Budget Resolutions

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

Gravesham is one of the youngest boroughs in Kent, but it is the fourth highest in the south-east for young people not in education, employment or training. Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the youth hubs on our high streets in Gravesham, so that young people can find a way back into education, employment and training?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, more than 84 Members are hoping to speak, so every minute we can give Back Benchers will go down well.

[Angela Rayner]

Noted, Madam Deputy Speaker. I really applaud what Gravesham is doing, especially for its young people.

The strategy is backed by £125 million to transform derelict buildings in our high streets, £65 million for community ownership funding and £10 million to deliver high street rental auctions. Alongside this, we are cracking down on illegitimate and illegal businesses, giving councils powers to limit vape shops and adult gaming centres, and reforming licensing.

The state of our town and city centres says so much about us, who we are as a country and whether we are on the right path. Getting our high streets back on track is a crucial step to giving Britain hope again. But this strategy is just one part of our plan to make people proud of their local area. Alongside it, we have confirmed plans for a new No. 10 North priority projects programme. This will unlock homes, jobs, investment and long-term economic growth, with No. 10 North working directly with new strategic authorities. The Budget will also accelerate the delivery of priority projects in West Yorkshire, the West of England and South Yorkshire. These include investment to expand the Leeds College of Building to accommodate over 2,000 new learners, crowding in around £350 million of private investment into Bristol Temple Quarter, and match-funding incubator space in the Don Valley Corridor.

We will continue to support growth in London, as one of the world’s most important cities, working with the Mayor of London to bring forward improvements to the transport network and towards a global city productivity plan. More widely, we have also confirmed that all 20 strategic authorities will be eligible for funding in the new co-operative development programme. This £10 billion programme is the biggest Government-backed boost to co-operatives for decades and shows how we are meeting our commitment to our sister party to double the size of the co-operative economy.

In the years ahead, we will continue to deliver the £5.8 billion Pride in Place programme, putting local residents in charge of change across almost 300 neighbourhoods. This month, we will see the next major milestone of the programme as we reach the deadline for phase 2 neighbourhoods to submit their 10-year plan. We will continue to work with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, confirming at the Budget the investment in the Edinburgh-Glasgow central belt, funding for the expansion of the M-SParc science park in Anglesey and of Cardiff Parkway station, and the £7.5 million of investment to grow AI and cyber industries in Belfast.

Our plans for good growth will shape the future of this country, but we also know that people need breathing space right now. Alongside radical reforms to reduce bills in the future, we have also announced a series of measures to tackle the cost of living and help make everyday life easier. We know that rising energy costs are going to be tough for a lot of households this winter. That is why we are removing VAT and standing charges from bills, freezing fuel duty and providing £100 per household for energy payments in council tax bands A to D in England. The measures are supporting up to 80% of households in England, and local authorities will get a discretionary fund of £100 million to provide further support to households most in need.

On top of that, we have taken action to make groceries cheaper by cutting import duties; increased the living wage and the minimum wage; extended parental leave; and ended the carer’s allowance cliff edge. We brought in higher tax-free mileage rates and boosted support for nurses, and we are making sure that pensioners in receipt of the full state pension will not have to pay tax.

Britain is a kind, caring nation where people take pride in looking out for each other. In 2026, in the world’s fifth-richest economy, everyone should have a roof over their head. That is why we will make sure that by Christmas this year everyone sleeping rough will be offered a route off the streets. Earlier this year, I announced £442 million for a new rough sleeping programme to meet that milestone. Support off the streets should not just be for Christmas, though, so we are almost doubling that figure with £432 million to keep that offer going for the next two years. That means continuing to help people off the streets, while preventing people from returning and giving them the support that they need. That is why we will make sure there is wraparound support for those people as well.

The Budget makes progress towards our commitment to deliver the biggest boost in council house building since the post-war period. We have announced that we will extend the preferential borrowing rate for councils on top of the £1.5 billion that I mentioned earlier. Our message to local leaders is, “Get ambitious, and we will back you all the way.”

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s planned AI tool, Assist, will be available to all councils in England by the end of 2027. We also announced the Your First Home scheme to help around 70,000 first-time buyers to get on the ladder. Good growth in every postcode is not just about fairness; it is the simple point that Britain is at its best when every area of the country can play its part. I am proud of this Government’s action, I am proud of our history, and I am proud of this Budget. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Because so many colleagues wish to contribute, Back Benchers are on a five-minute speaking limit.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

The Government’s commitment to children and young people is clear in the scale of the education reforms they are bringing forward, from the restoration of early years services through Best Start family hubs to the expansion of childcare, the roll-out of free breakfast clubs, curriculum reform, special educational needs and disabilities reform, technical and vocational qualifications from the age of 14, work experience, social media regulation and apprenticeships. It is the Education Committee’s role to scrutinise the detail of the Government’s policies and their delivery, but there can be no doubt as to the scale of their ambition for children and young people across our country.

I welcome the announcement in the Budget of the establishment of a new parental allowance for self-employed fathers, partners and adopters. This will enable parents who have previously been excluded from parental leave and pay to have precious bonding time together as a family with their baby or adopted child.

Earlier this year, my Committee published a report on reading for pleasure, which documented the immense benefits it brings children and young people in the development of empathy and compassion, good mental health and wellbeing, language skills and attainment at school. We also highlighted the concerning drop in the number of children and young people choosing to read for pleasure and a range of interventions that are needed to turn the situation around. I therefore welcome the additional £15 million that the Government have allocated in the Budget to increase access to books for young children.

I would add, however, that the most concerning decline in reading for pleasure is seen among teenagers, and that school libraries can play a hugely valuable role in supporting children to sustain reading at secondary school. My Committee has called on the Government to extend their important pledge to deliver a library in every primary school to secondary schools, which could be done with an investment of £15 million. I hope that the Government will continue to look at how that important pledge can be extended.

On examining the delivery of apprenticeships, my Committee noted that children and young people are not provided with nearly enough information about apprenticeships, and that this information often does not come in time for them to properly consider apprenticeships as an alternative to university. I therefore welcome the expansion of the mayoral apprenticeship brokerage pilots, which have the potential to ensure both that employers are supported to offer more apprenticeships and that young people have access to information about these fantastic opportunities in their local area.

I further welcome the increase of £60 million a year for new PE and sport partnerships. This will increase the availability of high-quality opportunities for children and young people to participate in sport and physical activity in school and in their local area, directly contributing to better physical and mental health.

However, the Committee remains concerned about some areas of interest to us that were not covered by the Budget. Our report on higher education and funding raised concerns about the impact of the international student levy on higher education institutions and a lack of join-up between the Home Office and the Department for Education. The Government’s impact analysis for the proposed international student levy now suggests a loss of income to the higher education sector of £280 million —more than £100 million higher over three years than originally estimated. Universities consistently told us that the international student levy would prove to be relatively inelastic to increases in fees, and the impact analysis supports that.

We can be enormously proud of our universities; they are internationally renowned powerhouses of economic growth and anchor institutions in their communities that offer life-changing opportunities to thousands of young people and mature students every year. However, they are facing extreme precarity in their financial sustainability, and it is vital that Government policy seeks to bolster them, not to push them over a cliff edge. I urge the Government to look carefully again at the international student levy to ensure that it is both proportionate and fit for purpose.

My Committee has long raised concerns about the disparity in the treatment of further education colleges and schools with regard to VAT. Further education colleges have a critical role to play in the Government’s important objective of tackling the scandal of almost 1 million young people not being in education, employment or training. Colleges are places of hope, inspiration, support and inclusion where young people can find their passion and gain the skills they need to pursue it, yet unlike schools, they cannot reclaim VAT. Ministers have written to me with a technical explanation of the rules on VAT exemptions, but they are looking at this issue the wrong way round. Whatever the technical justification, the reality is that schools and colleges are not on a level playing field with regard to VAT. The response should not be, “This is what the rules say,” but, “How can we change the system to make the rules fair?”

This Budget represents the Government’s excellent commitment to children and young people, but there is further to go. My Committee will continue to press the Government and scrutinise their commitments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Hinder]

I definitely think that the House needs to come back to plan 2 loans. That will become a bigger and bigger issue.

So many of our challenges stem from a lack of quality work in productive industries. We do not talk about the link enough, but high streets are crippled by a lack of good jobs that provide a decent income and give people money in their pockets to spend in their area. Young people are stuck at home, unable to get a place of their own and start a family, and we see the selling-off of British assets to fund a current account deficit.

There is something even more fundamental at play when we talk about reindustrialisation. Sometimes in these economic policy debates we lose a sense of what really matters in life. Why is it that so often those jobs that appear to be the most socially useless are paid the most and those that contribute something so important to our society are often paid the least? If our economy is driving those perverse incentives that push bright young people into careers trading securities—some people call them “BS jobs”—we had better change those incentives, had we not? We need an economic framework that, instead of incentivising rent seeking, incentivises productive, meaningful work, providing people with not just a sense of satisfaction, pride and a good living but something useful to society—imagine that?

I know that this is not easy, but our economy cannot go on consuming too much and producing too little. I urge the Chancellor and his Ministers to ensure that reindustrialisation, which has struck such a chord with the British people, is turned into a fully-fledged plan for national reconstruction.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

Local Government Reorganisation

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

The Government are committed to shifting power from Westminster and Whitehall to the places where people live and work. Yesterday’s Budget shows that we are committed to giving local leaders, local councils and local communities the tools to shape their future. But our ambition to rewire the state and ensure that the country is ready for devolution depends on strong, sustainable local government, and it is only through reorganisation that we will create those strong foundations.

We know that reorganisation is difficult, but we also believe that it is worth it. The decisions we take now will be the building blocks for how the country is governed for generations to come. Our vision is clear: mayoral and strategic authorities, underpinned by strong unitary councils with real powers to take decisions in the interests of their communities.

On 7 September, the Secretary of State announced a review of the programme to ensure that it was robust and aligned with the Government’s priorities. Since then, we have listened to local leaders, sector partners, mayors, and Members of Parliament. I place on the record our thanks to them for their work and for engaging constructively. Consensus will not always be possible, but I know that all of us are putting forward arguments for what we believe is best for the different areas of England. I am committed to hearing all those views before coming to final decisions. I also want to take a moment to recognise the impact on councils, councillors and their staff. I appreciate their desire for clarity.

Today, I can provide some clarity on what comes next. I can announce to the House that the first phase of the review is now complete. I have tested the programme framework, including whether the criteria set out in February last year continue to support the Government’s priorities. I have concluded, on the basis of the programme, that it is robust and that the existing criteria are correct on their own terms and continue to support the Government’s policy agenda. We are content that we can take forward local government reorganisation in line with the existing criteria.

In concluding the review, I have also considered the best way to bring clarity quickly while making sure that each area receives the deep and thorough consideration that it deserves. We will inform councils of outcomes at the earliest possible opportunity—with some areas getting those outcomes more quickly than others.

Today, I am able to give further clarity on some of the 14 areas who had decisions in July. The Secretary of State and I have carefully considered all the proposals and the evidence for those 14 areas. Following that initial consideration, we are minded, subject to representations and parliamentary approval, to implement the following proposals in five areas: in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, the two-unitary proposal, including the boundary changes requested by Brighton and Hove city council except for the parish of Falmer; the one-unitary proposal in Gloucestershire; the three-unitary proposal in Oxfordshire, including boundary changes; the two-unitary proposal in Warwickshire; and the two-unitary proposal in Worcestershire. Those decisions are for the same council structures that were previously announced in July, or they are new decisions following full and thorough consideration.

Before final decisions are taken, there will be a minimum three-week period during which those who are interested may make further representations to me. The start and end date for that period will be confirmed shortly, as well as further details on how councils and other interested parties can make representations. Any final implementation decisions will be subject to the normal parliamentary approval. We are going to take more time on the remaining nine areas announced in July, and we will use the coming months to consider further the proposals submitted before coming to a view.

To give councils clarity on the legal status of existing decisions we are withdrawing the decisions announced in July for the following areas: Derbyshire and Derby; Devon, Plymouth and Torbay; Hertfordshire; Kent and Medway; Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool; Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland; Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire; Nottinghamshire and Nottingham; and Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent. I want to be clear that this is no reflection on the work underpinning those proposals.

I can now set out the plan for the final phases of the review. The review will now focus on the 15 areas that are due to have a “minded to” decision. Those are, in no particular order, the nine areas I have just mentioned, the four areas where decisions were withdrawn in September, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and West Sussex. All options and proposals for those areas will remain under consideration, and I will approach them all with an open mind. As such, it should not be assumed that the same proposal will automatically be selected. It is important to allow the process to run its course and to allow full and proper consideration. We will move faster where we can, and some remaining areas may receive an outcome decision before others. I commit to coming back to the House with updates for another set of areas by Christmas, and every area will have an outcome by early next year.

As we set out in September, the local elections scheduled for May 2027 will now go ahead to existing councils. That means that elections to new councils will be made in 2028, followed by a vesting day in April 2029. That is for all areas apart from Surrey. I have also heard concerns about cost uncertainty, and we appreciate that areas have incurred costs in good faith. All areas will receive half the transition funding that they were previously due, which equates to £450,000 per new unitary previously announced. Those guaranteed payments will be made in the coming weeks regardless of the outcome of the review. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and West Sussex, will also receive £500,000 per area. After final decisions, we will pay any remaining balance, depending on how many councils are chosen.

I have heard from Members across the House about the pride, history and identity sitting behind our cities and counties. City status and ceremonial matters play a valuable role for local pride, so we will work with areas to ensure that city status is preserved following reorganisation. Subject to final decisions, we will continue to work with places to protect their city status by working through all the options, including bringing forward legislation where necessary—[Interruption.] Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been struggling with a cold for about a week. Usually when a Minister comes up in the morning with a croaky throat it is the result of a long night of karaoke, but I am afraid this is the result of back-to-back LGR conversations all morning, which does not carry quite the same sense of fun or rhythm.

I want to use this moment to build consensus and deliver a programme where central Government and local government work together. This programme must be a joint effort. It is the foundation of rewiring how our country works, and getting foundations in place to devolve new powers and functions in every area. This Government will be an active and reliable partner, and we stand ready to work with councils to support them to deliver these significant changes. I promise to keep the House updated, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Regardless of the croaky voice, I was paying attention because the statement concerns my constituency in East Sussex. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

I thank my hon. Friend for the representations on Lancashire’s reorganisation and on devolution that she has made over a long period of time. I accept that we have not set out a list-by-list, county-by-county timetable showing exactly when reorganisation will come, but we have said that we will conclude the considerations in the new year. Wherever the counties find themselves in the programme, when it is eventually developed, they will know one way or the other in that February to March period, and we will work through them as and when. My point was that if we are in a position to announce them earlier, we should do that rather than keeping areas waiting unnecessarily—that is the idea of the approach that we are taking.

My hon. Friend correctly makes a point about Lancaster’s city status, and that applies to cities across the counties that are in scope. It would be absolutely wrong if a city risked losing its status just because its city status is aligned to a local authority that is being abolished rather than to a geographical area. I can give an absolute assurance that even if we have to introduce new legislation to preserve that status, we will do whatever we have to do to ensure that no city loses its city status through reorganisation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Liberal Democrats support genuine devolution and shifting power out of Westminster, but we have been shocked by the Government’s botched handling of this process. Ministers promised that MPs and local leaders would be properly involved in decisions affecting their areas, yet many have been left in the dark until announcements were effectively made for them. Will the Minister explain why MPs representing affected areas were not briefed before today’s announcement?

Even now, after months of confusion over local government reorganisation, delayed elections and significant abortive costs, councils and communities are still waiting for certainty. Local authorities, many in dire financial positions following years of under-investment, have spent time and money in good faith preparing these proposals according to the Government’s criteria and timetable, only for that timetable to shift repeatedly.

In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, one of the fastest growing areas in the country, businesses need certainty to invest and plan. Councils need certainty to set budgets and deliver services, and council staff deserve clarity about their future. Yet today’s statement leaves Cambridgeshire and Peterborough yet again awaiting a decision, while other areas move ahead. When will the Minister finally provide a clear and stable timetable for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and for other areas that are still awaiting decisions?

Finally, following the chaos of decisions being withdrawn, reorganisation being paused and the programme being reviewed following updated legal advice, can the Secretary of State even guarantee that what is being announced today is legally sound? Will she now publish the legal advice to demonstrate that?

[Jim McMahon]

Working backwards, the reason we carried out the review was to ensure that we, as the Ministers who were making the decisions, were satisfied that the decisions were being made in a rational way, with the evidence base secured, and that where there were outstanding questions, we tested them in the process. Obviously, we were not the Ministers who made the decisions in July, so on coming back in, we needed to be absolutely sure that what we were putting our names to was correct. That is what we are doing.

That may mean that the same conclusion is reached in many areas, but importantly that conclusion will be reached as a fresh decision. We are going to go through that process, which is why it is taking time, but if we had come here and said, “Do you know what? We have completed the whole programme review and the financial review, and we have done every single outstanding county in England in a few weeks,” hon. Members would have cast doubt on just how much time we had given to each of the counties and their proposals. We are determined to make this decision robust, for it to be right and to put in the time needed to ensure that we fully go through the proposals, the consultation and the financial assessment.

Where local areas have put forward an argument in support of their proposal, we are testing that line by line. For example, if a local authority is requesting a boundary change or to grow its boundaries, and that is predicated on matters like housing numbers, economic growth or travel-to-work areas, I want to see those things. I want to see the travel-to-work map, the form that the urban development takes and so on, so we are testing those proposals to ensure that we are satisfied. To return to my previous point, I have not seen a single proposal that I consider to be the perfect proposal, but our job is to ensure that we get the best possible proposal using the information that we have received, and we are undertaking that work.

On the hon. Lady’s point about Cambridgeshire and Peterborough—obviously, the point applies to West Sussex as well, as they essentially go into the same pool—I would not necessarily assume that because those authorities were at the end of the decision-making process in the previous round, they will be at the end of the process in the current round. We will make a decision on which ones we are going to bring forward shortly.

On the hon. Lady’s point about legal advice, which was also mentioned by the shadow Minister, it is long-standing Government policy that we do not publish that legal advice.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I need Members to ask much shorter questions, and I need the Minister’s answers to be on point as well.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

When I am out listening to residents in Kidsgrove and its surrounds, they tell me that they want good public services delivered efficiently and to a high quality, but a two-tier system causes constant confusion. If a resident wants to raise issues about their local park, they can go and speak to the borough council. If they have a question about their local library, they can go and speak to the county council. If they need a pothole fixed, they can go and speak to their county council, not their borough council. The list goes on. At the same time, we are paying for managers and directors at two councils, rather than one, which is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Does the Minister agree that what matters most to the residents of Kidsgrove and its surrounds is having good, high-quality services that work for them? That also offers greater accountability; at the moment, my residents are passed from pillar to post. Equally, residents in Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove want clarity from the Government, so can I please press them to offer that clarity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

I am pleased that my party’s legal challenge has bought us a stay in Essex and elsewhere, but to re-emphasise: district councils matter to remote, rural and coastal communities. In Clacton, planning decisions—big decisions that matter—are taken in Clacton town hall. Under your proposals, those decisions will be made in a large population centre.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Farage, no “you” and “your”, because it is not me who is responding.

[Nigel Farage]

Under these proposals, big planning decisions that are currently taken locally will be taken miles away, in a big population centre with no understanding of the local ground. Is that not against the devolution powers that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and you yourself have championed as being good for the country?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister responds, let me say that I am not at the Dispatch Box. It is “the Minister”, not “you” and “your”. Back-Bench MPs should be speaking through the Chair.

[Jim McMahon]

I am delighted that the hon. Member has managed to find his seat today—he looks quite comfortable there, and there is not a prayer card in sight, as far as I can see. Actually, he makes the important point that local politics matters. What we do not want to do through reorganisation is take away the local, so the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 requires us to bring forward neighbourhood governance arrangements before Christmas. We want to try to have a unit of government within a council—to hardwire it and mainstream it, so that local councillors are given the respect that comes with being frontline councillors with the powers and resources to get things done in their area. We can do that at a bigger level and in a different way.

To be clear—although I know the hon. Member did not mean it—the Reform party is not taking the Government to court; local authorities have decided to issue claims. We need to make sure that we are not using local authorities for party political reasons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I welcome the announcement in this statement that the Minister has scrapped the disgraceful and discourteous announcement made in July 2026. He is right to throw it out, but my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme want and deserve certainty and clarity, and I did not hear much of that in the statement, so may I ask the Minister three very quick questions? Will he confirm how Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent MPs will feed into the review? How much money will our local authorities get to redress what they have spent so far? And may I urge him to focus on the new mayoral authority announced yesterday, because that has the support needed to achieve a change of this scale?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I appreciate how local this is for everybody, but I ask Members to please ask only one question each, because we need to get through this statement quickly.

[Jim McMahon]

Obviously, we were delighted to announce the devolution agreement yesterday. That will definitely bring new resources and powers to my hon. Friend’s area, but it has to be built on a strong foundation of local government that can be sustained. As for how MPs can engage, the “minded to” process for when decisions are issued gives us a window in which MPs and other interested parties can make representations.

Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell]

My experience from this case corroborates what my hon. Friend says. I met the Association of British Insurers, and the scheme it introduced subsequently kicked in and has in the last year brought down the buildings insurance, but only by about half—certainly not to anywhere near what it used to be. I hope that Ministers can look at insurance when thinking about protecting leaseholders from higher costs.

The end of the story for the building is that, following pressure from me and my team and from organisers in the building, Notting Hill Genesis has finally agreed to reimburse all the residents. It will repay the difference in the increase for the past several years. I thank Thomas, Hamid, Ian and all the other residents in that building for their work. That is just one example of what is happening in building after building across the country.

I welcome the Bill in the sense that it is an opportunity to fix some of the flaws left by the previous Government and to create a better system, including through the register, a consistent approach to external walls in fire risk assessments, and by listening to campaigners across the country, such as End Our Cladding Scandal, who have helped to give a voice to those most affected. I know that they will have the ear of the Secretary of State and Ministers as the Bill continues its passage.

Clearly, one element at the heart of the Bill is who should pay. I agree that it is high time that the construction product manufacturers who contributed to the cause of this crisis should pay towards resolving it. I really welcome part 5 of the Bill, which strengthens and extends provisions in the Building Safety Act on retrospective liability for cladding products, and the Secretary of State’s announcement today on the Government’s intention to go further. The Grenfell inquiry found that companies including Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex engaged in systematic dishonesty and deliberate manipulation of testing that misled buyers into thinking their products were safe. It is extraordinary that, aside from their payments into a civil settlement, these companies have not paid towards resolving a crisis of their making. In Arconic’s case, its civil settlement was overwhelmingly covered by its insurance and was dwarfed by the payment it made to its own shareholders in compensation.

It is clearly not right that leaseholders, taxpayers and even the developer levy should shoulder the bulk of the costs, while companies such as Arconic do not. That is yet another reason that they should be nowhere near public contracts and supply chains, especially while criminal investigations are ongoing. I know the Secretary of State is committed to working across Government to use every procurement power the Government have to ensure that that is not happening, and I will fully support her in that goal. I also look forward to the new system of construction products regulation being implemented, with consistent safety standards and a single products regulator under the Building Safety Regulator; that will make a big difference.

I am glad that protection from costs for leaseholders has been discussed in the Bill and the debate so far. They are not responsible for this crisis, yet they are the ones picking up the bill in far too many cases. I hope these new powers will give local remediation efforts such as the London Joint Remediation Partnership Board an extra tool to do the building-by-building analysis that cuts through the bureaucracy and delays to find a solution.

I am sure that the communities who have enfranchised their buildings or exercised right to manage will be really pleased to hear the announcement today on ensuring that they are protected. We want more leaseholders to take control of their buildings, appoint their own agents and run their own affairs. We will see more in the leasehold Bill soon, and it is right that the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill should provide some consistency in protecting them, too.

The building safety crisis has become one of the defining symbols of state failure in the past decade. The entirely avoidable tragedy of Grenfell and the loss of 72 lives should have been a catalyst to making buildings safe as quickly as possible and recovering the costs later. Of course, if we had listened to the coroner after the Lakanal House fire in 2009, not only may it have been possible to prevent the Grenfell fire, but we could have put a halt to new build flats across the country being constructed with cladding that was putting lives at risk. Judge Frances Kirkham said then that approved document B of the building regulations concerning external fire spread, fire-resisting properties and cladding panels should be reviewed. That simply did not happen in the way it should have done, as the public inquiry found.

That missed opportunity is devastating for the Grenfell families but it is also devastating for everyone who bought a flat across the country in a building that could have been built or refurbished differently if that recommendation had been implemented. Think of the billions of pounds wasted that could have been invested in building more homes, including social and affordable homes. That is why I will continue to campaign for a national oversight mechanism to ensure that there is independent scrutiny of recommendations of inquests and inquiries, so that change actually happens. I am delighted that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister are supportive of that effort, and I hope we can now make rapid progress towards setting it up.

The Prime Minister said something at the homelessness summit on Monday that really resonated with me: “names not numbers”. He was talking about how to best support people off the streets. We need a similar approach to this crisis. Behind every statistic is a family who are stuck, who cannot sell their home, who are worried about the value of their main asset and who have had to take on another job of chasing for answers about when the work will be finished, all while they suffer the anxiety of living in an unsafe building.

I hope today marks a shift in approach under a Government who I know are absolutely committed to doing all they can to end this scandal once and for all. The new tools in this Bill will certainly help, and the ones announced at the Dispatch Box today will help even further. With the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the ministerial team providing the leadership that this crisis needs, I am sure we can right the wrongs of the previous approach and deliver the solutions that so many people across the country are crying out for.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Black History Month

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the hon. Member; I know that she has been in touch with many of the cast members of that play and the Chichester Festival theatre. She is right that we have to ensure that we as parliamentarians, as a society, and as community groups do not allow this to be normalised, and think it is okay in 2026, in modern Britain. We can disagree on many things, but it is the responsibility of all of us in this Chamber, the Government and society to ensure that everyone is safe and able to live freely, and I want to be clear that the Government will not sit on their hands and watch this hatred thrive. In March, my Department published a cross-Government social cohesion plan, “Protecting What Matters”, which sets out more than 90 policy recommendations and commitments to improve cohesion, including measures to further tackle hate and inequality in everyday life.

Throughout the United Kingdom’s history, we have overcome adversity by coming together and showing that we have so much more that unites us than divides us. We showed that exactly 50 years ago with the passing of the Race Relations Act 1976, a landmark piece of legislation protecting the rights of all of us to live free from discrimination, and the 1965 Act, which built the foundations of equality.

History demands that, just as we celebrated the victories of previous generations, each of us must stand up for what is right in our time. That same unity remains our greatest defence. We must stand together against forces attempting to divide us, and must ensure that we all continue to be heard. I hope that Members will agree that there is a lot more that we can do, but united we are stronger. I commend this debate to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

On that point about community, and what the black community adds to it, I pay tribute to the work of the Croydon BME Forum, led by Dr Andrew Brown, and the chair of our Pride in Place board in New Addington, Julia Weller. These people are community leaders who put their communities first, whether in relation to tackling mental health issues, tackling food poverty or helping people who are struggling to pay their bills. There is always a warm welcome and a big smile. I wonder whether the hon. Member agrees with me—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We have a musical accompaniment to the hon. Member’s intervention, which will no doubt be coming to an end because it should not be a speech. Unfortunately, that sounded like a Christmas-themed accompaniment, although it is far too early, for the record. Does the hon. Member wish to continue the intervention, or is the point made?

[Natasha Irons]

I will do it later.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Marvellous. Joy Morrissey, are you ready, without any music?

[Joy Morrissey]

The Christmas holiday arrives! That was my summons to the Chamber, but the debate started earlier than I anticipated. Old age comes to us at many levels, and having to put an alarm on our phone is one of them. Happy Christmas to everyone.

I thank the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for her intervention. This is about the community. All of us have wonderful constituents who represent our communities and raise their concerns. Those community leaders have enlightened us and allowed us to speak with knowledge, and I pay tribute to all of them today.

[Joy Morrissey]

I will indeed. I organised the first Somalian community day on the South Acton estate, though we then had to change the name to the wider “South Acton community day”, to be inclusive. That is wonderful, and I congratulate the new mayor. As a fun fact, I used to ride the 207 bus from Acton all the way to Southall and back—for anyone who has not been to Ealing, it is a fun journey. Like the Minister, I started as a councillor. It was a wonderful way of meeting the community and understanding it from the grassroots up. I will never forget that, and I believe it makes us better parliamentarians when we have had that experience on the ground.

In 1963, Bristol’s black community, led by young people like Paul Stephenson, refused to accept a bus company’s ban on black workers. Their boycott helped to pave the way for Britain’s first race relations laws. Today, black people continue to play a key role in communities across our country, helping to bring people together. One of the reasons why black history is British history is that our black communities show that we can be an integrated, cohesive and multiracial Britain. We can celebrate the same values and be proud of who we are together.

There will be black Britons who play a vital role in all our constituencies, offices and community groups. I pay special tribute to a family in my constituency, Rotimi, Marylene and Naomi Isaiah, for being my right hand in everything in Beaconsfield. I could not do my job without their incredible community support, and I thank them for everything they have done; I am sure that all Members across the Chamber could pay similar tributes. They do so much to support and encourage me personally in my work as a Member of Parliament. I was going to have them here today, but it will have to be next time.

Turning to my work on women and equalities, I also want to recognise Nimco Ali, a survivor of female genital mutilation who has done so much to highlight that vital issue, to try to make sure that no other girls experience what she did.

This year, the aim of Black History Month is to look beyond famous people and reflect on the contributions of everyday black Britons, but given that this is the first time I have spoken at the Dispatch Box in Black History Month, it feels only right that I should recognise someone famous—just one person, but a genuine role model for black female Britons. In 1987, the very same year that Black History Month began here, a young woman from Paddington walked into the House of Commons as Britain’s first black female MP. Today, she is the Mother of the House.

When she arrived, there were only 41 women in the entire Commons. She was told in a hundred ways that she did not belong. She stayed anyway. For nearly four decades, she has represented the people of Hackney, championed black children in London schools and chaired the West Indian and sickle cell disease parliamentary groups. She has faced more abuse than almost any politician of her generation—and she has never stopped turning up. We do not have to share her politics to recognise what her presence meant. For millions of black Britons, especially black girls, she was proof that the doors of power could open and that someone who looked like them could walk through.

Black history is not one month; it is being forged every day by people who see themselves first as proud Britons—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), who I am very proud to have leading my party, for leading the way and opening opportunities for us all. It is British history that they, including those across this House, are writing, and it is a privilege to recognise all of them today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

As so many colleagues have mentioned the Mother of the House, it is only appropriate for me to say that I was able recently to step in for Mr Speaker at his Black History Month reception, where I was lucky enough to be joined by the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and the newest Member of the House, the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali). It was fantastic to be in the room with them both; the energy was fantastic. There was a huge backlash on social media. As the shadow Minister just said, we need to take a lesson from the Mother of the House, and ignore it and just keep going—which, no doubt, we will all do.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in all that she says. She is right to mark the 75th anniversary of the Festival of Britain. It was called for by Herbert Morrison, who presented the idea to the Cabinet, as part of efforts to build positivity and optimism after the second world war. As she may know, I want us to have another national festival of Britain, because it is time for us to celebrate much more of what we are as a nation. The Festival of Britain also contributed to the thinking behind the opening ceremony of the Olympic games that we hosted, and I hope that we can find many more opportunities to celebrate what we are as a nation today.

Through her election, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras is writing a new chapter in black history. At the last general election, 90 ethnic minority Members of Parliament were elected, according to Operation Black Vote, to all Benches, including 66 of my hon. Friends.

I want to recognise our friend and colleague, Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE. I am proud to have worked with her in her role as chair of the Race Equality Engagement Group to strengthen the relationship between the Government and ethnic minority communities. In its first year, the group focused on access to finance for ethnic minority entrepreneurs, maternal and neonatal care, cardiovascular disease, policing, education, transition to work and opportunities for young people, with recommendations presented directly to Ministers.

I am proud that earlier this year, the Government published the consultation outcome and Government response on mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting. Ethnic minority and disabled people are less likely to be in work, less likely to be promoted and paid less, on average, than other employees. That is bad for equality, bad for business and, ultimately, bad for Britain. In the King’s Speech in July 2024, the Government committed to introducing mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for employers with 250 or more employees. Introducing that reporting will provide vital data to help employers identify and take action to reduce ethnicity and disability pay gaps where they exist.

I thank Dianne Greyson, founder of the Ethnicity Pay Gap Campaign, and those from the business world who have supported this work and with whom I have worked, including Business in the Community, Deloitte, KPMG, PwC, BP, the London Stock Exchange Group, ShareAction, Change the Race Ratio and the Chartered Management Institute. We must find parliamentary time to move this policy forward. I know that the Minister is doing amazing work, but I would be grateful if in her closing remarks she could update the House on the Government’s next steps towards bringing forward legislation.

As we mark history and progress today, let us remember especially that progress is neither linear nor inevitable. Rising racism and intensifying division risks tearing our national fabric apart. It is incumbent on Government—indeed all of us—to take a stand for the values we believe in. In the year ending March 2024, police in England and Wales recorded over 140,000 hate crimes, and roughly 70% were racially motivated.

What we have seen happen elsewhere is increasingly close to home. We have seen vicious racist Reform UK councillors exposed by the recent ITV investigation, and Reform councillors calling children “animals” and talking about “infestation”. A councillor in my own constituency was recorded saying that he would “love to have slaves”. This goes against all that residents in Feltham and Heston stand for. Investigations into such behaviour must be credible, and our public life and society must stand strong against forces of racism and division.

Before I close, let me mention just a few of my constituents who are an inspiration to me and working to make our community a better place. Alexis Isa and Faith Lamptey, two young black girls who are year 13 students, recently compered the first Hounslow women’s conference, which I co-hosted with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). Another young black student, Rhema Acheampong-Owusu, was our digital and video lead, and co-edited a phenomenal video about the contribution of women to Hounslow’s history. Her mother, Mabel Acheampong-Owusu, a regular volunteer at St Lawrence’s church Feltham who is beginning her own catering business, put her heart and soul into ensuring that there was breakfast and lunch for all who came. Hibo Mohamoud and Daud Hassan are two stalwarts of our local Somali community who are always there for others. Christiana Wuche is a lecturer in adult nursing at Kingston university and the founder of Igbo Women in West London.

We stand on the shoulders of extraordinary men and women. They have been the torchbearers of the past, but it is we who are responsible for the legacy that we leave for tomorrow. Let us use this Black History Month not only to remember those who came before us, but to inspire those who come after us. Let us build a Britain in which equality is not simply something we aspire to, but something people experience in their everyday lives—a Britain where diversity is recognised as a strength, and where every child, whatever their background, can look at our national story and know that they are part of it. That is the Britain we should be proud to build together.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I appreciate that intervention. It is not the job of those who experience the abuse to be the only ones calling it out. Going forward, we are working as a community to bring voices together so that we can talk about and come up with actions to better support those experiencing abuse. That should not be the job of those experiencing intolerance and abuse day in, day out.

We also need to do some work with the police, whom I have spoken to at length over the last couple of weeks. When I say, “This is happening”, they say, “It was not reported”—well, it was not reported because people get really tired of constantly reporting things and not seeing a change. A lot of the cast members did not share their experience with the theatre before the homophobic attack that caused the show not to go up. It was only then, in a safe space, that they were able to say, “Actually, that resonates with me, because I experienced this when I was out in the city centre. I experienced this when we went out to get food.” They had not reported their experiences to the police, and the onus should not always be on them to do so. We need to have a wider conversation about what businesses and individuals can do in the city.

In truth, it feels like we are going backwards. Somebody said to me the other day, “It does not feel like the Overton window has shifted; it feels like it has fallen out of its frame.” Much of the abuse comes from individuals who are emboldened by the growth and increasing acceptance of the far right on social media, in the press and across other platforms. Those are spaces, often pushed by prominent politicians, that make individuals, particularly young people, believe that certain language and behaviours are acceptable.

Racist abuse and far-right views gain even greater reach when they are associated with political leaders; the algorithm eats those views up and sends them into those spaces. We all have a responsibility to challenge those prejudices and behaviours, especially when we have important political debates about issues such as immigration, in which people too often conflate immigration, race and crime. I for one do not want racism to become normalised once more, or for people to feel that staying silent is easier than standing up for others. We all need to call it out whenever we see it.

Moving forward, it is important that we in this place reflect on the scandals of the past that have left dark scars on our society. From Windrush to Grenfell and the crisis in maternity care, those scandals represent individuals and communities who have been let down, where systemic discrimination has played no small part. Those are individuals whose dignity and rights were disregarded because of failings in the state apparatus. I am proud that the Liberal Democrats are committed to fighting for racial equality, and that means unequivocally condemning racism in all its forms and tackling injustice wherever we see it.

It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) cannot be here today. I see how much abuse he receives online on social media. When he puts up a post about something he is doing to fight for Eastbourne general hospital, someone will write in the comments section, “Deport.” His response to that is, “There are no direct flights to Eastbourne general hospital, so I can’t do that.” I recognise that the proliferation of abuse that is then liked and shared means that his experience as a black MP is totally different from my experience as a white MP. The abuse he receives is off the scale and totally unacceptable.

In the Liberal Democrat election manifesto, we committed to implementing a comprehensive race equality strategy aimed at reducing the disproportionately high maternal mortality rates experienced by black women and eliminating racial disparities in maternal health through a cross-departmental target and strategy. We also want to end the disproportionate use of stop and search and require all police forces throughout the country to adopt ambitious targets for improving the diversity of their workforces. We have also called for the reversal of the voter ID scheme, which disproportionately excludes minorities from democracy, and for all political parties to publish candidate diversity data. We must also tackle discrimination in the use of new technology, beginning with halting the use of facial recognition surveillance, which is much more likely to wrongly identify black people or women.

On criminal justice, it is clear that the immense disparity in different ethnicities in our prison population represents a systemic failing across society. As of this year, 12% of the prison population are black, far exceeding the percentage of the general population. That is underpinned by the fact that black defendants receive on average longer custodial sentences than people of other ethnicities for the same crimes. It is clear that much more needs to be done across the system to begin to address those disparities, particularly on diversity and training in the judiciary. The Liberal Democrats tabled amendments to the Courts and Tribunals Bill in that regard. We must implement a new data strategy across the criminal justice system to ensure that capacity meets demand and that we understand the needs of all users, especially victims, vulnerable people and those from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Black History Month is a vital opportunity to celebrate the immense contribution that black people make to our lives in Britain. There are those who ask why we need Black History Month; I hear that being said. That is the same argument used by people who say, “Why do we need Pride? Have we not got there?” No, we absolutely have not. What happened in Chichester just this week is a prime example of why it is all the more important to keep highlighting these things year on year. As the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston said, progress is not linear. It is very easy to slip backwards, and we all need to be alive and alert to that. We need to ensure that we represent all the wonderful qualities that we want our country to represent, not those that do not represent what we feel.

We must carry on celebrating Black History Month, because we have an immense contribution to celebrate, but it also provides the chance to recognise the scale of the challenge we still face. I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for granting time for this important debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

As Members have already mentioned the late Jason Arday, I have taken some advice from the Clerk. The Jason Arday case is sub judice, because the inquest has been opened and adjourned. Hon. Members should not refer to that specific case. If they want some more advice, we are here to provide it. I call Abena Oppong-Asare.

[Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also want to take this opportunity to thank you for hosting Mr Speaker’s Black History Month event last Wednesday. It was good to meet other individuals who have served in the forces or done so much in the community, and the way you brought us all together was really valued. I also thank the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for her kind words, although I thought I should help her to correct the record, because I am sure she meant to say that Ghanaian jollof rice is the best.

As we have discussed already, this year’s theme is “Honouring Our Communities.” That means a lot to me personally, given that my parents came to Britain from Ghana. Like many others, they worked really hard to ensure that my siblings and I had the best opportunities —the opportunities that they would have wanted for themselves.

Earlier this month I asked people online what they thought I should mention in this debate. Many responded with really helpful suggestions and stories of black Britons who have enriched our communities and helped shape our country. Sadly, however, quite a number responded with racist abuse. I want to be clear that those voices do not represent the overwhelming majority of people in my constituency or across the country. Black History Month is not about division; it is about recognising the people whose contributions have helped build modern Britain. I believe in freedom of speech, robust debate and the exchange of ideas, but I also believe that we need to challenge racism and hatred whenever we encounter it. No one should feel unable to participate in public life because of abuse and intimidation.

Without breaching any ongoing investigation, I want to mention Professor Jason Arday’s death. It is a reminder to all of us of how inequality exists. He made history by becoming one of the youngest black professors at the University of Cambridge, and we should not forget that. His story sadly raises the treatment of black people who reach positions of prominence. His family have spoken about the abuse and harassment that he experienced. My thoughts are with his family.

Black History Month also reminds us all of how far we have come, and how far we still have to go. That includes tackling inequalities such as the unacceptable maternal mortality gap experienced by black women. Today, I want to focus not on those who seek to divide us, but those who strengthen our communities. I want to pay tribute to some people in my constituency, starting with Michelle Rankin, assistant director for economy and skills at Greenwich council. Michelle has been instrumental in bringing Pride in Place to Thamesmead, to help empower the local community to shape the future of our area.

I pay tribute to Benedicta Okpor, a Queen’s nurse who is leading work to amplify the voices of nurses working in social care across south-east London. Through her professional leadership and voluntary work in both the UK and Nigeria, she is an inspiration to many. I also pay tribute to John Okungbaiye, chair of the Pride in Place board, who has co-founded an innovative anti-theft bag and worked with the Prince’s Trust and does a lot of work in the community by being a school governor.

Those are just a few of the remarkable people whose contributions deserve recognition. In previous years I have been proud to recognise many others, including members of the Windrush generation and countless black Britons whose service, sacrifice and leadership have strengthened our country. Their stories remind us that black history is British history, which is why Black History Month remains so important—not only to celebrate progress, but to inspire future generations and recognise those whose contributions have helped make Britain what it is today.

Like other Members, I want to take the opportunity to reflect on the trailblazers who have opened the doors for people like me: my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the first black woman elected to Parliament; Paul Boateng, Britain’s first black Cabinet Minister, also of Ghanaian descent, who has supported me; and Valerie Amos, the first black woman to serve in Cabinet. I also want to mention one of our new Baronesses, Baroness June Sarpong, who is sitting in the Gallery. I do not think I need to explain any more about her—she is a trailblazer. This is her second week, and I know that she will already have hit the ground running. Welcome, June Sarpong.

Valerie’s story is particularly personal to me. She grew up in Bexley, as did I, and I had the opportunity to do work experience with her. Seeing someone like her, from my community, achieving so much really mattered to me. I have spoken about this before, but not everybody knows the story, and I think it is important that we talk about the paths we have taken to get here. When I was at university, I was really thinking about going into politics, and I remember speaking to a careers adviser and saying that I wanted to explore opportunities for going into politics. He laughed in my face and said that the chances of someone like me getting a job in politics were very slim, and not to bother trying. As Members have probably guessed, I am a very stubborn person, and I did not listen to his advice. I have never forgotten that conversation—I feel that it has made me extremely resilient and more determined as a person. When someone tells you that you cannot do something, it just makes you hungry to push to do it.

For me, this is also about the future generation and how what we do in our roles inspires them, particularly to get more young people into politics or playing different roles in civic life. I know that I did not get here by myself; people supported me to get here, and I see that reflected in my constituency of Erith and Thamesmead. I see constituents who are doing so much in the community—I have mentioned some of them already—to ensure that we as a country thrive. It is great that that theme is something we are discussing this year.

As well as celebrating people who have contributed to Black History Month, it is also important to recognise those people who are making a difference and thinking about the future, and to ensure that when people get opportunities to break barriers, they are treated with dignity and respect. It is not just about representation or getting there; it is about how you treat people. I wanted to put that on record, and also to say that Black History Month should not be just this month; it should be all year round. But the reason we celebrate it this month is that we still have a long way to go before we achieve equality.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I have just noticed that the Serjeant at Arms has entered the Chamber, and I think we all want to notice him. I believe he is our first black Serjeant at Arms, appointed in October 2019—he is hating me saying this, so let us stare at him a little bit longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Terry Jermy]

I absolutely agree—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the debate continues, it is etiquette when Members mention other Members in the Chamber to give them prior notice.

[Terry Jermy]

I share the concern that the hon. Member has raised.

It is clear that there is still a very long way to go to achieve equality. Remembering those pioneers, like Dr Minns and so many of the other people we have heard about today, must go hand in hand with examining the opportunities available to people today. We must ensure that everybody has a fair chance to progress at work, to contribute to public life and to have their voices heard. In my opinion, each act and gesture of tolerance and diversity makes us a stronger and more united country. Black History Month gives us an opportunity to share stories such as those of Dr Minns, and I thank the hon. Members for this opportunity to do so. It gives such stories fair recognition and ensures that future generations are aware of just how far we have come as a society, so that we can keep pushing further.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Dawn Butler, who I believe was the first black female Minister. Is that correct?

Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

You are not in your usual place, Chris Vince, but I can still see you.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was going to start by making a joke about always being picked last, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you have ruined it by picking me early on—thank you for that. I will try it anyway.

I am used to getting picked last in this place, but I was picked first when the new Prime Minister visited Harlow and my local pub. There, he had the opportunity to talk to Mr McMullen, the head of McMullen’s breweries, who said that this Government are doing more to support the pub trade than the previous one did. To change the subject, though, may I ask the Minister about how this tourist levy has been put in place in other G7 countries—where it has been very successful—and what he has learned from other countries?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We have two further urgent questions, a statement and lots of business, so let us try to keep questions and answers short.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

If the New Forest and the Waterside were forced into a unitary authority dominated by Southampton and Eastleigh, what chance would there be of local authorities looking after the interests of rural areas?

Building Homes and Renewing Communities

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

The Prime Minister has this week set out our plan to bring back hope, after a decade of decline. Today I want to update the House on the first steps that my Department is taking to rise to these new challenges.

We know that the sense of decline that people feel runs deep. The causes are not straightforward, and it did not happen overnight, but the most visible sign of it—a constant reminder of political and economic failure—is the state of our high streets: shuttered-up shops reminding us of what once was, and organised crime too often out there, visible, in the open. Decades of deregulation and austerity for local government and the recent cost of living crisis all share the blame. Every part of Government has a role to play in getting our high streets booming again, so in response we are rebuilding the local state, giving councils new powers over their high streets and putting them back in control of their town and city centres.

Local leaders know their high streets best and are best placed to bring them back to life, so in the months ahead we will support councils to block new bookies, vape shops and so-called casinos, and we will double the length of closure orders from six to 12 months, so that police have longer to investigate dodgy shops. We will improve high street shopfronts by setting clearer expectations for their design and appearance. That is alongside our Pride in Place programme, which is giving local communities £6 billion to improve their areas.

Everyone who has walked down their high street will have spotted another glaring signal of state failure: people sleeping rough. In 2026, in the world’s fifth richest economy, everyone should have a roof over their head. That is who we are as a country. This is a kind, caring nation where people take pride in looking out for each other, and that is why we will end rough sleeping in our country. When I visited Changing Lives in Newcastle over the summer, I met the incredible Sabrina Cohen-Hatton. Today Sabrina is chief fire officer for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, but as a teenager she experienced homelessness. Sabrina is an absolute inspiration and shows that if people are given the right support that they need, they can transform their lives.

By Christmas this year, everyone sleeping rough will be offered a route off the streets. We have set aside £442 million for a new rough sleeping programme to meet that milestone, while investing in accommodation and support to end it for good. That takes our total investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services to more than £4 billion over the next three years. We know that the reasons people sleep rough are complex. For example, eight out of 10 rough sleepers have a mental health vulnerability. Our plans are more than just accommodation; it is a whole-system approach that will also include access to health, substance or employment support. Women who are homeless are not always visibly sleeping rough, so we are specifically asking services to meet women where they are, to ensure that they get the support they need.

Rough sleeping is just the worst symptom of an underlying crisis that we are determined to tackle. For too long, Britain has not built the homes that we need. We are getting Britain building, with council housing at the centre of our plans. The failure to build council homes to replace those that were sold off is one of the major causes of the housing crisis that we inherited at the last election. Last month I met families in Kidbrooke who told me that when they moved into their new social homes, it took so much stress away. One resident told me that they had come from a place with mould on the walls and mice on the floor, and that finding out that they were moving into a new home was like winning the lottery.

Last week I announced the first wave of our allocations for the social and affordable homes programme. That is more than 70,000 homes, nearly two-thirds of which will be for social rent. We also announced new support for councils to rebuild their capacity, including a further £46 million over three years, and an expansion of the Pathways to Planning programme. This follows our new national planning policy framework, which will unlock thousands of homes around train stations, and our announcement of new housing and planning powers for mayors, who can now call in planning applications for strategic sites, and grant up-front permission to build for the benefit of local people. We are also giving them greater say over how national housing funding is spent in their areas, with Homes England investment now focused on their priorities.

Solving the housing crisis is not just a moral cause, it is an economic necessity. Every shovel in the ground means new investment, new jobs and growth in every postcode. We must also put power in every postcode. The legacies of political choices in the 1980s and the decades since, the centralisation of political power, privatisation of economic wealth, and de-industrialisation all contributed to the loss of control that so many people feel today. The future of our country relies on us building a new economic and political settlement that serves those we represent.

That starts with the largest ever transfer of power and funding out to every region of England. For the first time, mayors will receive a share of income tax revenues, meaning that they can invest in what matters most locally. They will also be given new powers to bring rail and bus services under local control, run 16-to-19 funding and employment support, and back local industries and businesses to create new jobs. Where power is devolved, resources will be devolved too. That will end the begging-bowl culture of the past and pave the way for a new era of devolution. In the months ahead we will make sure that every area benefits, by supporting areas without a mayor to establish new strategic authorities.

Finally, I want to take a moment to thank all of those involved in the response to the wildfires this summer, including the firefighters, who showed immense bravery battling the flames. I saw the horrendous damage in Stourbridge at first hand, and the level of emotional turmoil was devastating. I will never forget meeting a woman on Quarry Park Road whose neighbour was widowed less than a year ago; she had lost her home and all her possessions too. During the fires we made emergency funding available, and this autumn the Prime Minister will chair a wildfire summit to discuss what more we can do to improve our resilience. The wildfires and extreme heat show the threat that we face from the climate crisis. We must treat this as an emergency in itself.

The steps we are taking are only the start. In the months ahead, we will take through the Representation of the People Bill, giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote and protecting our elections from foreign interference; we will speed up building safety remediation and end the feudal leasehold system; and we will work with local leaders as we fix the foundations of local government. The Prime Minister has promised a new political and economic model and, together, we are shaping it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend has been a great champion for Grimsby for a very long time—I think we both originally came here together in 2015—and I congratulate her on her work. She is absolutely right to praise the housing associations coming together to build the homes that people desperately need. I will look at that letter, which she is absolutely right to highlight. I will bring forward proposals on how we are working with councils to deal with the empty homes situation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her appointment. I look forward to our exchanges, and to working with her and her team.

There are millions fewer council houses than there used to be, yet the need for social housing has only increased, not least given the scourge of poor-quality temporary accommodation for too many children. The Shared Health Foundation has found that in the last six years, temporary accommodation has been noted by the coroner as a contributory factor in the deaths of 104 children.

In Taunton and Wellington and elsewhere, all that people see are unprecedented plans for private housing that many will not be able to afford. Councils have been instructed by Whitehall to consent to homes for 180,000 people in Somerset over the next 15 years—a 25% increase in the pace of growth, never seen in the county’s history. What we need instead is a truly ambitious programme of council and social housing—not the Government’s reannouncement that 60% of its 300,000 programme will be social housing and not the 18,000 per year, but the Lib Dem policy of 150,000 social homes a year.

I recognise that the statement confirms around 46,000 social homes over 10 years, with further tranches to come, but will the Housing Secretary and the new Prime Minister, who has said a lot about social housing, raise the target from 18,000 a year or not? Will the Government raise their £3.9 billion funding to our proposed £6 billion? If they will not do that, will they write off some of the councils’ housing revenue account debt so that councils such as Somerset can build the 600 council houses that they would build if they could?

Representation of the People Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

This Bill gives back what was taken away by the Elections Act. In my last few seconds let me say briefly that council officers run so many elections, and they do a fantastic job, but too often they are not given the financial support they need to do the work—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

As has already been mentioned, it is common knowledge that too many voters think that money talks louder than their ballot paper and that those with the deepest pockets have far too easy access to power. In short, the British public increasingly do not trust their elected politicians or their democratic institutions. If we truly are serious about rebuilding that trust, we must tackle this problem head on. That is why the Representation of the People Bill really matters.

As the Minister rightly noted—I welcome her to her place—this landmark piece of legislation introduces some of the most ambitious changes to Britain’s democracy for a generation, including tougher rules to keep dirty money out of politics and to safeguard our democracy from interference and harm. Each of these measures is essential. They will help to rebuild trust in our politics, and each sends an unambiguous message that this Labour Government take the health of our democracy far more seriously than their predecessors.

Many of the safeguards needed against corruption, undue influence, dirty money and foreign interference are already built into the Bill, and I welcome the changes that have been made already, but as we explored in some considerable detail in Committee, effectively defending our democracy requires addressing a number of remaining gaps. It is clear that closing these loopholes is fundamental, and building on those constructive conversations, I tabled new clause 61, which seeks to close one such loophole.

Under existing rules, there is a complete absence of scrutiny of the funds that new parties hold upon registration. While new parties are required to submit a declaration of assets and liabilities when they register, there are no checks on the permissibility of these funds. Members will recall that when the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) launched a new political party, Restore Britain, no such checks were in place. Prior to the launch, Restore Britain was a political movement that may, or may not, have received substantial contributions from questionable sources before it was formally registered as a political party. As things stand, that is entirely legitimate. Parties do not need to demonstrate that funds or assets accumulated before registration originate from permissible donors. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent brand new political parties from sidestepping controls on donations by simply accepting as many donations and gifts as they please before registering.

We should not wait until formal registration before asking questions about the true origin of major political donations. My amendment would mean that any new party would have to subject any funds it holds of over £250,000 to post-registration permissibility checks. Having already raised such proposals in Committee, I know that Ministers are keen to ensure that no loopholes of that kind remain in the Bill. I hope the Minister will consider introducing some level of vetting for any significant funds that parties hold on registration. That will help us to crack down on new parties accepting major donations but not facing full and meaningful scrutiny.

As we look ahead, I hope that the Minister will hear not only enthusiastic support for the Bill, but the strength of feeling across the House that it must be ambitious enough to tackle the scale of the threat we currently face. We must rebuild trust in our democratic institutions and protect our democracy from corrupting influences, deep-pocketed individuals and unwanted foreign interference. This landmark Bill, with the right changes, is our opportunity to do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am reluctant even to mention this, because all the Members here are so highly experienced, but when mentioning another Member in the Chamber, the etiquette is to give them prior warning, so that they have an opportunity to offer a rebuttal in real time.

I am looking for Luke Akehurst, but he is not here, so he has missed his turn.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, because at the end of the day, nothing matters more than protecting our democracy. It is the bedrock of our society, and we have got to defend it at all costs. In that spirit, I am delighted to welcome the new Minister to her place. I know she will do a fantastic job.

We need to show that intimidation has no part to play in our public life. This Bill makes provision to ensure that we give protection not only to candidates, campaigners and elected office holders, but to electoral staff. I am sure that many of us in this place can point to times when we have been intimidated while out campaigning. Civil and robust debate is important, but it is very different from intimidatory behaviour. We require changes to keep pace with the changing world we live in and the increasingly digital life that we experience, so I note new clauses 41 to 47, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), to prevent online harms. Online harassment or worse is growing exponentially year on year. AI-generated images, deepfakes, disinformation and misinformation being circulated on social media and other forms of online harassment are simply unacceptable. That must be addressed as a matter of urgency for the preservation of Members in this Chamber, particularly women, who suffer even higher levels of abuse.

The spirit of those new clauses is spot on, and I am pleased that the Government are taking these issues seriously through the Online Safety Act 2023 and through the defending democracy taskforce. I am also pleased to see the Government establishing an AI-labelling taskforce, and as the Bill passes through the other place, I hope that the Government will continue their work to further tighten up measures in this area.

For very preservation of public life itself, proposals to mitigate those risks, both online and offline, are absolutely key. We know that only too well in Southend West and Leigh, and our thoughts remain with the families of Sir David Amess, Jo Cox and Ann Widdecombe.

Cleaning up political donations is also vital. One critically important clean-up—we have heard about it today—is of cryptocurrency. I have spoken in this House many times about my interest in financial regulation, and I harbour concerns about the crypto world as it stands today. Rules around the sector need to be watertight before it can be safe to allow contributions to political parties from cryptoassets. Crypto, in my view, has a place in the future of the UK financial system, and there are many in the UK industry who are working hard for tighter, more appropriate regulation to get that moving, but for now, the anonymity in the political donations world is simply not acceptable, as it creates the risk of a significant reduction in transparency. I believe the measures in the Bill to ensure the reliability of such donations are of paramount importance to safeguarding our democracy.

To conclude, I want to confirm that, unlike others, I support bringing forward rules that update measures that give 16-year-olds the opportunity to vote. After all, 16-year-olds can join the armed forces, and they have to pay taxes if they are working. Ultimately, they are the ones who will be most exposed for the longest period to good or bad decisions made by future Governments. We must start crediting our young people with the ability to make up their minds. I have met some incredible young people through work experience in my office, and through my youth days and visits to schools. At my last youth day, 70 pupils—the clear majority, with only two against—were in favour of votes for 16-year-olds. Even the teachers, the people who know the children best, were overwhelmingly positive about the move. The Bill will take us forward into a new age in which young people can have a proper say on their future. Democracy has endured because of its ability to accommodate change, and we are now in a rapidly changing world. The changes we need to make to protect our democracy for years to come are vital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I will extend the time limit because we have gathered some time. Mark Sewards now has six minutes.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I know that many of my colleagues are keen to get in, so I will try to keep it under five minutes. I will speak specifically about amendments 31 and 34. When the Government brought forward this legislation, I was so pleased that they referenced enhanced “know your donor” checks, because before accepting donations from anyone all political parties should know who those donors are and where the money is coming from. We know that malign state actors are seeking to influence our politics. They often try through wealthy individuals who have the means to try to distort things here in the UK, so I was pleased with the Government’s announcement on donor checks.

However, I did not think that the original Bill as drafted was strong enough, and with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) I drafted some amendments that I think will greatly strengthen those checks. For example, amendment 31 states that parties must consider things like the location or jurisdiction of the donor, any links the donor has to politically exposed people, and the source of the wealth being donated from.

I was equally delighted a few months ago when the Government, in a statement from the Dispatch Box in response to the Rycroft review, said that location would be incorporated within the “know your donor” checks. However, it is now the second day back, I have had two Select Committees and some work on funeral regulation, and I have looked through the amendment paper and have not, other than in my amendment, been able to find reference to location in any of the Government’s amendments. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on that and on whether the Government are still committed to ensuring that location is something that political parties have to check before accepting a donation.

I would also like to ask the Minister about two other areas. Why did the Government not consider that it was necessary to include politically exposed people or the source of the wealth being donated from? I ask that because recommendation 5 of the Rycroft review said that “know your donor” rules should

“more closely mirror the customer due diligence provisions in the anti-money laundering regulations.”

If a young couple from Leeds South West and Morley seeks to take out a mortgage, they have to answer these questions. It is reasonable and fair that a political party accepting millions of pounds in donations should also have to answer them. If the Government have fully accepted the Rycroft review yet not incorporated those two recommendations, I suggest there might be a contradiction, which I would like the Minister to acknowledge.

It is worth saying that the things in amendment 31 are not radical; they are not new. The Electoral Commission said as far back as 2018 that such changes could prevent foreign money from being used to influence UK politics. The Committee on Standards in Public Life said in 2021 that such measures would be useful and that, again, the money laundering regulations are the model that we should follow. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on why those additional two things were not incorporated in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Third Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind the House that this business has to conclude by 8.3 pm, and that the shadow Front-Bench team may wish to speak on it.

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill strengthens our elections and takes a stand against hostile actors at home and abroad who seek to threaten them. It extends the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds and automates voter registration. It protects candidates and officers, and introduces new, tougher rules around political donations.

The legislation reflects the commitments made in our strategy for modern and secure elections, which I published as Secretary of State in July 2025. It also now delivers much of the Rycroft review on foreign interference. It meets our manifesto commitments and sets the foundations for a new model of politics that is both stronger and fairer.

I reassure the House and hon. Members that during the Bill’s passage we have committed to returning to various issues in the other place. I look forward to a strengthened Bill returning.

I will briefly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) and the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, who have carried the Bill through the House, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), who delivered much of the policy that led to the Bill.

I also thank those hon. Members form across the House who have contributed to debates on the Bill. In particular, I thank the Opposition and those who took part in the Bill Committee. It would be remiss of me not to pay a special tribute to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). As he said in Committee, the Bill is “groundbreaking” legislation, and I most certainly agree. Finally, I thank my team in the private office, all the officials at the elections directorate in my Department, and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, who have worked so hard to produce the Bill before us today.

The Bill will leave our politics stronger and fairer, and all those who have contributed to its drafting and passage should take huge pride in having done so. The measures are the next step in the evolution of our democracy, strengthening our institutions and processes to ensure that they work for the people they serve. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I begin by welcoming back the Secretary of State to her place. I very much look forward to working opposite her.

As Conservative Members have set out so well throughout the passage of the Bill, this legislation professes to strengthen our democracy, but our democracy is not strengthened by proposals rushed through with too little time for proper scrutiny. Our democracy is not strengthened by allowing candidates to campaign in foreign languages, and to escape accountability as they build campaigns based on group-based grievances.

I was amazed to see on Report the reaction on the Government Benches to the Conservative policy that election campaign materials should be produced only in English or in native languages of the British Isles. An election is a fundamentally important part of our conversation. It should be a matter of universal agreement that that conversation should happen in a language that everybody can understand. Our democracy is also not strengthened by allowing men in particular communities to direct how the women in their families vote, or by making it difficult for our citizens overseas to cast their ballot.

As I said on Report, when we make changes to the way our democracy functions, those changes must always be designed to make sure that the British people can better hold their representatives accountable, that would-be representatives can meaningfully put their case to the British people, and that our democratic process is conducted according to the national norms and practices that have made this country such a successful democracy for so long. Given the importance of those aims, any such changes must be developed and proposed carefully and thoughtfully. The Bill fails those tests.

Conservative Members will always remain open to measures designed to genuinely strengthen the integrity of our democracy, to protect our democratic process from foreign influence and to ensure that our hard-won and dearly held liberties are extended to every citizen of this country, wherever they may be. Those duties are incumbent upon all of us as elected representatives of the people. We do not believe the Bill before us reflects them, and we will oppose it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In her opening remarks on Report of the important Representation of the People Bill, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), repeated—I am sure inadvertently—misinformation about family voting in the Gorton and Denton by-election, despite the fact that it was run within the law and saw me elected with an overwhelming majority, and that Greater Manchester police found no evidence of criminality. What steps can be taken to ensure that the record is properly corrected?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for prior notice of her point of order. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the Chair, I am not responsible for the content of speeches of Members, Secretaries of States or shadow Secretaries of State. It is up to them to be responsible for the content of their speeches. The shadow Secretary of State may wish to respond as I notice that she is in the Chamber. We do not wish to prolong the debate, but a quick response would suffice.

[Katie Lam]

It is an established fact that observers reported widespread concerns about family voting at the by-election that returned the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) to the House. It is up to every Member, and to the public, to decide what to do with that information. The hon. Lady is within her rights to dismiss it, but I do not.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I do not wish to prolong the debate but both points have been put on the record. I will leave it there.

Embodied Carbon: Buildings

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Chowns]

Absolutely. As we have discussed, we should reduce, reuse and recycle; let us make sure that every part of a building is reused in the best way possible. Demolition should be the absolute last resort, so it sounds like the hon. Gentleman’s planning authority is taking the right direction.

Last year, I attended an embodied carbon industry summit, which was held just over the road from this House. At the summit, a simple question was asked of attendees: without Government intervention, will local embodied carbon rules become more consistent or more divergent? The response was absolutely resounding: the rules will continue to diverge without Government leadership. It is clear that national regulation on embodied carbon will reduce complexity for the construction industry, not increase it. It will replace fragmentation with consistency, create a national carbon dataset, and provide certainty for industry, while delivering meaningful carbon reductions. Surely that is exactly the kind of planning reform that this Government should want to achieve.

As the Environmental Audit Committee highlighted in its 2022 report, “Building to net zero: costing carbon in construction”, regulating embodied carbon would be

“the single most significant policy the Government could introduce”

if they wish to tackle the reuse of buildings, the development of low-carbon materials and a reduction in these emissions. Why are we still waiting?

The encouraging news is that the construction sector is not waiting for Government. For more than four years, more than 250 organisations from across the built environment sector have supported a campaign called “Part Z”, named after the various other parts of the building regulations. They have been calling for national embodied carbon regulation. Those companies are not asking the Government to invent something entirely new. Indeed, the same experts who developed “Part Z” have now produced the UK net zero carbon buildings standard, a ready-made framework that provides a practical route to compliance. It builds on the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ whole-life carbon assessment methodology, one of the most developed embodied carbon methodologies in the world. These documents could form the basis of future regulatory reporting requirements and, in time, a new approved document. The Government do not need to start from scratch; the construction industry has already done much of the hard work.

Indeed, members of this Government used to be in support of such action. When a private Member’s Bill on embodied carbon was debated in 2022, Jonathan Reynolds, now the Government’s Chief Whip, and previously the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, said “We support it”—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We do not talk about colleagues by their first and second names. We mention their constituencies, and if we are mentioning them, we give them the courtesy of letting them know that we will do so. I say that for future reference, to make sure that it does not happen again.

[Dr Chowns]

I am so sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand entirely corrected. The aforementioned right hon. Gentleman said:

“We support it. I agree with his proposition that industry would welcome further regulation in this area”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 620.]

He was right then, and that statement is right now, because this is not regulation that industry fears; it is regulation that the construction sector is asking for. Industry is calling for this, because it provides a level playing field, creates local green jobs and boosts investment in lower-carbon materials. Good regulation rewards innovation, provides certainty for investment and gives British businesses the confidence to lead.

The rest of the world is moving ahead in this area. The Netherlands has regulated embodied carbon for more than a decade. The EU requires reporting from 2028 and will have limits from 2030. Türkiye is requiring reporting from 2027. Several US states mandate reporting today. Meanwhile, Britain, despite having world-leading engineers, researchers and designers, risks falling behind. This is not simply an environmental issue; this is an industrial strategy issue. It is a planning reform issue and a housing issue. It is about whether Britain intends to lead or follow.

Today, I ask the Minister for one thing above all else: national leadership. I ask for a clear pathway towards national regulation to measure and reduce embodied carbon, aligned with the direction already being taken by many of our international partners and by many in the construction industry. I ask that embodied carbon is finally recognised within national planning policy, replacing today’s fragmented patchwork with one coherent national approach. I ask the Government to consider using the UK net zero carbon buildings standard as the route to fast-tracking the compliance requirements, finally giving industry the certainty it has been requesting for years. When will the Government finally release their long-delayed circular economy growth plan, which could deal with embodied carbon at its core?

Climate change is not hanging around, as we can see around us all the time, and embodied carbon is only making things worse. We can and must change that. We have the expertise, the methodology and the support from industry. Local authorities are crying out for consistency, and the standards have already been written—the only thing missing is national leadership. I call on the Minister to provide it.

Point of Order

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to correct an inadvertent error I made earlier today. During the Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee debate on the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026, I inadvertently stated that a relevant powers and functions order would fall under the affirmative procedure, when it will actually be made under the negative procedure.

[Official Report, Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee, 8 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 10.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the Minister for giving notice of his point of order, and for seeking to correct the record so quickly, which he has now done. Hopefully that draws a line under it.

Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon]

The Chair of the Select Committee has raised some important points. I will not be drawn into discussing the specifics of individual hypothetical cases—we legislate in principle, and I will continue to do so—but I will give her further details of the arrangements in writing. She is correct in saying that we work across Government on this issue. I am joined on the Front Bench by the chair of the defending democracy taskforce—the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle)—which deals with partners across the Government, including the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Foreign Office, as well as the Electoral Commission. We work closely with our partners across the Government, and will continue to do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement.

Just over five months ago, I stood here and asked the Secretary of State to strengthen the Representation of the People Bill by ensuring that post-tax profits, not overall revenue, were used when assessing the eligibility of company donations. He rejected that plea, as did the Minister in Committee, but I am delighted that this Minister has now agreed to accept that. It was a recommendation from Philip Rycroft and from those working in the democracy sector, and it is a welcome change.

We Liberal Democrats champion a fair and free society, so we also welcome the announcement that candidates will have to declare gifts of over £2,320 in the year prior to their election. That, hopefully, will provide further useful clarity for those who may thus far have been confused about what they do and do not have to declare. We welcome steps towards cracking down on any foreign interference in our democracy, but we still have some way to go, and we urge the Minister to consider banning anyone who has served in a foreign Administration from donating to UK political parties, think-tanks or campaign groups, as well as banning donations from those convicted of political violence; that would include those funding the likes of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. People who hold British values in contempt and act as a mouthpiece for those who want to undermine our democratic institutions should have no place in our democracy.

We need a much more transparent system to ensure that the British people have faith in politicians. What the Minister has announced today will close loopholes, but too many will remain. Will she consider exploring the benefits of a cap on donations from UK donors, and year-round spending caps by political parties and candidates? That is the way in which loopholes are truly closed.

Finally, can the Minister gives us some insights into how this important work will be handled across the multiple ministerial Departments and agencies? It involves the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Cabinet Office. The Minister is very able, but she is the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy. Does she agree that a more streamlined portfolio is what our democracy deserves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Minister responds, let me say that one question is enough.

[Samantha Dixon]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder which question the hon. Member would like me to answer most pressingly. On working across Government, yes, we do take this extremely seriously, and the work will not stop just because we have successfully completed stages of the Bill. The work is ongoing, and with our partners across Government we will continually monitor interference in our political system and act against it. On that particular platform, I am sure this is being considered, but I am not going to make a commitment at the Dispatch Box.