication that newly formed local authorities will not be forced to have a strategic mayor in order to benefit from devolution. However, the key to success will be ensuring real fiscal devolution to support and deliver services and economic growth for residents. Will the Minister set out how the Department will ensure that for non-mayoral strategic authorities, including the emerging foundation strategic authority in Surrey, where my constituency is based? How will she ensure that our area receives the financial resources to make meaningful funding decisions at a regional level, including by accessing funding streams currently available only to mayoral strategic authorities?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on this matter. I want to ensure that every opportunity is taken to retain homes in the social housing sector. Although housing associations remain independent organisations that are responsible for their own asset management decisions, I can assure my hon. Friend that we are exploring what further steps could be taken to protect much-needed social housing stock.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State on her return to her position, and to welcome her to her place. What steps is she taking to proactively protect the green belt?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can we move this along a bit, because a lot of Members are still standing and we have nearly come to the end of Question Time? Stuart Andrew will set a good example.

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

Despite what we have heard from the Minister, colleagues have been talking about the issue of developments near railway stations. That has a practical consequence for the rural village of Long Buckby in my constituency. Land that is currently in open countryside, beyond the village boundary, will now be designated as a priority area. That gives no consideration to the distinction between a rural village and an urban area. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issue in detail?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think the hon. Lady is referring to unauthorised development. We have strengthened national planning policy in respect of intentional unauthorised development, making it harder to grant permission after the fact where there is evidence that development was carried out intentionally without permission. However, it has become evident—we have had a meeting on this subject—that we are seeing the prevalence of a more structured pattern of unauthorised development, and we are working across Government to see what more action might be taken to bear down on that.

[Mr Speaker]

For the final question, I call Alistair Strathern.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

New towns should be an opportunity to better manage development pressures, not add to them. I thank the Housing Minister for hearing our campaign to ensure that any attempted new town counts towards my local authority’s housing targets, not in addition to them. How can we now ensure that proposals are considered at pace so that, if approved, they can count towards our local housing plan and the local planning process as quickly as possible?

Local Government Reorganisation

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on local government reorganisation. This Government are committed to delivering good growth across the country and power in every postcode, with places able to set their own ambitions and integrate services to meet people’s needs. Achieving that requires a fundamental rewiring of the state, giving power held by Westminster and Whitehall back to the people and the places where they live and work. As we set out in the Cabinet statement on rewiring the state, effective and sustainable local government is the vital foundation of our devolution ambitions.

As we are now determined more than ever to devolve power closer to the people we represent, it is only right that I, as the new Secretary of State, ensure that everything we do is working towards that plan to change Britain. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we have had this before, Mr Mayhew. I want to hear this statement; it affects my constituency and others. The last thing I need is you meddling.

[Angela Rayner]

They will get their chance, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

They might not.

[Angela Rayner]

The Prime Minister told the House last week that he was

“prepared to look at local government reorganisation”,—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 65.]

and he asked me, as his Communities Secretary, to do that. Throughout this process, the Government have listened to representations from Members of this House, councils and the public, and I want to be clear on how critical this is to me, given their importance to our democracy and the services they provide for local people. However, there will always be a wide range of divergent views, which means that achieving perfect consensus will never be possible.

I understand that feelings run high and people naturally have strong views in different directions. In that context, and in the light of legal advice, I want to satisfy myself first that the right process is in place, that it is robust and, of course, that it complies with the law. Secondly, I want to fully test whether our proposals for local government reorganisation meet the priorities of the new Administration and the new Prime Minister, and any additional considerations.

With those two considerations in mind, I have decided to withdraw the decisions made in March this year for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk and, where relevant, their neighbouring unitary authorities. The Government’s legal representatives have notified the court of this step.

I have also decided to conduct a full review of the local government reorganisation programme, including the decisions that were announced in July this year for a further 14 areas, and the two areas where decisions have not yet been taken, and ask that reorganisation activity be paused. These 14 areas are Derbyshire, Devon, East Sussex, Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, Kent, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire and, where relevant, their neighbouring unitaries.

I do not take this lightly. I recognise the huge amount of work that has already gone into progressing reorganisation in each of these areas, and I am very grateful for it. I know that many Members of the House and many council leaders will have lots of questions about what this means for them and their communities, and I will try to address those questions as best I can today.

First, we are working across Government on rewiring the state following the Cabinet statement. We recognise that effective and sustainable local government is fundamental to our ambitions for a devolved country that works better for and with communities, and we will consider this issue as part of our wider approach.

Secondly, as an immediate step, I have asked the Minister for Local Government, Devolution and Regional Growth to undertake a rapid review of the current local government reorganisation programme, including the position of the four areas where we have withdrawn and the further 14 areas that we are reviewing and pausing, alongside the two remaining areas. The new councils for East Surrey and West Surrey will be unaffected because they are already established in law, have had their first elections and are on track to go live in April 2027.

Thirdly, I want to be clear about what this means for elections scheduled for next May. Elections will go ahead in May 2027 on existing council boundaries. Finally, my Department will provide support to council leaders, officers and Members representing impacted areas, and the Minister for Local Government has written to leaders and copied in Members of this House.

I want to ensure that all those who represent these areas feel fully included in considering their future, and I will update the House at the earliest opportunity. My ministerial team and civil servants from the Department are ready to discuss and work with those representatives. My team will proactively reach out to discuss the local implications in detail. My Department remains committed to working in partnership with local government, both in this immediate period and in the longer term. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say that it is refreshing to hear an announcement first in this Chamber, rather than on TV? I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the opportunities of devolution. The Prime Minister is really clear that the Government’s ambition is to ensure that every area in England has, or is in the process of establishing, a strategic authority by the end of 2027, with strategic authorities in place everywhere by the end of 2028. The process that I have put in place today is about making sure that we have a rapid review and make the right and correct decisions on reorganisation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of her statement. I have almost lost track of the number of times I have stood in this Chamber and warned the Government about problems with their local government reorganisation plans—yet here I am again. It appears that the Government have finally listened, but they have done so too late and the damage has already been done. Thousands of residents have been denied their right to vote over the course of this process, because of plans that many of us in this Chamber warned were on a very uncertain legal footing. Councils have poured enormous amounts of time, effort and money into proposals they were repeatedly assured were legally sound, only to discover that they are now being abandoned. The abortive costs are likely to be substantial. Worse still, a number of authorities were relying on reorganisation as part of a strategy to address serious financial concerns. Those councils are now being left in limbo.

In my own area of Surrey, councils were forced down a reorganisation route that now appears to be effectively abandoned by the Government and questionable on a legal basis. Will the Secretary of State commit to meeting Surrey MPs and the new authority leaders to discuss how our county can avoid the risks and uncertainty that the Government say have prompted this decision elsewhere? The Government need to acknowledge the significant democratic harm caused by this episode and take responsibility for it, including by issuing an apology, so will the Secretary of State set out clearly what happens next for communities and local authorities left in limbo by today’s announcement? Will she also publish the legal advice so that Parliament and the affected communities can understand what went wrong with the original process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

Absolutely. I commend the local representatives in Lancashire for their work. I have been really clear that I have paused to have a review of those places in order to make sure that I am confident, as the Secretary of State, that I have dotted every i, crossed every t and worked with local people to ensure that we give them the best possible local government reform and devolution package.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for looking again at Lincolnshire. I made the point to her predecessor that the proposal for a Greater Lincolnshire authority was, in the eyes of many people, just a gerrymander. Will she look again at it and stop dividing West Lindsey and North Kesteven in half? I represent the Gainsborough South-West ward—the most deprived ward in the entire country. I am on the Pride in Place board. What was the point of dividing Gainsborough and leaving it out on a limb from the rest of the county? Will the right hon. Lady look at our viewpoint in a positive way?

Local Government Reorganisation

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is no point in taking everybody. This urgent question is going to be brief, because we are going to do this again on Thursday, when we will have all the facts before us. If I had been told this earlier, this would not have happened. I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) for securing this urgent question. Local government reform is complex, involving more than 200 councils that deliver services to millions of residents right across the country. My hon. Friend the Minister is very capable, but local government is raising real concerns. Is she aware of the comments of the new chair of the Local Government Association, Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, who said that the LGA had

“not previously taken a position on LGR”,

but that it is

“hearing from…councils…about real delivery concerns”?

We have looked at this issue on the Select Committee, and have raised concerns about standards in the housing sector, ability to deliver measures, such as those rightly in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and enforcement. The LGA raised six concerns. It said that the reforms were trying to do too much, too quickly, with too little. That poses a real challenge when it comes to the vital council services that residents need. Will the Minister ensure that the LGA’s concerns are heard across Government, and that reorganisation will never take resources away from the critical frontline services, including adult social care and children’s social care, that so many of our residents rely on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her very important contribution. I meet regularly with the leadership of the LGA for all the reasons that she mentions. These reforms matter so much because councils do very important things. Both the child poverty strategy and the Milburn review made clear the cost of fragmented services to some of the most vulnerable children and young people in this country, so getting this right really matters. As I have said, we have already allocated £63 million to supporting councils, and I will have more to say on that very shortly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

We Liberal Democrats support genuine devolution, because decisions are better made closer to the communities they affect, yet this Labour Government’s approach has been top-down Whitehall diktat from the very start. Councils have been undermined, residents have been barely consulted, and communities have been left in the dark about the future of local services, all while councils continue to face significant financial pressure.

With the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) expected to saunter into No. 10 within days, I am deeply concerned that Members of this House, councils and residents have no clarity about the approach to local government reorganisation that he will take, whether the parameters will change, and whether future local elections will be cancelled yet again. What discussions has the Minister had with the right hon. Member for Makerfield about his plans for reorganisation, and will she commit to no further local elections being cancelled?

[Alison McGovern]

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson asks me what conversations I have had with my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield; I am afraid that they have been mainly about Everton and Liverpool football club. [Hon. Members: “Resign!”] Indeed.

The work of this Government to secure devolution and reshape local government, so that we can grow our economy, build homes and serve our constituents properly, has been thought through carefully and is proceeding in line with the timetable. I am sure that all of us in this House, whatever our views, want that to succeed.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Perran Moon. Oh, he is not standing now; he has changed his mind. Are you standing up?

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

No. Make your mind up!

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

I thank the Minister for her answers. She will know that local government reorganisation is one side of the coin, and devolution is the other. In places like Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, access to bus franchising, the adult skills agenda and spatial planning is the real victory that we look for. When the announcement comes this week on the new local authority boundaries, will she be able to give any insight on when decisions about strategic authorities will be made? When might there be the first elections for those, so that we can access the devolved powers that we desperately want?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Be careful that they do not accuse you of protesting too much.

[Alison McGovern]

It is fair to say that I am champing at the bit to make this statement, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your support in helping us to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) has made his point clear.

[Mr Speaker]

To be clear for the record, there have been a lot of accusations that people have been briefed. I can assure the House that I know of no briefing—not even to me, although I had hoped to have one.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrat administration on Hertfordshire county council has made huge strides forward in improving special educational needs and disabilities provision. We were delighted when the Government lifted the improvement notice, which had been imposed when the Conservatives were running the council. Just as families are starting to feel the benefit, we are really worried that local government reorganisation could disrupt the delivery of SEND and social care provision. What support will be given to ensure that those essential services for the most vulnerable people will not be disrupted by local government reorganisation?

Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about foreign interference in UK politics.

Genuinely free and fair elections are the bedrock of our sovereignty. They are how our people in this country choose their Government and hold power to account. But we have seen our democracy under attack, whether it is foreign actors trying to find ways to divide us from each other and rip communities apart, funding divisive political actors here in the UK or through misinformation and disinformation online, or public figures refusing to play by the rules and eroding trust by being either unwilling or incapable of being honest and transparent about the support they receive.

No Labour Government will allow our democratic process to be distorted by foreign interference, hostile states or malign actors here in the UK seeking to distort our politics. That is why, to complement the stringent steps that we are already taking to protect our democracy in the Representation of the People Bill, the Secretary of State commissioned Philip Rycroft to conduct an independent review of risks posed by foreign financial influence in UK politics. In March, we welcomed Mr Rycroft’s comprehensive assessment. Today, I am pleased to be publishing the Government’s full response, accepting all of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations.

The UK already has a strong framework to detect, deter and disrupt foreign interference, but hostile actors adapt and so must we. We will now take forward a programme of reform to strengthen our defences and restore public confidence. In response to Mr Rycroft’s recommendations, we will strengthen our political finance rules through amendments to the Representation of the People Bill. As the House was told previously, we will introduce an annual £100,000 cap on donations and regulated transactions from overseas electors. A cap recognises legitimate participation while ending the risk of unlimited overseas money entering our politics.

Recognising that risk continues when British citizens return to the UK, I am announcing that we will also introduce a minimum residency period. An overseas elector returning to the UK must be here for a full calendar year before that cap is lifted. To ensure that there is no opportunity for individuals to circumvent the new regime, once the measures come into force, the minimum residency period will apply retrospectively from the date of our original announcement on 25 March.

We recognise that similar risks exist with other electors who have recently lived abroad but were not registered as overseas electors. We will apply the same cap and minimum residency period to anyone who moves to the UK after today and was not previously an overseas elector. To ensure that these individuals cannot circumvent the rules before a commencement, a modified cap will apply retrospectively. An annual cap of £100,000 per recipient will apply to donations that they make between today and the date of commencement of the measures, including any regulated transactions that they enter into from today. On commencement, the cap and the minimum residency period will apply in the same way as for those who were formerly overseas electors.

As previously announced, we will introduce a moratorium on all political donations of any amount made via cryptocurrency. Until the regulatory environment is robust enough, donations in cryptocurrency should not be a route for money to be channelled into British politics.

Mr Rycroft outlined clearly the ways in which he believes the corporate donations provisions in the Representation of the People Bill can be tightened. Having carefully considered his reasoning, we will amend the corporate donation test so that it is based on post-tax profits, rather than revenue measured over five years. No corporate donor should be able to put more into UK politics than it has made in post-tax profits. That makes it clear that corporate political donations must be rooted in genuine UK-based economic activity, closing a potential loophole that our adversaries might exploit.

To ensure that our reforms to the political finance framework are robust and enforceable, we will introduce a new donor declaration to be made by anyone donating above a specified threshold. We will engage with the Electoral Commission and political parties as we develop the declaration, including an appropriate threshold.

Mr Rycroft sets out the positive impact that the new “know your donor” rules will have in helping to ensure that parties act in the public interest. He also sets out his concerns about the rigour of those rules. We will strengthen the “know your donor” requirements in the Bill, adding location as a risk factor in parties’ due diligence around donations.

We will also strengthen rules and transparency on donations to candidates. Mr Rycroft highlights significant risks in the current rules around these donations, as well as a lack of

“transparency around what is spent, or around the donations being used to fund this spending”.

We will therefore require candidates to declare that donations used to fund campaigning prior to formally becoming a candidate are from permissible sources. Donations made during that period above £2,230 will need to be declared.

We will give the Electoral Commission stronger tools to do its job. Mr Rycroft reports that

“basic transparency requirements are essential to sustaining public trust”,

and that there is currently

“unnecessary inhibition on the enforcement powers of the Commission.”

We agree. We will therefore provide a clear statutory basis for standardised political finance reporting that will make the data easier to compare, scrutinise and enforce. We will create a broad, reciprocal information-sharing gateway, allowing the commission to work more effectively with relevant public authorities. We will extend the commission’s powers to require information outside a formal investigation, which means earlier scrutiny, faster action and stronger enforcement where risks emerge. These reforms will give the regulator the powers needed to protect the integrity of political finance.

We will strengthen enforcement. The most serious breaches of electoral law, especially involving foreign interference, must be met with the right expertise and capacity. Mr Rycroft concludes that the “robustness” of the current enforcement arrangements require

“the police apparatus…to hold the requisite expertise and to be adequately resourced…to deal with the complex instances of criminal breach of electoral law”.

We will therefore work across Government and with policing partners to strengthen and formalise national capability in this area. We also accept that criminal thresholds and sentencing must provide a credible deterrent. We will work at pace with law enforcement, the Electoral Commission, prosecuting authorities, devolved Governments and political parties to develop proposals.

We will also strengthen our response to the wider influencing environment, including hostile state activity online. Mr Rycroft makes important points concerning the dramatic change in recent years to the context in which our democratic process functions, and how this has

“created new opportunities for malign foreign influence”,

regardless of whether money is changing hands in the UK. We will never stop working to counter interference in our democracy. As information threats continue to evolve, we are taking robust action to tackle misinformation and disinformation, improving transparency in online political campaigning, building resilience to information manipulation, and supporting those at the very heart of our democratic system to identify and respond to emerging threats. We will also consider further reforms relating to online political advertising, digital imprints, lobbying transparency, and other routes through which foreign money may seek to influence our politics. That will include looking at the adequacy of the current regulated period, and taking forward work on artificial intelligence and algorithms.

Finally, we accept the need for clear leadership and stronger co-ordination across Whitehall. Following Mr Rycroft’s recommendation, the Cabinet Secretary has given the permanent secretary of the Home Office lead responsibility for sustaining our democracy.

This is a serious and substantial package of reforms that will bring more transparency to political finance, tighten donation rules and strengthen enforcement. This response shows the Government acting now where action is needed. This is a Government who are prepared to do the long-term work to keep our system secure. I thank Philip Rycroft for his important work. The Government will now move swiftly to implement his recommendations. The people of the UK must know that their elections are free, fair, and protected from foreign interference. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Speaker]

I can inform the House that Lords amendment 39 engages Commons financial privilege. If the Lords amendment is agreed to, I will ensure that the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege is entered into the Journal.

Clause 2

Areas of competence

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendments 4, 13 and 26, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendments 36 and 37, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 37.

Lords amendments 41, 85 to 87, 89 to 91, 94, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendment 155, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendments 1, 3, 5 to 12, 14 to 25, 27 to 35 and 38 to 40.

Lords amendment 42, motion to disagree, and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 42.

Lords amendments 43 to 55.

Lords amendment 56, and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 56.

Lords amendments 57 to 84, 88, 92, 93, 95, 96, 117 to 119, 122, 124 to 154 and 156 to 170.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

This Government were elected with a clear mandate to deliver change, but to deliver change that people can see and feel, we must empower our communities. We are therefore determined to build a different type of state where local leaders and communities with skin in the game are given power and control to shape the things that matter in their place and in their lives. Our English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is a critical, bold step in delivering that. It will drive the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and our communities in a generation. It sets a floor for devolution, and we intend to build on the foundation set out in the Bill to give communities the power and control they are demanding to drive the change they want to see in their place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon]

Greater Manchester police has completed its investigation and found no evidence of family voting. I thank the police for their careful and diligent work investigating this matter, as well as the Electoral Commission and the local returning officer for their support. As I said before, coercion in the polling station and other types of electoral offences are unacceptable and undermine confidence in our democratic system.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy Easter. Family voting is just one example of unfair voting practices that seek to skew elections and exploit those isolated from wider British society. Another example of these divisive tactics was a disgraceful Green leaflet in the Gorton and Denton by-election, written in Urdu, saying:

“Labour must be punished for Gaza… Give the Muslims a voice. Vote Green.”

If the Minister agrees that this is divisive language, will she back our amendment to allow election literature in a short campaign to be printed only in an official British language?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. As I have said, we will have more to say on this shortly, but when it comes to fairness, she will know that the Chancellor introduced a new charge for the highest-value properties, showing that this Labour Government are prepared to act when it comes to fairness.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Maximising rises in council tax underpins this Government’s entire approach to council finance. The Minister has admitted that no assessment has been done of the impact that this has on the cost of living for British households. As the Government send in the bailiffs to support their council tax maximisation strategy, will she assure the House that the Prime Minister has considered the impact of these huge council tax rises on working households?

--- Later in debate ---

[Feryal Clark]

I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting Enfield Wash in my constituency last week. After 14 years of Conservative cuts, Enfield lost around 60% of its funding, hitting vital services such as adult social care, youth services and our high street. Despite the cuts, Enfield Labour council has worked tirelessly to protect residents and support the most vulnerable. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and our brilliant Labour council leader Ergin Erbil—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that we are into an election period, but we will have to shorten questions if other Members are to get in. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree.

[Steve Reed]

I always agree with you, Mr Speaker.

Fair funding will provide a significant increase for Enfield council, in line with deprivation levels. The additional Pride in Place funding for two of the most held-back areas will allow them to take control of their own futures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

Sadly, we all know only too well the cost that young people had to bear because of the years of austerity. Through the homelessness strategy, we have been trying to support young people at an earlier stage, and I will happily discuss that with him. We need to ensure that young people really do get a decent chance in life.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

May I take this opportunity to wish you a happy Easter, Mr Speaker?

Under the previous Government, youth funding was reduced by approximately 70% and universal provision was impacted the most. Although we on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the youth strategy, I am very concerned that local government reorganisation will result in a continued reduction in youth provision in our communities. We need to remember that the voluntary sector so often picks up the pieces; I see that in my constituency. It does a brilliant job, but it should not be down to the sector alone. Will the Minister advise on what assessment has been made of the impact of local government reorganisation on youth provision in areas beyond the promised 50 Young Futures hubs?

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The Liberal Democrats were in government! We did it together!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Stuart, we do not need any extra help.

[Alison McGovern]

Thank you for that assistance, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the right hon. Lady well understands—we have had this exchange many times—it is for individual local planning authorities to determine whether green-belt land should be released and the exceptional circumstances test has been met. All the clever questions that she comes up with—I admire her ingenuity in doing so—disguise her true position, which is that she does not want any houses built on any green-belt land in any part of her constituency or anywhere near it, even if that means preventing families from buying or even longer waits for people on housing waiting registers.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Is the Minister confident that the Government’s invention of the term “grey belt” is providing protection to the green belt?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, it depends where you are, doesn’t it?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am confident, Mr Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could confirm to me whether it is now the policy of His Majesty’s Opposition that if all reasonable options for meeting identified housing need have been exhausted, including grey-belt land, no green-belt land can ever be released, even in those very special circumstances. If that is their position, the Opposition are consciously and deliberately consigning people in this country to longer misery as a result of the acute housing crisis that got worse on their watch and is still causing misery, which we are undoing.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Our recent consultation on a revised national planning policy framework included proposals to strengthen support for rural exception sites, and to make it easier for authorities to require affordable housing on smaller sites in rural areas. My hon. Friend will also be aware that designated rural areas are already exempt from the right to buy, but I would be more than happy to meet her and her fellow members of the research group to discuss protecting existing stock, and other matters covered in the recent report that she referenced.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Last week I was in Bromsgrove, a rural constituency facing an 85% increase in its housing target. Neighbouring Labour-run Birmingham, which has significant brownfield capacity, has seen its target cut by more than 30%. Targets are increasing by 37% in Essex, but decreasing by 11% in London. House building has collapsed under this Labour Government, so why is the Secretary of State letting his Labour-run urban friends off the hook while dumping housing targets in rural Britain?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

Through the Representation of the People Bill, we are significantly lowering the threshold for when unincorporated associations register with the Electoral Commission, and we will require them to publicly identify a responsible person who is legally accountable for compliance with electoral law.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Just before Easter, a development of 500-plus homes in my constituency, predicated on building a brand-new Howard of Effingham school, was withdrawn after a decade of commitment to the plan. The developer is expected to proceed with a new application without a school. The community and school are understandably angry and upset. What powers does the Minister have to ensure that developers can be held to such long-term commitments, and will he meet me to discuss the issue and its implications in my constituency and more widely?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I find it quite galling that we have the shadow Secretary of State saying that we have lowered London’s housing targets too far and the hon. Gentleman saying that they are too high. They are just in the right place, from my point of view.

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for outlining the reforms that will come through with the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. In 18 days’ time, residents will see no-fault evictions banned. The Minister knows that we need local authorities to have the resources, and he has outlined that there will be additional resources for local authorities, including the launch of the private rented sector database and the PRS ombudsman. Can the Minister give us an update on when they will be live?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this issue to the House; he knows how important it is. Hillingdon council will have heard what he has said. Mr Speaker, I will not try your patience by rehearsing all that the Government are doing on this issue, but it is not acceptable.

[Mr Speaker]

It is not my patience, but that of the House.

Local Government Reorganisation

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

Nobody could accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not saying what he really thinks about the proposals; I am glad that he had the opportunity to do that. He asked about proposals being locally led. Of course, all the proposals have been put forward by the areas they affect. Residents and others had their chance to feed into the consultation, and we weighed those consultation responses alongside other factors that he will be aware of. He mentioned some of them, including finances.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Boundary Commission. Officials have engaged with it extensively. I have met it to talk through the process, and I am confident that it can do the work needed to make the process a success. Finally, on finances, I have spent the past six months or so listening, day after day, to councils that have deficits caused by a failure in the special educational needs and disabilities system, a failure in children’s care and a failure in adult social care, presided over by a Government of which he was an active part, so if I was him, I would be cautious about lecturing other people about council borrowing.

[Mr Speaker]

Just to let people know, normally Front Benchers would not speak during an urgent question, but for those whose constituency is affected by this issue, and who have direct involvement, there is a dispensation today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I have been working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), and other Ministers in the Department for Education to improve our children’s services. We will ensure that we do that through this reorganisation process. Nothing matters more than the fortunes of our kids, and it is up to us in central Government and local government to work together to deliver good childhoods for all of them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is deeply disappointing that this matter is being addressed today through an urgent question, and was not addressed yesterday through a proper statement from the Government. As I have said, the Liberal Democrats support devolution and reorganisation where that strengthens communities, but changes must be locally led, properly consulted on, adequately funded and never top-down.

In recent months, I have spoken to local government leaders across the country, and their really clear and consistent message is, “First, trust us. Secondly, work with us to fix the broken local government funding system,” which is leaving councils struggling to meet rising costs and needs. While the decisions announced for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk provide clarity—even if areas remain concerned about viability and sustainability—they fail to address those fundamental issues. In the case of Sussex, the Government have essentially dismissed the local proposals, and have instead chosen to consult on their own plans, leaving the county in another period of uncertainty. Does the Minister recognise that that approach undermines trust between national and local government? Has her Department fully assessed the financial consequences of the proposals for reorganisation in those areas and across the country? Will she commit to a cross-party piece of work, carried out with local leaders, on creating a fair, adequate and long-term funding settlement for councils?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for making his way through the alphabet soup of devolution. I will make sure that the Minister for devolution hears his points. She will have read his letter and I am sure will respond to it. The next stage of our plan is to make sure that all places in this country have a plan for growth, and we will listen to what he says as we move forward.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Lincolnshire is such a huge county geographically that there is no enthusiasm for abolishing districts. Be that as it may, the Government are determined to override local residents. There is a rumour coming out of the Labour-controlled City of Lincoln council that the Government will go with a Greater Lincoln. That would be a disaster for West Lindsey, and would leave Gainsborough out on a limb and carve us out of the county. Before the Minister makes any final decision, will she please meet me, so that I can put to her the concerns of West Lindsey district council? We could live with the central Lincolnshire idea—the whole of Lincolnshire—but not Greater Lincoln.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Well, this will be a very interesting connection! I didn’t realise Strangford was up for reorganisation.

[Jim Shannon]

We slogged through 10 years of reorganisation and restructuring in Northern Ireland, and not a penny was saved. Indeed, if anything, prices and rates have gone up—this year, the rise in rates has been exceptional. I say gently to the Minister that perhaps it is time to consider and learn from what Northern Ireland has done and where it has gone wrong, so that we can do better here.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure whether you are being dragged into a devolved matter, Minister, but go ahead if you are happy to answer.

[Alison McGovern]

It would not be the same if I did not get to answer the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), Mr Speaker. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, before and throughout my time in Government, I have always considered what is happening in Northern Ireland to learn lessons from it. I thank him for making that point.

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

May I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his support for the purpose and intent of this legislation, and, indeed, for his and his party’s engagement with Philip Rycroft and his review? He lists the reasons that this is important to all of us and I agree with him. Certainly, I want to see both proper engagement with the Opposition and the opportunity for proper scrutiny, because that will strengthen the legislation. It is important that the legislation has cross-party support given the nature of the issue.

We had to act quickly to bring forward the provisions, because we could not allow a window of opportunity to open that would enable evasion by malign and hostile actors. Beyond that, the proposals will proceed in the usual way through the parliamentary processes and Members from all parts of the House will have the opportunity to comment and be engaged. It was necessary to act at speed because of the gravity of the threat that Philip Rycroft’s review outlined very clearly.

None of wants to allow foreign interference to continue. All of us believe that it is the right of the British people—and the British people alone—to freely choose their own Government. We will engage with Governments across the United Kingdom and parties across this Parliament to ensure that is the outcome.

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I start by echoing the comments of the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, paying tribute to Sir Philip Rycroft for his tireless work? I also thank the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy for its work on cryptocurrency?

We have to be honest and say that there is a lot of mistrust in our politics and democracy. I am proud to stand here as someone who was supported by two trade unions and local members in the funding of my campaign. We cannot say in one breath that we want to defend this country from foreign threats and then allow fundamentally opaque payment methods into our democracy. That is not on. It is therefore right that the Government put in place this moratorium on cryptocurrency donations. I welcome the Secretary of State’s pledge, as well as the cap on donations by overseas electors following the extension of their enfranchisement in the Elections Act 2022.

As is stated in the Rycroft review, one problem is the fact that no less than five Departments cover the responsibility for protecting our democracy. If we want to get this right, we need to continue with leadership at the heart of Government, so will the Secretary of State accept recommendation 17 and allocate a permanent secretary with lead responsibility for sustaining our democracy and co-ordinating the response to the threats at the heart of Government?

Will the Secretary of State also commit to ensuring that any amendments to the Representation of the People Bill as a result of the recommendations are tabled before Commons Report stage, so that Parliament can have adequate time to scrutinise the proposals?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman will have been able to make those points through the consultation, which we launched in order to get to a position where we can simplify the system so that leaseholders know what charges they are being asked to pay and what services they are receiving for them, and to give them greater powers to challenge unfair practices of the kind he has just described.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

According to the Government’s own statistics, 84% of respondents to their consultation said they felt that the system for challenging unfair charges for managing agents and other lease arrangements was not fit for purpose. The Conservatives agree—that is why we legislated to address this in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has had a few distractions recently, but he has told the House that he is committed to addressing this matter. Can he tell all our leaseholder constituents by when the Government will enact that legislation, which we passed with his party’s support?

[Steve Reed]

Of course, nothing is going to distract me from focusing on the needs of leaseholders, and we remain fully committed to ensuring that the provisions and powers outlined in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act are brought into force as soon as possible. It is important for us to go through the technical detail that is covered by the consultation, but we will bring forward those proposals in due course and as quickly as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Many of the 5 million leaseholders were looking forward to being freed from the feudal leasehold system until they read the draft Bill, which left many disappointed. There is no restriction on the development value that leaseholders are going to be charged and no broadening of the mixed-use blocks that will be eligible for enfranchisement, while leaseholders will continue to pay the legal fees of landlords, and service charges are still not being capped. Given the commitments in the Labour manifesto and the King’s Speech to enact these recommendations from the Law Commission, should the Government not be more courageous, take on the landlords and give leaseholders proper rights to enfranchise, as they promised?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are seeing the rise of hate and division in our society. This is an absolutely shameful reality. Parts of our Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu communities are feeling scared and unsafe in their own country. All of us in politics and public life have a huge responsibility to play our part to stamp out this hate and division. That includes calling it out wherever we see it, holding our communities together and standing with the majority of people in this country, who are tolerant and accepting of their neighbours irrespective of their faith, colour or background.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Antisemitism is horrible, but will the Minister agree that there is nothing antisemitic in supporting the rights of the suffering Palestinian people and there is nothing antisemitic in opposing the actions of the present right-wing Israeli Government in making a two-state solution impossible? There is nothing antisemitic in that, because probably the majority of Jewish people throughout the world agree with me—and, actually, the actions of the Israeli Government in forcing Palestinians off their ground is fuelling antisemitism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right; our changes to the national planning policy framework in December 2024 alone have been judged by the Office for Budget Responsibility to have led to the biggest increase in house building in the past 40 years. The Conservative party will not recognise that, as important as it is to preserve green belts, there are simply not enough sites on brownfield land across the country to deliver the volume of homes that we need. That is why we need a more strategic approach to green-belt land release and development.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

The Minister has set out clearly for the House the key plank of development strategy under the previous Secretary of State: re-designating large parts of our green belt as grey belt. Housing delivery is collapsing, but a recent report identified that London already has capacity for 460,000 additional homes on brownfield sites. At the mayor’s rate of delivery, that is an 83-year supply of housing development plots. Rather than focusing on releasing green belt for development, why do the Government not instead focus on building those homes that already have planning permission, and could be built on brownfield sites tomorrow?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

MHCLG and the Building Safety Regulator accept that many applicants have experienced delays, and we recognise that having to wait 40 weeks for decisions is unacceptable. That is why the BSR has established a dedicated external remediation team, and is engaging with stakeholders to work through the detail of applications. A new batching model is being trialled to reduce the length of time taken to assess building control applications, while maintaining building and resident safety.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

When announcing reforms to the Building Safety Regulator last June, the Secretary of State’s Department promised to

“enhance the review of newbuild applications, unblock delays and boost sector confidence”,

but in London, where demand is highest, house building has fallen to its lowest level since 2009, which was under the last Labour Government. At gateway 2, towards the end of quarter 4 of 2025, there were still 740 live cases. On top of that, where decisions were made on applications, the vast majority were invalid, withdrawn or rejected; 67% were not classed as approved for one reason or another. That is not success, is it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend will be disappointed to hear that the Government have no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary or council elections in England. Indeed, the last time a Government called a referendum on proportional representation, the public rejected it. The Government believe that although first past the post is not always perfect, it provides an important direct relationship between Members of this Chamber and their local constituents. I will of course ensure that she gets an appropriate meeting.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

An estimated 48,000 new entrants to the construction sector are needed every year to meet the Government’s target of 1.5 million new homes. Apprenticeship starts come to about half that figure, and apprenticeship completions come to less than a quarter. Does the Secretary of State now accept that his target will not be met, that there is a growing crisis in construction skills under Labour, and that the Government have no credible plan to deliver the workforce needed to build those homes?