Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsThursday 13th November 2025
(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 13 November 2025 - large print - (13 Nov 2025)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. In an earlier Division, six Members behaved in the most disorderly fashion and pushed themselves past Doorkeepers. Those six Members have been identified, and I expect them to come and apologise to me before the evening is out, and to the Doorkeepers to whom they behaved in the most disrespectful way.
Clause 51
Delegation of planning decisions in England
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 33.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The Members who caused the earlier fracas have apologised to the Chair and the Doorkeepers, so that case is closed for now.
Property Service Charges
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. All Back Benchers are now on a six-minute speaking limit. I call Justin Madders.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I welcome this important debate and thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) very much on behalf of the many constituents who come to my surgeries, who write to me, and who I meet when I am out and about in the many developments across Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth town.
I speak today on behalf not just of my constituents, but of leaseholders across the country who feel that they are being let down by the broken system—one that continues to allow unfair and sharply rising service charges, poor communication, and substandard services to persist unchecked. The limited rights to challenge such changes leave people feeling as if they are fighting the battle on their own. As we know from the number of Members present and from many other meetings, people across the country face these issues, so there is something wrong not just with the individual managing agencies that we are all thinking of, but with the system itself.
The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) mentioned regulation. Do we need more layers of it? We must also consider the checks and balances in the system. Asking people to go to the first-tier tribunal as a last resort is so daunting and cumbersome that it is not a proper check on the system. I welcome the Government’s decisive action to tackle long-standing injustices in leasehold and estate management. I thank the Minister for all his work on that, including the incoming changes. This debate is full of hope about those changes making a difference.
Ahead of the closure of the Government’s recent consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections, I conducted a service charge consultation in my constituency, where it is a big issue in so many developments. The results, which I have submitted to the Government, were deeply troubling. More than 200 constituents responded to my consultation, and I think they speak for hundreds more. Almost 90% of respondents reported significant increases in their service charges. Even more—96%—said that they felt those increases were unjustified. That comes down not only to poor communication, but to the fact that many of those services charges do seem to be unjustified.
Those are not isolated cases, as we are hearing in the debate. In 2024, service charges rose by 11% on average—well above the 2.5% rate of inflation—and, in my constituency, they average £2,300 per year. I see countless examples of eye-watering hikes. One constituent reported that their annual service charge had increased from £1,600 to £6,660 per year, for example, while another told me they were sent a large additional bill right before Christmas as their managing agent clawed back more money after an “error” in its accounting. That often happens during years in which the amount has already risen a lot, before rising more still because of extra charges and services provided—or not provided, as many constituents see it.
Too many leaseholders are ignored by managing agents and charged for services that are sub-standard or not delivered at all, including cleaning services that show no signs of leaving the building cleaner, painting in communal areas that do not need to be painted or for which the charge should be lower, and, in one case, gardening services for gardens that do not exist. One of the most shocking examples in my consultation was a large development in my constituency. Leaseholders reported a revolving door of housing managers who are inexperienced, unqualified, overstretched and unfamiliar with the building’s history. The managing agent presents accounts that simply do not add up. Contractors are paid without checks, faults go un-penalised and residents are left to clean up the mess time and again. The managing agent has ignored numerous industry experts who have stated that important plumbing works need to be carried out. Some have said that the building is in serious danger of complete structural failure. Basic services are not carried out, yet leaseholders continue to foot the bill. The managing agent is supposed to paint the exterior at least every 10 years, but nothing happens. It is the same old story again and again.
Six managing agents were named many times in my consultation. I will not name them here, because that would be damaging for the people who live in those developments. Clearly, there are some good managing agents and landlords, but there are also some very bad ones, and those are the ones that we need a new Bill to deal with. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 contains proposals for greater transparency through standardised accounts, mandatory reserve funds and easier routes to challenge unreasonable service charge rises, and managing agents will face mandatory qualifications and enforced membership of professional bodies. Those measures are all welcome. The previous Conservative Government had 14 years to act on these matters but passed leasehold reform law only in the dying days of the last Parliament, so their measures were rushed, poorly drafted and failed to ban new leasehold homes.
I am very glad that this debate offers us the chance to talk about going further on industry regulation and to welcome the commonhold Bill. Leaseholders in my constituency and across the country have waited long enough. The system is broken, the injustice is real, and the need for reform is urgent.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call David Reed. Many congratulations on baby Reuben!
David Reed
I have one minute left and I will make my final points. The Act aimed to bring mandatory transparency, through standardised billing, greater rights to challenge charges, and easier routes to taking over management, but those reforms are not yet implemented. Why is that? I hope that the Minister, in his closing remarks, will set out a course for when those measures will be implemented, and will say what new legislation will be brought in to ensure that people are protected. I finish on a point on which I think we all agree: residents who are on these schemes do not need more consultations; they need action, and this Parliament must deliver.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. It is up to Members if they wish to take an intervention. If they do, they have an extra minute on their speaking time.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments 19B, 19C and 19D.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to agree with the Lords in their amendments 39B and 39C.
Matthew Pennycook
Today is a momentous day, because, subject to agreement from this House, the Renters’ Rights Bill will have completed all its stages and will therefore shortly become law. This House last legislated to fundamentally alter the relationship between landlords and tenants in 1988—I was just six years old. In the decades since, England’s private rented sector has changed beyond all recognition. It now houses not just the young and the mobile, but many older people and families with children, for whom greater security and certainty is essential to a flourishing life.
The need to overhaul the regulation of the private rented sector and, in so doing, level decisively the playing field for landlords and tenants is pressing. That is why we introduced the Bill within months of taking office. We promised that we would succeed where the previous Conservative Government had failed by legislating to transform the experience of private renting. I am delighted that we are now within touching distance of seeing the Bill become law. Before I turn to the final amendments agreed to in the other place, I want to put on the record once again my profound thanks to Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding through its House of Lords stages.
Matthew Pennycook
We have ongoing dialogue with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence about this issue, and if the hon. Member will allow me, I will elaborate on how we think these amendments will work in practice and how they interact with what the Ministry of Defence is itself doing. First, however, I once again thank Baroness Grender, Baroness Thornhill and the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for their continued support and advocacy for service personnel and their families.
The Government have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that our armed services personnel and their families must live in safe and decent homes. We remain determined to improve the standard of service family accommodation across the entire defence estate. Alongside the commitment to drive up standards through a record investment of £1.5 billion in service family accommodation over the next five years, the Government will soon publish a defence housing strategy setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve the lives of those who serve our country. That standard will be published, so service families will be able to see, judge their accommodation against and interact with this new statutory duty.
As I outlined in the previous debate on Lords amendments, the Government acknowledge the need for greater transparency and accountability to ensure that the commitments we have made are honoured. The amendments in lieu will place the commitments I made to this House last month on a statutory basis. The Government believe that this, alongside the wider steps I have already set out, will help ensure service personnel and their families have the quality of homes that they deserve. The amendments also include a delegated power allowing the housing quality standards that SFA is assessed against to be updated when the current version of the decent homes standard is no longer considered appropriate—for example, when it has been replaced by a new modernised standard. The Liberal Democrats have indicated their support for these amendments, and I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting them.
To conclude, I urge the House to support the amendments put forward by the other place, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I fully support my hon. Friend the Minister’s motion to agree with Lords amendments 19 and 39, and I thank him for all his work. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for piloting this momentous legislation through the House. If I may, I add my own thanks to the noble Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, who has been a doughty champion in the other place and, of course, in my constituency of Stevenage.
Some 7,000 households rent privately in Stevenage. They fear their tenancies coming to an end for no good reason. I was knocking on doors in the ward of Roebuck last weekend. A young mother opened her door, and I noticed that the window next to the front door was broken and patched up with a wooden board. I asked whether it was a council property, and she said, “No, I rent privately. He’s a good landlord.” I said, “Okay, so will he fix that window?” She replied, “Oh, no. He has given me this bit of wood. I am a bit worried that if I ask, he will throw me out.” That is what a “good” landlord is assumed to be. It must come to an end.
Renters like that young mother have been waiting 40 years for change. Today, should the House agree, the Bill will go for Royal Assent, and that fear will come to an end, so I support the motion. I thank the Minister.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I look forward to Parliament finally passing legislation that will bring long-overdue protections to tenants. We do not believe, like the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), that tenants’ rights are “all well and good”. They are not all well and good. No-fault evictions are not all well and good, and the previous Government’s failure to outlaw them is unacceptable. It is a good thing that this legislation will finally change that.
The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for—and stood on a manifesto that included—ending no-fault evictions of tenants, longer and more stable tenancies, a register of landlords, and decent homes for our forces families. Thanks to the Government agreeing to our proposals, all those things are to become law through the Bill and in MOD service accommodation. For too long, renters across the board have had a bad deal. It is time to redress the balance after years of Conservative government failing to deliver both on no fault evictions and on decent homes for our military families.
I warmly welcome Government amendment 39, which will make service family accommodation subject to the decent homes standard. I am glad that Ministers have listened to the calls from the Liberal Democrats and service families. I thank the Minister for doing the hard yards pragmatically in his negotiations on the Bill, and I pay tribute to my noble Friends Baroness Grender and Baroness Thornhill for their work to secure those important changes. The state of housing that service families have had to endure is a disgrace. The Defence Committee heard of dire conditions, with pest infestations, black mould, damp, flooding and unreliable heating and hot water in winter. I have heard similar stories and seen the photographs from constituent service families who were forced to live in damp and mouldy accommodation declared unfit for human habitation. Our soldiers, sailors, air force personnel and Royal Marines—such as those who serve in 40 Commando at Norton Manor Camp in my constituency, the Conservative closure of which I began campaigning against in 2017—sacrifice so much for our country. The very least that they deserve is a decent home for them and their family.
This is not an isolated issue. Research we obtained earlier this year found that, on Victory in Europe Day alone, more than 400 service families were forced to apply for emergency repairs. While the country celebrated our veterans, too many forces families were struggling with housing that falls far short of the standards that we rightly expect elsewhere. Their new decent home standard—which comes a year after my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) tried and failed to get the Conservative Government to deliver it, and 18 years after Sir Menzies Campbell began the Liberal Democrat campaign for decent homes for our military—is a matter of fairness, as I hope the House will agree. This is a great first step, and I am proud that the Liberal Democrats have had a hand in securing it.
Decent homes for service families should be not just reported on but acted on. Defence Ministers have assured the House that housing standards are on an upward trajectory. We will hold the Government to account on that commitment. Can the Minister give any assurances that resources will be put in place to ensure that that happens? Nobody wants to see an annual report that leads to no progress. I also ask him to ensure that service family accommodation meets the commitments made in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation’s consumer charter—most notably the requirement to complete urgent repairs within a timeline consistent with Awaab’s law. That would ensure that Lords amendment 39 strengthens a Bill that already delivers vital reforms for renters and rightly includes protections for service families. It delivers broader transformation in renters’ rights by ending no-fault evictions, creating more secure tenancies and raising standards across the private rented sector. Amendment 19 would also allow shared owners to re-let if a sale falls through. As such, we support it.
Of course, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture: the need to build a new generation of council and social rent homes—150,000 per year. This week shows that determination, persistence and principle can deliver real change. Our forces families will now have statutory protections for their homes, tenants across the country will gain greater rights, and every step like this brings us closer to the fairer housing system that we all want. I congratulate all those who have campaigned for this change, particularly the forces families who have contacted me. More secure homes are what private renters need, and decent homes are the least our military deserve.
Social Housing: South Cotswolds
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I support the Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes. This debate refers more to social housing and I wonder whether you could give an indication from the Dispatch Box—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to the Minister. He cannot keep saying “you”. It is exhausting.
Pride in Place
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Waugh, you do not cross the Front Bench, even to take a shortcut. It is not on.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the action we are taking to restore pride in place. Britain’s renewal is a driving mission of this Labour Government, and we know that that must be seen, felt and heard in every single neighbourhood. Our identity, sense of patriotism and feeling of belonging can all depend on the condition of our local area and the view from our doorstep.
Our neighbourhoods are the nation’s barometer for whether all of us in this House are doing our jobs. Under 14 years of Conservative failure, the needle of that barometer has increasingly pointed in the wrong direction. The effect of this decline in pride in place has been corrosive. It has eroded people’s trust in politics and the state, created a sense of unfairness and that some places have fared better than others, and opened the door to the plastic patriots in the Reform party, who say that there is a simple answer. Let me say from the start that we are under no illusions about the complex causes of, and answers to, this decline.
The failure of the Conservatives properly to fund local government, the sharp transition away from industry and the broken Tory promises of levelling up must shoulder part of the blame. We cannot and will not pretend that the legacies of any of those issues can be reversed overnight, but, as both a Labour Government and a Parliament, we can be confident that the way in which we restore pride in place lies not in this Chamber or the corridors of Whitehall; the answer is in the communities that we each represent.
Our job is to give our constituents the investment and powers that they need, so that they can deliver the change they want to see in their communities. That is why we have announced the pride in place programme, backed up by £5 billion. This is a priority for the Prime Minister, choosing renewal over decline and unity over division. This is our plan for change in action, giving power and pride back to the people who make Britain great.
There are two categories of investment. The first, the main programme, is the flagship pride in place programme, which will provide up to £20 million of funding and support to each area over the course of a decade, focused on specific neighbourhoods. Communities will need to decide how that funding is spent. We will establish a neighbourhood board in every place, made up of local people. Residents, business owners and community leaders will come together alongside their Member of Parliament to come up with a 10-year plan for this investment. They could choose to bring a derelict pub back into use for the community, transform a boarded-up shop into a wellbeing hub, improve local transport links, create a new playground or roll out a community-level service to help with the cost of living. Local people know best what change is needed.
This programme is about local communities taking back control. As long as the plan provides value for money, the board will have our full support to deliver the change that the community needs. We are taking inspiration from the new deal for communities, which, under the last Labour Government, put local communities in charge of renewing their neighbourhoods, but we are also adapting to the world as we find it today and learning the lessons of what did and did not work from the last time around.
The second programme, the pride in place impact fund, will provide a short-term injection of £1.5 million per place. It will be delivered by local authorities for the most immediate results in three phases: community spaces, public spaces and high streets and town centre revitalisation. Despite the shorter timeframe of the fund, there is still an important emphasis on local collaboration. We will ask local communities to work closely with MPs and local authorities to ensure that investment decisions reflect local priorities and community needs. Our economic situation means that we are not in a position to cover everywhere that would benefit from this programme. We have therefore prioritised places with the highest level of need—those places that have been left behind and let down, and those communities that were hollowed out over 14 years of Conservative austerity, for which the Conservatives should hang their heads in shame.
It is important to this Labour Government that every community has the power to renew their area, so alongside this investment we have published the pride in place strategy. The purpose of the strategy is to promote the same principle of community power across the entire country, and it centres on three aims.
The first aim, building stronger communities, means bringing people together. We see that as the foundation for a greater sense of belonging and local pride. When people spend time with each other in their community, including those from different backgrounds, they see that they have more in common than separates them. This sense of shared endeavour means that communities are more likely to take steps to improve their local area. As part of that, we will fund locally led interventions to build community resilience, encouraging volunteers through co-produced policies, and tackle loneliness. We recognise that that can be delivered only by a whole-of-Government approach, so this section of the strategy includes policies from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office.
The second aim, creating thriving places, is how we promote pride in place in the most direct sense: by improving how the public realm looks. As a Government, we see a direct link between the declining appearance of our local neighbourhoods and how people feel about not just their immediate area, but the country and the world around them. We acknowledge that the performance of the public realm is often a reflection of the economy and the work of local authorities, which is why we are focused on growth and on fixing the foundations of local government, but even in times when the economy has been strong and local government was funded properly, the effects have not always been felt in the public realm. Fixing that disconnect is the inspiration for policies to encourage the application of shopfront design guides as well as the use of clean-up powers. What links all the policies in this section of the paper is that they empower our communities to create thriving places. This is not an attempt to micromanage change from Whitehall.
The final strand, helping communities to take back control of their own lives and areas, sets out our plan to give people a stronger voice in what matters to them. Each of us in the House will have spoken to constituents who talk of helplessness, when the place that they live in is changing in ways that they did not ask for and that they feel they have no control over. Sometimes it is about antisocial behaviour on their estate; other times, it is about the shops being lost from the high street. People want to be in control of their surroundings, but that is such a distant concept when they do not feel safe going out at night or do not have a say over how their town centre looks.
A lot of those feelings stem from the effects of the Conservative Government’s 14 years of austerity, which took libraries and leisure centres from some of the most deprived and disadvantaged communities. When combined with the closure of pubs, sports clubs and social clubs, it means that for much of the country there are fewer and fewer places for people to come together and take pride in. We are therefore introducing a community right to buy, to give local residents new powers to save treasured assets; giving more people a say in their local economy by creating a new co-operative development unit in my Department; and requiring all authorities in England to establish effective neighbourhood governance.
This Labour Government’s pride in place programme is an investment in the UK’s future, backing the true patriots who build up our communities across every corner of the country. Alongside our strategy, it aims to spark a new way of governing, where power and resources are more readily shared with our communities. However, like devolution, this needs to be the start of a process rather than a single event. We have specifically designed both investment programmes with a guaranteed role for local Members of Parliament, so I finish by encouraging Members from across the House to get involved. At a time when trust is low and the demand for change is high, this is an opportunity for all of us to make a real, tangible difference to our communities by giving real power to those we are elected to serve.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am disappointed by the hon. Member’s lack of contrition and his failure to say sorry. The Conservatives presided over 14 years of failure, during which, over a period of austerity, local government and local civic institutions were denuded and deprived communities were hollowed out. He says that we are funding areas of deprivation—that is because we actually care about funding those areas. Candidly, if I had the record of the last Government, I would not stand at the Dispatch Box and give us lectures.
Let me pick up the specific questions that the hon. Member asked. First, why are we tying this up in process? There is no process, but we have said that communities should be in charge. The difference between this scheme and the things done by the last Government is that we want to put communities in the driving seat and give them power. We want local authorities to enable and facilitate, but we absolutely need our community leaders. Members across the House will know them—the people who are networking, championing and making change happen. We want them around the table, driving the change that their community needs.
On the methodology, the Conservative party obviously did some fiddling, but we do not do that. We have focused on two metrics: multiple deprivation and community needs. That is putting investment into the areas that most need it, because they are both deprived and, critically, have low social infrastructure and social capital. That is why we are funding the areas that we are funding. We all remember the Conservatives’ last Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), saying that they actively diverted funding away from areas of deprivation. That is something that the Labour party will not do and has not done.
Finally, turning to the funding profile, we are desperate to move with momentum. We want to get the investment out. It is a 10-year commitment—that is an absolute game changer. No Government have ever said to communities, “Come up with an investment plan and we will fund you over a decade.” We think that is game changing for communities on the ground, but we are not going to wait. We are already giving programme capital investment to the 75 places that were in phase 1, in order to start the work of kick-starting that programme, and then their funding will flow next year. For those places in phase 2, capital and capacity investment will be going into them from next year and then flowing in the year after. We are very clear about this opportunity for our communities.
This is not about party politics, so I am incredibly disappointed by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). This is an opportunity to support parts of our country that have been absolutely hollowed out. I would expect a bit more contrition. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] Because of your record. Because you sat—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. “Because of your record”? My record? “Because of you”? Me? Let us temper our language, lower the temperature and continue.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Because of the Conservatives’ record, I would expect a little bit more contrition.
We are focused on the task ahead, which is the opportunity to drive change in our communities. I hope Members across the House can join us in that endeavour.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right—levelling up was a hollow slogan. We see from the record that there was no substance behind it. Unlike the Conservative party, we are doing the job of investing in our communities, putting them in the driving seat. That will be a game changer in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Members can see how many colleagues wish to contribute. Unless they keep their contributions short, they will deny their fellow Members the opportunity to speak. Show us how it is done, Shaun Davies.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I warmly welcome the £20 million investment in Telford, which has been match funded by Labour-led Telford and Wrekin council. That means that £3 million will go to Woodside, Brookside and Sutton Hill each and every year for the next decade. Will the Minister confirm when that money will come to the community frontline? Will she also challenge Government agencies and Departments right across Whitehall to get behind the ethos of this scheme, and make sure that communities are in charge, and that there is pride?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are not able to fund all areas—I wish we were—so we have focused on particular areas of deprivation that also score high on the community needs index. However, we are also putting in place a whole set of powers and provisions so that every community can take control of its high streets and other areas, and can use the community right to buy. I am very happy to meet the hon. Member and other Cornwall Members to talk about how we can ensure that that part of the country thrives.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I will try again. Dr Lauren Sullivan will show us how it is done.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to her place. I thank her for Gravesham’s share of the pride in place impact fund; £1.5 million over two years is a really great investment, so that we can restart building communities and place—and there are new possibilities that once could only have been imagined. These priorities have been neglected over many years. Does she agree with me that the impact fund will make a real difference to Gravesham?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Paul Waugh, who will not want to let me down after his earlier infraction.
Paul Waugh
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Rochdale, we warmly welcome this £20 million investment in Smallbridge and Hurstead, which is very much overdue. I am the Labour and Co-operative MP for Rochdale, which is the home of the Co-op, and we know more than anyone elsewhere the power of local people coming together, setting their own priorities and taking back control. Does the Minister agree with me that this investment is overdue because of the years of neglect by the Conservative party and Whitehall, and is a vote of confidence in local people?
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister said in her statement:
“Our job is to give our constituents the investment and powers that they need”.
Of course, we all agree with that, and today’s announcement is welcome. However, as a fellow London MP, she will be aware that the so-called fairer funding review will actually decimate the funding of many London local authorities. My own borough of Richmond is set to lose a staggering amount—over 90% of its core Government funding—and our most vulnerable and disadvantaged residents will suffer. [Interruption.] If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am being heckled by Labour Members—
Munira Wilson
Will the Minister at the very least commit to an impact assessment of the fair funding review changes for local authorities such as Richmond, and will she grant transitional funding?
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Minister, the statement makes reference to engaging with the Northern Ireland Executive. Can you tell me what discussions you have had with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. It is not “Can you tell me?”; it is “Can the Minister tell me?”. Yes? Quick!
Sorcha Eastwood
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can the Minister please tell me what discussions you have had with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive? You will be aware of the fact that the shared prosperity fund, which other Members have referenced, is not being replaced. The local growth situation is already jeopardising jobs in Northern Ireland. Can you make any comment on that, Minister? Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Correction twice—it is not “Can you make a comment?” Let us please make sure we get our words right next time around.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are working very closely with the Northern Ireland Office, which is in constant contact with the Northern Ireland Executive in terms of pride in place and community investment, and local growth investment more widely. We will be working closely with them and ensuring that we are engaging with, and trying to design this with, the Northern Ireland Executive.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendments 39 and 68 engage Commons financial privilege. If either of those Lords amendments is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 12
Right to request permission to keep a pet
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 14, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 18, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 19, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 27, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 39, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 53, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 55 to 62, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 64, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 67, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendments 1 to 10, 12, 13, 15 to 17, 20 to 25, 28 to 38, 40 to 52, 54, 63, 65, 66 and 68 to 77.
Matthew Pennycook
This Government were elected with a clear mandate to do what the Conservatives failed to do in the last Parliament—namely, to modernise the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector, and empower private renters by providing them with greater security rights and protections. Our Renters’ Rights Bill does just that, and it needs to receive Royal Assent as quickly as possible so that England’s 11 million private renters can benefit from its provisions.
Before I turn to the Lords amendments, I want to thank Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding the Bill through the other place. I put on record my appreciation of all the peers who contributed to its detailed scrutiny.
As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government made several important changes to the Bill in the other place with a view to ensuring that it will work as intended and in response to the legitimate concerns raised about the implementation of specific provisions. In the interests of time, I will update the House only on the two that are most apposite.
The first change concerns the date from which a tenant is required to pay a new rent in instances where the first-tier tribunal has set a new rent amount following a tenant’s challenge to a proposed increase. The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases. It is essential that we deliver on that commitment not only to protect tenants from undue financial pressure, but to prevent rent hikes from being used as a form of back-door eviction once section 21 notices have been abolished.
However, recognising that there is inherent uncertainty about the volume of rent increase challenges that will be brought when the new tenancy system comes into force, and as a safeguard against a scenario in which the first-tier tribunal is overwhelmed by a sharp increase in challenges, Lords amendments 6 to 8 introduce a new delegated power that will enable the backdating of rent increases following determinations by the tribunal of new rent amounts. I want to reiterate what Baroness Taylor made clear in the other place—namely, that it is not the Government’s intention to make use of this new power unless and until it is considered necessary to avoid lengthy delays for genuine cases to be heard. If used, it would be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. In addition to introducing that important safeguard, the Government also concluded that there is a compelling case for the use of an alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations. Subject to a final viability assessment, we intend to establish such an alternative body or mechanism as soon as possible, and will confirm further details in due course.
The second important change the Government made in the other place concerns insurance to cover potential damage from pets. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill as originally introduced, mirroring provisions in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, enabled landlords to request such insurance in instances where a tenant had requested a pet. In response to concerns expressed by several peers that the insurance industry appears unlikely to provide suitable financial products at the speed and scale required, and that the reasonable request of tenants to keep pets might be hampered as a result, Lords amendments 10, 12 and 13 remove the provisions in the Bill which made landlord consent to a request to keep a pet conditional on the tenant taking out, or paying for, pet damage insurance.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The UK needs a vibrant and fluid private rented sector. We need it to deliver communities that are happy and cohesive, and to deliver fairness, stability and security for families. I have been looking at the Government’s position on the Bill, and I pay tribute to the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), for the work he has done on it—or is he the right hon. Member?
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsTuesday 2nd September 2025
(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As colleagues can see from looking around the Chamber, there are far too many speakers to be accommodated by 7 pm, when this debate has to end. As such, after the next speaker, the speaking limit will be three minutes, and you can calculate the numbers—not everybody will get in, even on that time limit. I call Bradley Thomas.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have always been, and I remain, a vocal advocate for devolution and reorganisation. I got to witness the type of joy and hope I want every community to feel when I worked in Greater Manchester during the establishment of the first devolved mayoralty. I have had robust debates with councils and residents of all political persuasions on how local government reorganisation should best work in Lancashire, particularly when a sense of place and home is so important to most of us. The prospect of what we know to be our place changing somehow can be unsettling, but if we are brought along and engaged throughout, we can usually start to see the opportunities too.
I will focus my comments on the most local level of our democratic structure: the role of town and parish councils, which I believe should be used to even greater effect if we let it. My constituency of Ribble Valley is significantly parished in its rural areas, with parishes such as Broughton and Balderstone, while more suburban areas such as Lostock Hall are not but have active community groups such as the Lostock Hall Village Team. I therefore see the strength of both formal and informal community leadership.
In clause 58, the Bill rightly creates a clearer requirement for local authorities to create neighbourhood governance structures. In a statement to this House in June, it was suggested that those could be called neighbourhood area committees, led by ward councillors. However, I am concerned that the Bill does not fully appreciate the role that town and parish councils currently play and that the accountability of such neighbourhood area committees does not seem to be enshrined.
I will cover a couple of my concerns. First, if the committees are led by ward councillors, such councillors are political in their nature whereas parish councillors are usually apolitical. We therefore need to consider the ramifications of changing the focus of those local committees. Secondly, how do we ensure that every area is advocated for by a committed representative? How do we tangibly protect areas whose ward councillors are not active or who do not create a neighbourhood governance structure? Does that remove the ability for involved residents to form groups outside that? We all know of councillors—rare as they are, I hope—who stand for political reasons or otherwise and then do not drive things locally.
Even though parish and town councils only cover 36% of the population in England, they cover some 90% of its geographical area. Some may feel that such a distinction means that parish councils are not so influential and significant in our country’s governance, but that view does a disservice to the land that we live in and on and are sustained by. As politicians, and as residents in a democracy, we are responsible for the land around us and its resources. Indeed, some of the biggest roles for parish and town councils are around planning, the environment, flooding and ensuring that local areas—the buildings, the fields, the roads and not just the people—are managed well.
Although to some this section of the Bill may feel small and fairly niche, if we do not pay attention to the conversations happening in the pub or the community centre and to the people there who understand their local area better than anyone, we will struggle to understand what people want and need. Let me be clear: this Bill is monumental. But let us build on our fantastic existing structures, especially those town and parish councils that cover 90% of our great country, as has always been—
Strategy for Elections
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
The Government have today published our strategy for modern and secure elections. When we came into power just over a year ago, the Government committed through our manifesto to bringing forward measures to strengthen our precious democracy and uphold the integrity of our elections. The strategy we have published today sets out how we will legislate and implement provisions to extend the voter franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, increase participation in our elections, tackle the inconsistencies in voter identification rules, and protect our democracy by overhauling our political finance rules.
We recognise that there is a growing and worrying trend of candidates, administrators and electors facing harassment and intimidation, which has a chilling effect on our democracy. We are bringing forward measures to tackle this issue. I thank Mr Speaker and the Speaker’s Conference for the work that is being conducted, and the report that has been published, on harassment and intimidation. We will fix the foundations of how elections operate by taking forward a range of practical measures to ensure that elections continue to be delivered successfully.
Our democracy is central to who we are as a country. We can take pride in its evolution, and in how it continues to inspire. The Government have a responsibility to protect and strengthen it. The plans we have announced today will future-proof our democracy, secure our elections and protect them against interference. We will deliver on these plans during the lifetime of this Parliament through a programme of reforms, which will include an elections Bill that will be introduced in due course. Through this strategy, we will usher in a new chapter in our democracy that reflects our principles and restores faith in our politics. I look forward to working with colleagues from across the House on this very important agenda.
Paul Holmes
Yesterday, the Department gave notice of a written ministerial statement on the Government’s new strategy for elections, which is a significant policy document on changes to election law and political finance law—something that affects us all in this House. Instead of the Minister using this democratic Chamber to announce a new and wide-ranging strategy on democracy, the Government chose to announce it to the press in Monday’s No. 10 lobby briefing—typical government by press release. In fact, it has just been announced on “BBC News”. There will be no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny until September, due to the pending recess.
Why did the Minister not choose to come to the House to announce this policy, despite us having been given word through a written ministerial statement that the Government would do so? Why did she not think it right to come here of her own accord to announce it? Why has there been no consultation of political parties to date? This is contrary to the approach of the last Government, who actively consulted on changes.
This strategy has finally revealed the Government’s ambition to allow a 16-year-old to vote in an election, but not to stand in it, probably because young people are abandoning the Labour party in droves. Why do they think a 16-year-old should be able vote, but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket or an alcoholic drink, marry, go to war or even stand in the elections they are voting in? Is not the Government’s position on the age of majority just hopelessly confused?
Does the Minister agree that, while foreign donations are already illegal and should remain so, steps should be taken to tighten the law to prevent donations from those who are not properly on the electoral roll, including the funnelling of money from impermissible sources? We welcome the U-turn on not scrapping voter ID, but will using bank cards not undermine the security of the ballot box, and what security measures will she bring in now that automatic registration has been announced?
Finally, what steps will the Minister take to tackle the important issue of intimidation in public life? Will the Government still abide by the long-standing convention that the Government of the day do not unilaterally impose measures directly affecting political parties without proper engagement and discussion? And will they stop announcing constitutional policy by press release?
Rushanara Ali
This Government were elected on a manifesto that committed us to granting 16-year-olds the right to vote and protecting our democracy from foreign money. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party lost the general election, in the worst general election defeat for decades, so it is no wonder that the Conservatives are scared of the electorate. The truth is that young people deserve to have a stake and have a say in the future of our democracy. Young people can vote for any party they like, and it speaks volumes that he would prefer them to be silenced.
I remind the House that the hon. Gentleman’s party sat in government for 14 years, and did nothing to close the gaping loopholes allowing foreign interference and foreign money to enter our system, despite independent experts calling for change. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report exposed malign efforts to channel foreign money into UK politics. Both the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Electoral Commission have called for strengthened regulations and greater transparency in political donations, alongside modernised enforcement. We make no apologies for finally taking the tough choices, and protecting Britain’s democracy from malign foreign interference.
The real question for the hon. Gentleman is whether the Conservatives will finally end their addiction to donations from shell companies. Under the new laws, they will not have a choice, and we will not stop there, because they will finally have to update their weak due diligence checks and conduct enhanced checks. We will give the Electoral Commission the power to administer a hefty fine, of up to a maximum of £500,000, to deter bad behaviour. Instead of pointing the finger, the hon. Gentleman should be welcoming these changes, and taking the opportunity to finally clean up his party.
We have published the elections strategy, and we have laid a written statement. I have responded in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I will continue to engage with parliamentary colleagues in the coming days, over the summer recess and in the autumn.
We want to make a series of changes, and I am determined to make sure we get as much cross-party agreement as possible. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman, because I believe that there is common ground on a range of issues. He knows all too well the harassment and intimidation, and threats to our lives, that many of us have faced. It is really important that we work on these agendas together.
On moving towards automated voter registration, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we will carefully consider how we implement those changes to ensure they are done safely, and I look forward to working with colleagues on that. We have retained the voter ID changes made under the previous Government, but we recognise that certain groups of legitimate voters, particularly disabled voters, were excluded. We need to address that gap, and I know his party recognises that challenge, so we will ensure that we do not exclude legitimate voters. I look forward to working with him on issues of common interest and agreement.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for the written statement and for her work behind the scenes.
We should welcome the opportunity for more people to be enfranchised. We should be very clear that one person losing the right to vote at the ballot box is one person too many. It is really important that we look at the issues around voter ID, and ensure more opportunities for people to have other forms of voter ID at the ballot box. It is important that we enfranchise our young people to vote. They participate in public life already, so they should also be entitled to vote.
It is really important to have system where it is easier to be registered to vote. When you move home, before you have even unpacked you get a council tax bill—the council already has your details—so it is good that we are looking at a system to ensure people are registered to vote. For far too long we have knocked on doors and people have said that they are interested but not registered to vote, so that is vital.
On ensuring candidates still feel safe, this is a big challenge and a threat to democracy. Will my hon. Friend outline what work she will be doing with the Electoral Commission on the intimidation and abuse faced by candidates?
Rushanara Ali
I thank my hon. Friend for her questions; she does important work in her Committee. The changes we are introducing will ensure that elected representatives, candidates, campaigners and electoral staff, who play a unique role in our democracy, are properly protected. We will give courts the power to increase sentences for those who are hostile to candidates. An aggravated factor for intimidatory offence will be introduced, allowing courts to pass tougher sentences. We will also remove the requirement to publish candidates’ addresses. We will consult with the Crown Prosecution Service, the Sentencing Council and other judicial bodies.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
We are very pleased that the Government have published the strategy, many aspects of which have the support of the Liberal Democrats. We have, for many years, championed votes at 16 and we are really glad that the Government have listened to those calls. We also welcome the measures to tackle dark and illicit money in our politics, and the recent plans to introduce supplementary voting for mayoral elections.
However, I am concerned that the strategy shows nowhere near the kind of ambition that we need to fix a system of elections that has left large swathes of the public feeling like their vote simply does not count. As Members across the House will know, last year’s general election turned out the most disproportionate result in history, with nearly 60% of people who voted not represented in Parliament by the candidate they voted for.
This opportunity cannot be wasted. Will the Government go further? Will they look at scrapping voter ID in its entirety? Will they look at introducing further measures to ensure that foreign oligarchs such as Elon Musk are not able to interfere in British politics, including through party funding? And will they finally scrap first past the post and introduce fair votes via proportional representation?
Florence Eshalomi
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is really important that Members of Parliament are accurate in our statements, and I just want some clarity. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) mentioned bags of postal votes, but you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that under the Elections Act 2022 and a subsequent statutory instrument—I served on its Committee as the shadow Minister for democracy—people handling postal votes will now be limited to handling no more than five postal votes for elections, plus their own postal votes. Does the hon. Member want to reflect on his statement about people carrying multiple bags of postal votes?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I take it that she has notified the hon. Member mentioned.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Obviously, the hon. Member’s point of order is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put it on the record.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The debate will be opened by the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have far too many speakers, because this debate must conclude at 7 pm. We will have a hard speaking limit of three minutes. Interventions are up to the lead speaker, but if they are not made or taken, I could get everybody in. That is something to keep you going for a bit. [Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) remaining quiet will help enormously.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I rise to the three-minute challenge. We hear that this is the biggest investment in social and affordable housing in a generation. I am sure we all remember the day when we got the keys to our first home and how that felt. We are told there will be £39 billion over 10 years, but the real test is whether it reaches the councils and communities that need it the most. As ever, we need detail and clarity, and once again it is lacking from this Government and these estimates—I fear that is because of their pursuit of their ideologically driven utopia.
Will the Government commit to publishing the regional allocation of local authority housing and affordable homes programme funds, which is critical to understanding the impact on our own communities? We must ensure that funding flows to not just city regions, but towns such as Walsall and the Walsall borough, where my constituency sits. Local authorities must have fair access to the affordable homes programme and to infrastructure support.
I have previously expressed my concerns in a debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill about the lack of democratic accountability that this Government will create in their approach to planning. A further point, which has been expressed by the National Association of Local Councils, is that the Minister’s Department is not proceeding with commissioning new neighbourhood planning support services from 2025. I feel that that is just another kick in the teeth for local parish and town councils.
I know that the Minister is a good man and brings loads of experience to this place from his time in local government, but I do not believe that his Government are interested in local communities, preferring to drive a coach and horses over our precious green spaces. I look at how Birmingham’s housing targets are being slashed, yet ours across the Walsall borough are being hiked up. Maybe it is because Birmingham is incompetent and cannot empty its bins, but I will leave that for another day.
These are arbitrary, Whitehall-driven and centralised targets. I have long campaigned for development to happen on brownfield first, but that needs real funding for remediation, infrastructure and up-front costs. Under Andy Street’s leadership and a Conservative Government, we showed in the west midlands that we can remediate brownfield sites—look at the Caparo and Harvestime sites—and deliver for local people, but we need funding, which is lacking in this estimate. A failure to remediate is a failure to regenerate our towns, cities, communities and local economies. I have done it in less than three minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak. I thank, too, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for bringing forward this debate, and for her excellent chairmanship of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which is evident from the contributions from across the House.
I am here to speak not only about how construction and building homes will help to create hundreds of thousands of good jobs, but about how we need to create millions more if we want everyone here to live a decent life. I am an economist, and I came to this place to ensure that everybody could earn a decent living and have enough money to pay the bills, but we are so far from that today. The average salary for a non-graduate is around £30,000. For two earners to raise two kids, they need to earn £35,000 each, but around 40% of full-time jobs pay less than that. That is 10 million workers who cannot afford a decent life, and those who cannot earn enough are turning away from Labour Members, as they have turned away from Conservative Members.
If we want everyone to have a decent job, the Government must help to create them. We are making a good start with house building. I welcome the £500 million that is going into affordable house building this year, and the £40 billion for the 10 years to come, because construction jobs are good non-graduate jobs. Building those 1.5 million homes means creating good jobs. A skilled construction worker earns £35,000. Around 300,000 of those jobs will be created when we build 1.5 million homes, and another 300,000 more jobs will be created in decarbonising buildings.
That is welcome, but we need to create a lot more good jobs if we want everyone to live a decent life. We need millions more—a lot more than the 600,000 jobs that will be created in the construction of homes and insulation. This is a job far bigger than housing and local government alone. Good jobs in healthcare, childcare and social care are all needed.
That is the path we should follow—the Government should create good jobs. We should not simply wish that enough good jobs will be created—that is the path we should not follow. In our technological era, growth alone does not automatically create enough good jobs where we need them, either for the people or places that require them. We came to this place to create a better life for all, but that is not possible for almost half of all workers because there are not enough good jobs. We can create hundreds of thousands of good jobs through construction, but we need to create millions more if we want everyone in this country to live a good life.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a councillor on Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council.
Local government funding is in crisis, from social care to special needs, homelessness to high streets. Our councils—whose work impacts us all and who are the backbone of local service delivery—are being pushed to the brink. While the estimate sounds positive, it is way more complicated, just like the work that councils do. The lack of funding is not a new problem. The hollowing-out of local government has been happening for a decade. In my home councils of BCP and Dorset, central funding through the revenue support grant was slashed by between 95% and 98% over that time. The Government’s announcement that central funding for councils with low tax bases will be weighted sort of misses the point. Many councils in the south receive no revenue support grant and are already raising their council tax by the maximum 5% each year. The Government need to talk to the councils they are targeting and review this proposal before they create a new problem.
Local areas are dealing with ageing populations and soaring house prices, and councils risk having no choice but to take money directly from services for the poorest, sickest and most vulnerable. The three-year settlements are welcome to help planning, and the headline £13.5 billion increase in Department funding by 2028-29 sounds positive, but measured against 2025-26 it is actually a real-terms cut of 0.6%. While MHCLG’s day-to-day spending will rise by £2.5 billion, much of this comes through transfers. For example, much of the £857 million for adult social care is reallocated from children’s social care, and the £515 million to cover increased national insurance contributions does not cover the demand.
Adult social care is now the largest spending area for upper-tier authorities. Meanwhile, tensions between the NHS and councils over who funds the sick and elderly are growing, leaving families stuck in the middle. Carers bear the brunt, often being forced to choose between caring and working, which has knock-on effects on the wider economy and carers’ wellbeing. The situation is made worse because independent providers are not covered for the NICs increase. The Nuffield Trust estimates that the increase in national insurance will cost independent social care employers £940 million this year. Many are handing back contracts, unable to make the numbers add up, which is piling pressures on to councils. I urge the Minister to look closely at the impact of this change. The Liberal Democrats want a social care workforce plan, a royal college of care workers to improve recognition, and a higher carer’s minimum wage. We call on the Government to complete the Casey review within one year instead of three. The elderly, disabled and our NHS deserve better than further delay.
The crisis extends beyond adult care, affecting our youngest children too. SEND provision is, as we know, inconsistent and underfunded. Parents are exhausted, teachers are overwhelmed, and children are being left behind. We are relieved, rather than happy, that the statutory override will continue for another two years, because many councils would face insolvency within months without it, but this merely defers the inevitable. As debts outgrow reserves, councils cannot invest in their communities or drive local growth.
The upcoming White Paper must guarantee every child with an EHCP the support that works for them, make mainstream education more inclusive so that children can stay close to home with their peers, and urgently reform the funding formula. The funding formula does not work. In some areas, the annual base funding per pupil is £2,500 less than in others. Schools have to fund the first £6,000 for any special educational support, but some schools do not get £6,000 a year for a pupil’s whole education. The Liberal Democrats really are begging for that to be resolved. In specialist provision, I have seen independent settings charge more than £100,000 to educate children with moderate needs when a state-maintained special school is doing the same for £20,000; but, without alternatives, councils are forced to pay.
The loss of the £100 million rural services delivery grant was a huge blow to rural councils, so I welcome the consultation on reviewing that, but those councils face not just higher delivery costs but recruitment challenges. It was wrong for the Government to suggest that rural communities do not face the same deprivation—tell that to some of my constituents who have no mains gas and no sewerage, no job opportunities and are miles from anything.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the £267 million for rough sleeping and £194 million for homelessness prevention, and we are pleased that that has been ringfenced, but without a target for social house building, councils remain burdened with the costs of temporary accommodation. It is not just about money: the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s recent report revealed that temporary housing is detrimental to our children’s health, with it being a factor in the deaths of 74 children, including 58 infants, in the last five years. It also damages the developmental, mental health and life chances of every child in that situation. We therefore welcome the £39 billion investment in affordable housing, but we are disappointed to see how backloaded it is, meaning that many families will wait up to 10 years finally to get a roof over their heads.
Finally, I want to address devolution. The Liberal Democrats support genuine devolution, so we are disappointed that the Government have cancelled funding for neighbourhood plans and are discouraging the formation of new town and parish councils where there is local government reorganisation. Instead, we are seeing top-down area committees with no statutory powers. The spending review mentions funding for mayoral areas, but that benefits only those areas that are ready to go. What about the areas outside wave one such as Kent and Medway, or Wessex? Where is their support in the meantime? Our local councils deliver every day, but they cannot do it alone, so I urge the Government please to provide fair funding and real devolution for those areas.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It has been a wide-ranging debate. I add my congratulations to the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for securing it and introducing it so well. I pay tribute to my Conservative colleagues—my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and my hon. Friends the Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking)—for sharing both their views, brought from their long experience in local government, and their great passion for their constituencies.
I will start with the striking speech by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), who set out many of the challenges around local government finance in her constituency. I came away from that speech thinking, “Just wait until she finds out which party in government slashed the £8.8 million of rural delivery grant from her local authority, which has led it to say it is having to consult on reducing bin collections further—to just once every three weeks—and to literally turning the lights off in Shrewsbury to save the money necessary to balance the books following this local government finance settlement.”
When we come to the Chamber to debate the resource departmental expenditure limit and the capital departmental expenditure limit, it is really important, as hon. Members have done, that we set out the story behind that: what it means in our constituencies for our local authorities. When we started the debate, we knew that it was against a backdrop of a Budget last year that left councils net £1.5 billion worse off because of the rise in national insurance contributions. That alone took £1.5 billion out of local authorities’ capacity. Since then, we have seen a developing backdrop of rising inflation, which is now pushing 3.5%, and deteriorating economic conditions —in particular, rising Government borrowing—which may be one of the reasons why the Government are seeking to push back borrowing the capital that funds the housing programme in the hope that costs will come down in due course. But all these things are imposing rising costs on our local authorities.
I have enormous sympathy for the Minister, who I know has huge experience in local government. However, as Members from across the House have demonstrated in their contributions, the impact of the Department for Education’s decisions on SEND, the impact of the Home Office’s decisions on asylum funding—for Hillingdon, which serves about two-thirds of my constituency, that is, on its own, an additional £5 million per annum cost pressure—and the impact of Department of Health and Social Care decisions on public health, which have a significant impact on the costs local authorities face, are all accumulating.
That leaves the Minister and the Government with a series of difficult questions that they need to address. Having set out the existence of that substantial black hole in council budgets, and the black hole that a number of Members on all sides have referred to in housing delivery, the fact that the visible symptoms of council services, such as rough sleeping, are racing up—according to St Mungo’s charity, rough sleeping has risen by 27% in London alone—means we know that our local authorities face a significant challenge.
The questions that I hope the Minister will begin to address in his summing up are around the underlying financial assumptions behind the figures that are set out in the report. We know that there is always a tendency in Whitehall to see local government finance as an opportunity to centralise credit by announcing the positive things that we want to see money spent on and localising the blame by forcing councils to fund that through rising fees and charges or increases to council tax. When it comes to ensuring that the 1.5 million homes in our country that already have planning permission are delivered, there needs to be a relentless focus on getting that money out of the door and into the hands of local authorities and others to ensure that those homes can be delivered. The Opposition will scrutinise relentlessly, in search of the evidence that that is happening.
Our councils face this challenge against the backdrop of a potentially costly and disruptive reorganisation. We know that many councils have come forward with their own proposals for local government reorganisation. [Interruption.] The Minister says “All councils” from a sedentary position. All councils were asked, invited or, perhaps, required to put forward their proposals for reorganisation. However, we know that asking, for example, all the planning officers in the country to reapply for their jobs is unlikely to aid that focus on housing delivery.
Will the Minister clarify the following points in his response? First, will he set out the Department’s underlying assumptions on council tax rises, fees and charges, and discounts? It seems clear from the analysis being done by local authority finance officers that the underlying assumption is that all those things will rise in every council to the maximum possible extent, simply in order to stand still. What are the Government’s underlying assumptions about business rate rises, discounts and redistribution? I note, for example, that North West Leicestershire district council, because of the business rates reset, expects to lose 67% of its spending power in one go as a result of the Budget. What are the underlying assumptions about the housing revenue account, parking revenue account and other ringfenced council budgets, so our constituents know what is coming, not just in their council tax bill but in what they may pay for parking, permits, waste services and other essential day-to-day services?
Let us consider the individual cases coming in. I made reference to the impact on Shropshire of the loss of £8.8 million in rural services delivery grant, and South Holland, West Lindsey and Staffordshire Moorlands will see a 40% cut in their funding needs assessment as a result of the Budget. There are also authorities, such as Boston, that are seeing more than 40% of their budget driven to cover the costs of drainage boards. East Cambridgeshire district council sees a cut of £125,000 a year, and Fylde district council sees a rise of nil despite a headline announcement by the Government of 6.8%, once those calculations are taken into account. I know the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) was here earlier on, and Harlow reports that as a consequence, the core funding—the revenue support grant—is cut by 25% this year alone. All that has a huge impact on local Government funding and what our constituents will see.
I know that there are many in this Chamber with experience in local government. Our councils remain the most efficient part of our public sector, but it is clear from the many constituency-level issues and the insights we have gained in this debate that they deserve better from this Government in a much more transparent and open funding settlement, so that we know the underlying assumptions of Government and our constituents can understand what will happen to their council tax bills and their household budgets.
Chinese Embassy Development
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I made clear in responding to the initial question, the inspector’s report considers the application against published local, regional and national planning policy, which is likely to include consideration of a wide variety of material planning matters. In this case, that is likely to include safety and national security.
Matthew Pennycook
I do understand the strength of feeling conveyed by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members when it comes to the People’s Republic of China. The Government are taking a consistent, long-term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China, rooted in the national interest. We will always protect our national security and keep the country safe, but those are separate issues from this specific planning application. I understand why she does so, but she tempts me to speculate—again, as I have said—on a decision that has not been made, on a case that is not yet before the Department.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for submitting this urgent question.
The potential approval of the Chinese super-embassy sends precisely the wrong signal at a moment when we should be pushing the Chinese Government hard on human rights abuses and their repression of the people of Hong Kong, both in that city and right here on our streets. Notwithstanding the risk of interception of sensitive comms at the site, Hongkongers and Uyghurs are deeply worried about what it might mean for China’s expanding surveillance capacity here in the UK. In March, alongside other Opposition Members, I spoke at the protest in front of the proposed site. I say the same thing to the Minister as I said that day: the Government must block it. Taking into account the scale of opposition, both domestically and by our allies, will the Minister confirm that representations made in this place will be considered as part of the planning approval process? If I may, I will also ask: considering that the original timetable for the China audit to be published has now passed, will the Minister tell the House when they expect finally to present it?
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) today; I spoke before him at the rally to which he refers. Those of us who have been sanctioned—I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are among our number—are particularly conscious of the effect that the Chinese state has on our country. Do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, honestly believe that the Minister thinks that the Chinese would look at this proposal in the same way? Do we in this House honestly believe that something threatening our economic security, as highlighted by the Americans and the Dutch, should go through a bureaucratic planning process, with no ability to vary it, because, frankly, them’s the orders? I do not think that is the way China would do it, and it is certainly not the way we should do it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It is a very clever question, but it is the Minister who is responding.
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Gentleman’s views on China are well known, and he knows my views on China, too—we have discussed the matter in the past. He raises two distinct issues. On sanctioned parliamentarians, let me take this opportunity to make it clear that the sanctions are completely unwarranted and unacceptable, and this issue will remain a priority under this Government. The Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor have raised their case at every meeting with their counterparts, including with President Xi at the G20 in November and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in February. The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to comment on the Chinese planning system. I am very glad that we have a different and more robust system than the People’s Republic of China.
Matthew Pennycook
Again, the hon. Gentleman is making assumptions that I do not recognise, and thereby tempting me to comment on the case. I am not going to make blanket, in-principle statements, given the quasi-judicial nature and involvement of planning Ministers in the process.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am somewhat thrown off there.
I thank the Minister for his answers. He will be aware of concerns that Chinese-born residents in my constituency and across Northern Ireland have about the reach, and indeed the overreach, of the Chinese Government in the United Kingdom. I can well understand US concerns and, with all due respect—he knows I always ask my questions with respect—does the Minister truly believe that this massive embassy will alleviate the concerns of those who know best the reach of the Chinese Government’s arm? Should we not be showing that, while we will accord them courtesy, as we do with other national embassies, they are not entitled to a Chinese “Vatican City” in the midst of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?