Embodied Carbon: Buildings

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) for securing the debate, and for the constructive and consistent way in which she has pursued the issue of embodied carbon in buildings. I know that this is an issue of particular interest to her and to many other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson). I am sure that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will continue to press the issue and keep it on the Government’s agenda.

I should make it clear at the outset that the Government agree that action on embodied carbon in new buildings is important. If we are to meet our net zero targets, we cannot just look at energy use in occupation. We recently introduced the future homes and buildings standards, which will ensure that new buildings become zero carbon in operation once the electricity grid has decarbonised. However, we also need to understand the embodied carbon associated with materials, construction, maintenance, replacement and end-of-life treatment. As operational emissions fall, embodied carbon will become an increasingly important part of a building’s whole-life emissions.

I know that the issue of embodied carbon in new buildings has been raised in the House before, and the Government are aware of proposals for embodied carbon assessments, approved methodologies, guidance, and central reporting. The Government recognise the aims behind those proposals: better data, more consistent measurement, greater transparency and, over time, a pathway towards reduction of embodied carbon in the country’s new buildings. Those are legitimate aims. Better measurement is an essential first step, because we cannot reduce what we do not understand. However, embodied carbon is not a single, simple number; it depends on a host of design choices, as well as assumptions about lifespan, data quality, construction methods, and end-of-life treatment. Different assumptions can produce different results for the same building, which is why the Government must be careful in considering whether and how to intervene. In July 2025 we published research from AECOM entitled “The practical, technical and economic impacts of measuring and reducing embodied carbon in new buildings”. It identified opportunities for industry to track and reduce carbon impacts, but it also identified challenges and barriers, including the need for better skills, more consistent methodologies, improved data, and practical tools.

[Dr Chowns]

As the Minister has pointed out, there is a need for more consistency. Does she not recognise that Government is the institution that can provide exactly the consistency that the sector requires?

[Samantha Dixon]

What I will say is that despite those challenges, the Government recognise the excellent leadership already being shown by parts of the sector—which the hon. Member has described—in tackling embodied carbon. Parts of the construction supply chain are already working to measure and reduce whole-life carbon, and we saw that momentum at the conference at the end of last year that the hon. Member mentioned earlier. It was attended by officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, as well as the hon. Member, alongside industry and professional bodies. That summit highlighted both the appetite for action and the importance of consistency, better data infrastructure, and a phased approach to give industry appropriate time to adapt.

The Government also support the work of the Future Homes Hub on embodied and whole-life carbon in new homes. The hub is developing an industry-led approach to reducing embodied and whole-life carbon, including work on voluntary measurement and disclosure, benchmarking, environmental product data, and practical tools for home builders. However, despite those excellent examples—and there will be many more that I have not mentioned—it would be wrong to assume that the whole construction industry is in the same place already for regulation, as is often claimed.

While larger developers and consultancy teams may have the expertise and tools to carry out robust assessments, many smaller builders, local contractors and clients do not. There can also be varied costs in even assessing the whole life or embodied carbon of a project. The Government are therefore taking time to consider the right approach, but taking time does not mean inaction; it means doing the work properly. Rushed policy could lead to inconsistent assessments, poor-quality data, disputes about methodology, and perverse incentives. It could also drive the substitution of materials without proper regard to their safety, quality, durability or cost.

Members will understand that the Government need to consider these issues in the round. We have ambitious housing delivery targets, and we are committed to making buildings safer. A policy that reduces reported embodied carbon, but which undermines safety, increases defects or slows housing delivery, would not serve the public well. In considering our approach, the Government must look at several areas: the methodology, the quality and coverage of data, the capacity of industry, the sequencing between measurement and reduction, and the economic impacts. A hospital, a high-rise block and a small housing scheme will not have the same constraints or carbon profile, and any future framework must recognise this.

Some have raised the role of planning, which can be an important lever. The planning system provides the freedom for local authorities and developers to carry out carbon accounting. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire described, some are already encouraging whole-life carbon assessment, but we must also be mindful of the cumulative demands placed on the planning system.

The Government have recently consulted on proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework and other changes to the planning system. The consultation sought views on a revised framework, which would encourage applicants to reuse existing structures and materials, and give substantial weight to proposed development for existing buildings where this improves energy efficiency. We are analysing the feedback received and will publish our response in the summer. Any approach to embodied carbon must be considered alongside wider planning reform to ensure our policy is coherent, practical, and capable of supporting both sustainable development and the delivery of the homes and infrastructure that the country needs.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I thank the Minister for the point she is making about the role of local government. I think she heard what I said to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) about the National Glass Centre in my constituency. Would she encourage planning authorities, such as Sunderland city council, to fully consider alternative uses for very large buildings as they examine whether planning permission for demolition should be given?

[Samantha Dixon]

My hon. Friend makes a very persuasive case, and I am sure that Sunderland city council will be listening to what he has said. I endorse his comments.

Building regulations play an important role in setting minimum standards, but when we regulate, we need clear requirements, clear compliance routes and clear enforcement responsibilities. The Government are committed to reducing waste by moving to a circular economy and making significant reductions in carbon emissions. To achieve that, all sectors must play their part. For construction products, this includes increasing the reuse and recycling of products, choosing more sustainable products and improving information about environmental performance. Our construction products White Paper confirms an intention to remain consistent with the EU’s revised Construction Products Regulation where this meets our objectives, thereby protecting supply chains and reducing burdens on UK manufacturers. That extends to environmental aspects.

However, reducing embodied carbon is not just about regulation or planning; product innovation, digital tools, professional training, voluntary disclosure and better design practice will all have a role. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is already taking forward work to grow the market for low-carbon industrial products, with an initial focus on steel, cement and concrete. It has committed to developing guidance for buyers and producers of construction products on embodied emissions reporting, product classifications and green procurement approaches. This guidance will help buyers to identify and compare lower-carbon products, and help producers to market them. That matters for buildings, because the choices made by designers depend on the products available to them and on information that they can trust. Better product-level carbon data can support better building-level decisions, but the two systems need to be aligned carefully rather than developed in isolation. 

The materials we use in buildings must be assessed in the round. Lower-carbon products offer real opportunities, but they must also be safe, durable, suitable for their intended use and supported by reliable information. The Government’s work on construction products reform and DESNZ’s work on low-carbon industrial products therefore point in the same direction, and are being developed to work together, with better information, greater confidence and a market capable of supporting both safety and decarbonisation.

Let me be clear about what the Government are not saying. We are not saying that embodied carbon is too difficult to address, we are not saying the Government will have no role to play, and we are not saying complexity is a reason to put this issue in the “too hard” box. However, we are saying that complexity matters; unintended consequences matter; burdens on industry, local authorities and consumers matter; housing delivery and building safety matter; and net zero matters. The right policy must hold these objectives together.

I therefore welcome today’s debate, and the challenge from Members who want the Government to move faster, but responsible Government sometimes means resisting the temptation to immediately reach for a simple answer to a complex problem. The Government’s position is that embodied carbon in new buildings is important. The direction of travel is towards better measurement and reduction. Industry leadership is welcome and necessary, and the Government must take the time to design an approach that is robust, proportionate and deliverable.

[Dr Chowns]

The Minister has outlined the complexities of regulating in this area as in any other area, and I am glad to hear her say that this does not mean the Government will do nothing. The Government would not say that fire safety is a complex area, and they therefore will not regulate. However, in this area, as I outlined in my speech, hundreds of industry experts have come together to create a framework that the Government could use as the basis for regulating. Does she recognise that so much of the preparatory work has already been done to address that complexity?

[Samantha Dixon]

I recognise the hon. Member’s point. We are aware of the industry-led Part Z proposal, and setting expectations in this way is one possible approach to addressing the embodied carbon of new buildings. I recognise that there is a great deal of work already taking place across industry, and we are aware that parts of the sector have been coming together to encourage consistency and increase awareness and engagement. We know it is a challenge across the built environment and construction supply chains, and that is why we are considering the next steps very carefully. Ahead of any potential intervention, we want to understand the impacts on the sector. So we have commissioned research to help improve our understanding of the data currently available on embodied carbon, and identify where gaps and challenges lie. We will continue to work with industry, local government, professional bodies, environmental organisations and parliamentarians to consider the right levers for action.

I again thank the hon. Member for securing this debate, and I look forward to continued engagement with her and with Members across the House as this important area of policy develops.

Question put and agreed to.

Building Safety and Remediation

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Written Statements

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

This Government are committed to ensuring there is an effective building safety regime in place, so that people can be confident their homes are safe. It is hugely important to correct the mistakes of the past so that residents can move on with their lives. Furthermore, I am of the view that good regulation supports growth as well as safety. Today, I am announcing the next stage in development for the wider building safety system.

In line with calls from industry, residents and campaigners, we are enabling new applications to the cladding safety scheme to be prioritised according to risk to life, rather than solely by building height. This will ensure buildings assessed as presenting the highest risk to life are prioritised for remediation.

As part of this risk-based approach, we are also taking targeted action to address fire safety risks in buildings below 11 metres, where serious, life-critical cladding defects fall outside the scope of statutory protections, leaving leaseholders often facing significant cladding remediation costs.

We have investigated all under 11 metres buildings brought to our attention since 2022. The vast majority have not required cladding remediation, with fire risks often addressed through proportionate, lower-cost mitigation measures. Only a limited number of buildings have been found to require cladding remediation.

We acknowledge that leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres have faced prolonged uncertainty. I am pleased to confirm today that we are launching new, targeted funding to support the remediation of unsafe cladding on a small number of multi-occupancy residential buildings under 11 metres in England. This will be delivered through an extension of the cladding safety scheme and administered by Homes England. This delivers on the commitment set out in the remediation acceleration plan update in July last year.

Funding will prioritise high-risk buildings with the most serious cladding fire safety defects. Following support for these cases, any remaining funding may be directed to other buildings where intervention would deliver the greatest benefit in reducing risk and supporting residents. Applications for funding are expected to open in August.

From autumn 2026, the national remediation database, delivered by Homes England, will provide a single view of remediation activity across relevant buildings, improving information sharing and supporting oversight across partner organisations.

Responsible persons such as building owners remain responsible for ensuring a building is safe and life-critical defects are addressed.

In addition, today we are publishing the findings of the remediation programme insurance survey, which indicates that some leaseholders continue to face particularly high insurance costs despite progress in remediating building safety defects. The Financial Conduct Authority will work with MHCLG and HMT to undertake a short, focused review of the multi-occupancy buildings insurance market. The review will explore how insurers’ pricing approaches for multiple occupancy buildings have changed since 2023, how firms are considering leaseholders’ interests when assessing whether their products deliver fair value, and how fire safety remediation work and other related factors are being taken into account in insurers’ risk assessments. It will also work with Association of British Insurers and MHCLG to assess the effectiveness of the fire safety reinsurance facility in increasing market capacity and reducing premiums.

Alongside this, we are publishing the Government response to the single construction regulator prospectus consultation. The Government welcome the broad support for the single construction regulator (SCR) from respondents. Our response to the consultation sets out the Government’s direction for the SCR, including our vision and ambition for the regulator, outcomes for the building system and the SCR’s primary objective. It confirms our intention to bring forward primary legislation as the next step towards establishing the SCR, using the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) as its foundation.

Establishing the SCR will support a more effective, fair and coherent regulatory system that improves outcomes for residents and building users while providing greater clarity for industry.

The Government continue to drive reform across the wider building safety system. Our objective is to ensure that the system established after the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy is protecting residents, supporting responsible development and operating in a clear, proportionate and effective way.

As the new framework has matured, experience has shown where improvements can be made while maintaining the protections residents rightly expect. The reforms announced today will improve how the regime operates in practice while maintaining high standards of safety.

That begins with improving the proportionality of the higher-risk buildings regime. Robust oversight of safety critical work remains essential, but requirements must be targeted and efficient if they are to command confidence and support delivery. A proportionate regime is not a compromise on safety. It is essential to ensure regulatory effort and limited specialist resources are focused where they have the greatest positive impact on safety and efficiency. We are therefore publishing today the response to two consultations, on recategorising work in existing higher-risk buildings and on targeted dispensations from procedural requirements for telecommunications work in existing buildings, as well as launching a new consultation on the emergency repairs route.

Furthermore, the BSR will also introduce a revised approach to building assessment certificates. This will provide an effective and proportionate, risk-based approach to managing occupied higher-risk buildings, with greater support for principal accountable persons, particularly resident-led organisations and those managing complex cases. The BSR will develop updated processes, prioritisation and guidance to help protect residents and leaseholders from unnecessary additional costs. The core duties established by the Building Safety Act will not change. Accountable persons must continue to manage their buildings effectively and take all reasonable steps to protect residents from fire spread and structural failure.

Taken together, this package of measures ensures the building safety framework remains focused on proportionate management of risk to be effective in operation and firmly centred on protecting residents.

[HCWS209]

Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and that there is currently

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

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

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

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

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

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

“created new opportunities for malign foreign influence”,

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and Philip Rycroft for his review. On Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill, we Conservatives reaffirmed our support for measures to tackle foreign interference, in the light of growing threats from China and other hostile actors. However, we have expressed our concerns about the lack of proper consultation on the detail of the proposed measures, and the lack of engagement with political parties on changes to the law affecting political parties. The Bill should have been introduced after the Government’s response to the Rycroft report, rather than being hastily amended halfway through.

The integrity of our democratic system is fundamental to public trust in politics. Every political party represented in this place has a shared interest in ensuring that foreign interference, illicit finance and attempts to undermine our democratic processes are prevented—well, almost every political party. [Laughter.] I thought Labour Members would like that. However, while we support the objective of protecting British democracy from foreign interference, we have significant concerns about both the process that the Government have adopted and several of the proposals emerging from the review.

First, the Government immediately accepted—with retrospective effect—a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations and a £100,000 annual cap on donations from overseas electors, yet those decisions were announced without any meaningful consultation or engagement with political parties. That is particularly disappointing because questions of party funding have traditionally been approached through dialogue and cross-party discussion. Such conventions exist for good reason: rules governing political competition should command broad confidence, and should not be changed unilaterally by whatever party happens to be in government. The breakdown of these long-standing conventions should concern all parties, regardless of their political perspective. If Governments begin introducing retrospective and highly partisan changes to the rules of political finance without consultation, we risk creating a precedent that future Administrations may follow.

Parliamentary questions have shown that there has been no engagement with the House of Commons—with the Committee on Standards, the registrar, or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—despite changes directly relating to the registration of donations by Members, and despite this House’s code of conduct. Yet again, the Government are making announcements, such as changing the policy on a cap on donations and changing the rules on candidate donations, with zero consultation. Without stepping into matters that are the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, I note that it is already the case that newly elected MPs are supposed to declare gifts and donations that they received in the past 12 months.

There also appears to be uncertainty about the scope of the new requirements relating to candidate donations. It is not yet clear which categories of elected officials the provisions will cover, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. What assessment has been made of the impact of the new profit test on the ability of all political parties to undertake sponsorship and advertising at their party conferences? Have the Government properly considered with the Electoral Commission the interaction of the new requirements with the proposed draft guidance on sponsorship? Does the Minister think that a company sponsoring a lounge or a lanyard is foreign interference? Had the Government engaged fully with political parties, electoral administrators, compliance professionals and other stakeholders before announcing their response, many of these practical difficulties and unintended consequences could have been identified and addressed at an earlier stage.

To be clear, we support measures that genuinely strengthen the resilience of our democratic system. We recognise the risks associated with cryptocurrency donations and agree that safeguards are necessary. We also support tighter rules governing donations in the period immediately before elections. However, good policy requires more than good intentions; it requires engagement and a willingness to listen to those responsible for implementing the rules. The protection of our democracy is too important to be pursued through retrospective legislation and measures whose practical consequences have not been fully thought through.

Unfortunately, this is a Government who talk about defending democracy while trying to cancel local elections for two years in a row; who amended the electoral system for mayors for partisan advantage; and who changed the laws on election pilots in complete secrecy. They are now gerrymandering local government boundaries. The official Opposition will work constructively with the Government to defend the national interest from foreign interference, but Ministers would be wise to step back from US-style, hyper-partisan legislation, and actually learn to consult.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the shadow Minister for his offer to work constructively with the Government on these issues. He and I have worked constructively to date, and we have met on a number of occasions to discuss these issues. The political parties committee at the Electoral Commission is also sighted on the changes. As we go forward, I will meet other parties’ representatives, too. I would have met them today, had we not tabled this statement, but I hope to do so as soon as possible. I underline that the existing standards arrangements are unaffected by these proposals. I look forward to meeting and working with the shadow Minister in the future.

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

I thank the Minister for this statement, and I join her in paying tribute to Philip Rycroft for his tireless efforts in producing this review. I agree with the shadow Minister that we need to make sure that all political parties sign up to the changes. It is important, because if the public do not expect to fund political parties, we have to be honest about how political parties are funded. I would agree with him more if the last Government had not tried to interfere in the work of the Electoral Commission. This Labour Government then cancelled what was happening. The public rightly expect us to ensure that foreign money does not interfere with or taint our democratic system in any way, and it is good to hear that the Minister is accepting all the recommendations in this review. It is important that we look at where cryptocurrency is coming from.

I just want clarity from the Minister on some things. First, there is the requirement for candidates to prove the source of campaign funding prior to their becoming an official candidate. Can she explain the scope of that requirement? For example, would it be possible for someone to use illegitimate funds to buy or rent a house in a constituency for a prospective candidate, with the aim of helping them to get elected? On the final recommendation—for a stand-alone permanent secretary with responsibility for leading on the security of our democracy—can the Minister confirm that discussions have been ongoing with different Departments? We have to get this right. This is cross-cutting, cross-departmental work, and it will be effective only if there is one person in Cabinet leading on it.

[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?

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Lady is asking me to consider my job description, but given the sensitivity at the moment, I do not think I will go there.

I hear what the hon. Lady has said about caps. I think that there is a role for political donations in our system: it leads to a thriving and healthy democracy that is funded properly and fairly. The Government’s aim was to legislate through the Representation of the People Bill, but in order to be absolutely sure that we had not left any loopholes, the Secretary of State took the decision to commission Philip Rycroft’s review. He did identify loopholes, we have accepted their existence, and we will be working to close them next week. This is an ongoing issue, and we do indeed work across the Government. I have explained about the defending democracy taskforce, and it is a busy and hectic arena, but I try to keep abreast of my entire portfolio.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for the work that she has done, and for accepting the recommendations of the Rycroft review. Can she clarify whether consideration was given to an outright ban on crypto donations, as opposed to a moratorium? Given the reports in the press, can she also tell us what additional steps will be taken to strengthen legal duties in the Representation of the People Bill, and impose restrictions on major online social platforms that are spreading hate and disinformation and interfering during our election periods?

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government’s view is that the anonymity inherent in cryptocurrency transactions creates a route for foreign or illegal actors to channel money through our politics, so we are introducing a moratorium on the use of cryptocurrencies to safeguard the integrity of our political finance system. We intend for to moratorium to end once the regulatory environment around cryptocurrencies is robust enough to protect that integrity. Further legislation would be required at that point, and until we get there, the moratorium will stand. I am quite happy to write to my hon. Friend on her other points.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I agree with the Minister that there is a great deal to welcome in Philip Rycroft’s conclusions. She talked about corporate donations. May I ask her to confirm that she is conscious of the vulnerability around unincorporated associations, which the Electoral Commission has identified for some time, and that she is focused on ensuring that that vulnerability is addressed?

[Samantha Dixon]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely correct. Through the Representation of the People Bill, we will take forward measures to address that.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I welcome much of the Minister’s statement, but I am disappointed that there is not an outright ban on cryptocurrency donations. I cannot foresee us ever arriving at a place where the regulation is robust enough that it would be safe for cryptocurrency donations to proceed, so I would like to understand why the Minister is not proceeding with an outright ban. The point about having safeguards on the algorithmic amplification of hate during election campaigns is crucial. That affords certain candidates and certain parties millions of pounds in free publicity, and it affords them an income stream from social media platforms. Why are we not banning that now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I think the bar will be set very high before the moratorium ends—I can give my right hon. Friend that reassurance. We would need to be sure that no foreign or malign actor could use cryptocurrency to influence our political system before we would even consider lifting that moratorium. I can give my right hon. Friend an assurance that the bar will be very high before that happens—if it happens. We have more work to do on algorithms. We will be working hard with partners across Government to address this, and I hear what my right hon. Friend says. It is a serious issue that we will address.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Government are right to pursue this. Foreign interference in UK politics is a blight that needs to be dealt with, and the Government are right to commission Philip Rycroft to do the work. However, does the Minister not understand that the optics of failing to consult political parties across the House are not good? Whatever emerges has to command the respect of everyone, and although I am no apologist for the Reform party, this looks very much like something of a stitch-up, which does none of us any good.

[Samantha Dixon]

I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of this. The political parties have been consulted through the Electoral Commission panel, and we will continue to work with them as we move forward.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

We know that Russia orchestrated not only an arson attack on the Prime Minister’s family, but then the spreading on social media of misinformation about the attack, so I welcome the Rycroft review’s recommendations on strengthening enforcement. Does the Minister agree that this has to target not only foreign actors who spread misinformation and the countries behind them, but the social media companies that are allowing misinformation to spread on their platforms?

[Samantha Dixon]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the priority is to protect our political system from interference by foreign powers, including Russia. We will always continue to hold Russia to account and to counter the threat posed by Putin’s regime, and we will work at pace across Government to support that work—and not just in the Representation of the People Bill or as a response to the review, but continuously.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who last week took the decision to take her Department and herself off Twitter—or X, or whatever it is called these days? We talk about online misinformation and malign foreign influence, so it is worth remembering that Twitter is a platform owned by an individual who is hostile to British values and has openly fomented violence on our streets. At a march last year, he said:

“Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die”.

Does the Minister have any thoughts on removing her Department, or any further advice for Ministers or Members of this place on whether staying on that platform is in the interests of our democracy? What steps are the Government and the defending democracy taskforce taking to protect our democracy from foreign influence currently, before the measures in the Representation of the People Bill can be introduced?

[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.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

As a contributor to the Rycroft review—I just asked to go and see him—I very much welcome the reforms that have been announced. Just as we do not want companies to take the mickey and be vehicles either for dishonestly obtained funds or for foreign money into our democracy, we also have to be careful about individuals, and my question is about individuals returning to the UK. Will they be properly here—in other words, will they be here in the sense that they pay taxes? Surely any crypto billionaire coming from, say, Thailand to a farmhouse in Hampshire, who has developed a deep interest in our country, would also want to help pay for our schools, our roads and our hospitals. My predecessor in 1848 presented to this place the huge Chartist petition calling for more democracy, and with the cry, “No taxation without representation!” I say this: “No outsize representation without paying your blinking taxes!”

[Samantha Dixon]

I hear what my right hon. Friend has said. I think the important thing is to close the loopholes for individuals returning from overseas. If they are not registered as an overseas elector, from today their contribution will be capped at £100,000 per annum, and I think that we would all support closing that loophole.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I welcome the modest measures announced today. However, Thai-based billionaire and Reform party donor Christopher Harborne has already insisted that these new rules will not stop him donating. Billionaires, oligarchs and all those who wish to subvert our democracy believe that they are untouchable, so these measures must be rigorously enforced with severe punishments for anyone found breaking them. Given that the ex-leader of Reform in Wales is serving 10 and a half years in prison for taking Russian money during his time as an MEP, will the Minister ensure that anyone found guilty of undermining the integrity of our democracy is dealt with with the same severity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, because he raises an important point about enforcement. We are clear that the framework governing political finance must provide a strong, credible and effective deterrent against wrongdoing. It is important to make sure that evidential thresholds and sentencing provisions support, rather than hinder, the effective investigation and prosecution of serious offences, particularly when such offences may undermine public confidence in the democratic process. We therefore accept the underlying intent of Rycroft’s recommendation 12. However, the Government also consider that changes to the knowledge test and sentencing limits raise complex issues of proportionality, fairness and coherence across the wider criminal and electoral law framework. So we will be working closely with Ministers across the whole Government to ensure that this is addressed properly.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is integral that the public out there are confident that their politicians are not for sale. It is a shame that a small number of individuals make such actions necessary. I wonder whether the Minister shares my concern that money and corruption always find a way. Would it not be better to have an overall cap for all donations, foreign or domestic?

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government’s view is that there is a place for legitimate donations in political financing in the UK. However, the Representation of the People Bill, with the extra insight that Philip Rycroft has produced, will provide us with one of the most, if not the most, strenuous sets of legislation on political financing that the country has ever seen. That does not mean to say that we are complacent and that we will not continue to monitor and act when necessary, but this is truly groundbreaking.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Will the Minister confirm that the Government will match this action against foreign financial influence by restoring the principle that voting in British parliamentary elections should be reserved for British citizens?

[Samantha Dixon]

There are a number of arrangements for different citizens—reciprocal arrangements—in different parts of the country and for different countries. I will set out for the hon. Lady the arrangements as they stand at the moment. We are not proposing to change those arrangements.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend the Minister for all the work that she has done on this matter and the Rycroft review. Sadly, there are others who think differently. “Where there is a will, there is a way” is how multimillionaire Christopher Harborne reacted to the idea of a proposed cap of £100,000 on donations by overseas donors because of the concern that such donations might appear to be motivating outcomes in this place. The Minister will recognise that all of us in this House are damaged by the perception that politicians are open to motivation by donation rather than democracy, and that, frankly, it is less about the location and more about the lump sum. If it is “Where there is a will, there is a way”, will she commit to doing what many of us would like to see: close the loophole and also cap UK donations at £100,000, putting us beyond doubt and all our reputations back on the line?

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. As I said previously, it is the Government’s view that there is a place in UK political finance for legitimate donations and we do not intend to introduce a cap.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Can the Minister advise the House on how earnings from foreign sources not made directly as political donations, such as hosting or appearing on TV channels supporting foreign adversaries, will be treated? They enable the significant indirect self-funding of candidates, future candidates, MPs and political parties by those who seek to influence political campaigning. Therefore, an overall cap on donations from British people, including those who are candidates and MPs, is really necessary. Will she comment on that source?

[Samantha Dixon]

As I have set out, the Government believe that there is a legitimate role for political donations that are made correctly and effectively, in accordance with the rules. However, I will write to the hon. Lady about the specific issue she raises.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and I pay tribute to Philip Rycroft, who, as I am sure colleagues across the House will agree, is an exceptional public servant. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, it was a pleasure for me to provide evidence to his review, and I know his diligent work was conducted in a considered manner.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have notified the relevant Member I am going to name. Given that the weekend’s newspapers were awash with stories about the financial interests of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), what assurances can the Minister provide to me that the measures the Government are introducing will prevent people—such as George Cottrell, convicted in the US of wire fraud, who we know has provided thousands of pounds-worth of benefits; or Ben Delo, who has been convicted for flouting American anti-money laundering rules, yet has donated £4 million to Reform—from being able to pump tens of millions of pounds into British politics?

[Samantha Dixon]

The reporting in The Sunday Times was clearly concerning for all of us in the House. What I would say is that, as I set out in my statement earlier, there are a number of agencies that deal with the regulation, enforcement and potential legal action that may be necessary in cases that involve illegal behaviour. I will go no further than that, although my hon. Friend tempts me, but I will just say that I am sure those organisations will be paying very close attention to the media reports over the weekend.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Well, well, this desperate Labour Government will stop at nothing to stop the rise of Reform UK—from trying to cancel elections, to donations, to changing the voting system in Manchester. If the Government are truly concerned about undue influence, has the Minister discussed the proposals with the Cayman Islands hedge fund Quadrature, which was the largest donator to the Labour Government, giving £4 million in 2024, or with the eight companies that have donated half a million pounds? Sure enough, those companies have had almost £150 million of Government contracts since.

[Samantha Dixon]

Any political party that abides by the rules the Government are introducing will be able to flourish in our political system. Those that do not can expect to be held firmly to account.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. I have notified the relevant Member that I am about to name them. Over the weekend, The Telegraph ran a study about the Iranian-born property magnate Sasan Ghandehari pledging to donate millions of pounds to Reform UK. He described the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) as an “honest politician”. Does the Minister agree?

[Samantha Dixon]

I am not going to comment on individual Members without having notified them in advance, but I note my hon. Friend’s comments.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I welcome that the Government have accepted all of the Rycroft review’s recommendations, but as Rycroft himself noted, his terms of reference did not enable him to look at all sources of distortion in our democracy. It does not just come from abroad. In a democracy, every voter’s voice should count equally, but it is clear that billionaires are buying influence. Why will the Minister not set a cap on all donations, so that we can eliminate the corrosive and corrupting influence of big money in our politics?

[Samantha Dixon]

As I have set out, the Government’s position is that there is a role for financial political donations that have been given in accordance with the rules, to enable British politics to flourish.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

People want politicians to serve their interests, not those of billionaires or millionaires based overseas, whether they are in the US, Russia, Thailand or, indeed, Montenegro. The revelations of the last few days have shown how important it is to update our rules. Can the Minister confirm that corporate political donations through shell arrangements or foreign-linked entities, with no link to or interest in Britain’s prosperity, will no longer be possible under the proposals?

[Samantha Dixon]

Yes, I can.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Has she considered the merits of establishing an office of the whistleblower, which would create new legal protections for those who declare wrongdoing and promote greater public awareness of whistleblowers’ rights? Will the Government ensure that there are criminal sanctions on officeholders who fail to whistle blow when they know or become aware of political interference or wrongdoing?

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. As the independent regulator for our democracy, the Electoral Commission is always willing to hear from members of the public, political parties and other sources about anything that people believe may have been done incorrectly, whether inadvertently or deliberately. I refer the hon. Lady to the Electoral Commission, but I take her point.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and Philip Rycroft for his work. This issue is something that my constituents care about, because they want to know that their vote is their own and is not for sale to the highest bidder from overseas, whether it is for £5, £500 or even £5 million. Will the Minister tell the House when we will see the changes in law?

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government’s intention is to table amendments to the Representation of the People Bill following today’s statement. Report and Third Reading will take place next week, so we will be moving forward at pace.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I thank the Minister for her statement on the actions the Government will take to try to restore the public’s faith in our democracy. She mentioned that the “know your donor” rules will be strengthened, in particular with regard to the location of potential donors. Has there been any consideration of adding a prospective donor’s criminal history to the list of due diligence factors that a political party must consider when processing a potential donation?

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the “know your donor” arrangements that will come in through the Representation of the People Bill and the way those rules will be tightened through the Rycroft review recommendations. It is an important point, and I may come back to him in writing.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her considered statement. We recently learned that shortly after receiving £5 million from a crypto billionaire halfway across the world, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) used a private audience with the Governor of the Bank of England to lobby against a policy that could cost that same billionaire dearly. It should not be this easy to pump money into British politics from the other side of the planet. While I welcome the measures announced today regarding the overseas donation cap, I would like some reassurance from the Minister—for me and for my constituents—that foreign-based donors will not be able to dart in and out of the country as they choose to avoid the new cap on foreign donations.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The measures that I have set out today on overseas electors and residents returning to Britain from overseas should provide some of the certainty he is looking for so that his constituents can feel confident that our system is safe.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I welcome these measures, which are a fantastic step forward. These actions are about not just tackling foreign donations and dirty money, but putting faith back into our politics and ensuring that people can feel that their vote matters locally. Can the Minister assure me that the enforcement agencies will have teeth to ensure that these sanctions are applied appropriately and that people can have confidence in the integrity of our whole political system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

My hon. Friend raises a particularly important point: it is essential that enforcement follows on from the legislation that we enact here. We are working with colleagues in the Home Office on policing and with the Electoral Commission to ensure that that enforcement is robust and well resourced.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Several of my constituents have raised concerns about Russian-linked interference in British politics that have been echoed by the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, of which I, like many Members present, am a member. Its cross-party report “Free But Not Fair” highlighted cases of shell companies and proxy donors with links to Russian-connected individuals being able to funnel money into our politics. Will the Minister confirm that today’s measures will close those routes for good?

[Samantha Dixon]

Any company that wants to donate into British politics will have to substantially prove that it is able to do so by being headquartered in the UK and having persons of interest from the UK. We will end the way in which shell companies have been used to channel illegitimate funds into our political system.

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

I very much welcome the Minister’s statement today and the incorporation of the Rycroft review recommendations. I also welcome the changes to the “know your donor” rules, particularly in respect of location; political parties must be forced to include location in their considerations before accepting a donation. I was going to submit that as an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill, so job done on that. Does the Minister agree that political parties should also be forced to consider politically exposed people and the source of the wealth being donated before accepting donations?

[Samantha Dixon]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We will be working across the Benches to develop a donor declaration that will set out where exactly money has come from. We need to proceed on that with care and collaboration to ensure that when a donation is given, it is clear where exactly it is coming from. I agree with him entirely.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her engagement with me on this issue. I want to praise both the work of the Electoral Commission in addressing the many threats that we face and the Rycroft review, which I had the pleasure of speaking to Philip Rycroft about. In the review, he focuses not just on money, which many Members have spoken about, but on the ongoing threats in the online world. Does the Minister agree that this is a once-in-a-generation moment to take a tough line on disinformation that is deliberately created in the UK and then amplified by foreign bots? Such disinformation has a bad influence on our right to choose based on real, true information.

[Samantha Dixon]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tenacity in this field. She has worked really hard to highlight and bring to the surface these issues, and she has taken the time to meet with the Electoral Commission, Philip Rycroft and me. I am very grateful to her for sharing her experience and for contributing to this debate. I agree that this is work that must continue. It will not stop because we are legislating now. We are working across Government, and we continue to work relentlessly to keep our democracy safe.

Elections: First Past the Post

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for calling the debate, and all hon. Members who have contributed to it. The Government recognise the strength of feeling expressed today regarding our voting system, which after all sits at the heart of our democracy. We welcome open and constructive debate on the voting systems we use and their effectiveness, whether by long-standing Members or more recently elected Members. As set out in our manifesto and our strategy for modern and secure elections, the Government believe that strengthening our democracy, upholding the integrity of elections and encouraging voter participation are key priorities and fundamental responsibilities for Government.

Our Representation of the People Bill, which is currently before Parliament, contains a range of measures that will deliver on those commitments. As the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) mentioned, that includes protecting elections against foreign interference. It also means moving towards more automated voter registration, strengthening the resilience of our electoral processes and opening up democratic participation for the next generation by removing barriers to increased participation. Those are substantial electoral reforms, and the Bill represents the boldest and most ambitious change to our democracy for decades. It will help to keep our elections secure, build public trust and encourage more people across society to engage and participate.

Turning to the specific matter of this debate, the Government recognise that different voting systems can be better suited to different types of polls and elections. We believe that the first-past-the-post system works where people are elected to a body, such as a council or Parliament, where there is a mix of representatives from different parties and platforms. Although it is not perfect, the first-past-the-post system provides a robust, efficient and secure way of electing those representatives. It provides for strong and clear local accountability, ensuring a direct link between elected representatives and local constituents, as so ably demonstrated—and dare I say, embodied—by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The first-past-the-post system is also well understood by voters, and as such we do not want to make any changes just for the sake of it. At present, therefore, the Government have no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary elections or local council elections in England.

For single-person executive positions, such as mayors or police and crime commissioners, the same reasoning does not apply, as they exercise their powers as individuals. We therefore believe it is appropriate to use a different voting system—the supplementary vote system—which allows voters to express a first and second preference, and which requires the winning candidate to receive the majority of the votes counted.

[Sarah Olney]

In this place, we have recently changed the voting system for metropolitan mayors. Can the Minister comment on whether the voting system for the London Mayor will be changed before the 2028 London mayoral election?

[Samantha Dixon]

I will write to the hon. Member on that point, but I would say that the supplementary voting system ensures that mayors have a broader base of support from the people they represent.

SV was the system used when the roles of mayors and PCCs were first established, and it was changed to first past the post following the Elections Act 2022. The Government have been consistently clear about our intention to revert the system back to SV. I refer the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) to the fact that we have already passed the necessary legislation to change it back in some cases. The change for other mayoral systems and police and crime commissioners will occur in due course, once the relevant measures in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 are commenced.

The forthcoming mayoral election in Greater Manchester will therefore take place under SV, which we have always been clear is the most appropriate system for electing mayors. However, the electoral system we use is just one part of ensuring trust in our democracy. We are also strengthening the postal and proxy voting system to make it more resilient and responsive. We are introducing tougher political finance rules that will give electors more confidence in how political parties are funded and protect UK politics from foreign interference. And we recently launched a democratic engagement fund to provide £2.5 million to increase democratic participation.

Turning to the points raised by other hon. Members, trust in our elections is important to everyone in this House, as referenced by the hon. Members for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). That is central to what we are trying to do in the Representation of the People Bill. The Government recognise that our voting system is of fundamental importance in ensuring trust between elected representatives and the public. Although the first-past-the-post system is not perfect, it is a way of ensuring that elected representatives have a strong connection with their constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) talked about disengagement from voting. I would gently suggest that that was not borne out by the recent by-election in Makerfield, which saw high levels of participation. In reference to his remarks and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) regarding the devolved Governments, we work closely with them; indeed, I met Ministers from Scotland and Wales yesterday to discuss our proposals for legislation and bringing them forward, so that we can learn and work together across our country.

I think I have covered the comments about trust and involvement. Several hon. Members—including the hon. Members for South Cotswolds, for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for North Herefordshire, and my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West and for Falkirk—asked about a national commission on electoral reform. We have no plans to set up such a commission and do not believe that doing so is appropriate or necessary at this time. The important reforms we plan to introduce as part of the Representation of the People Bill will ensure that our democracy remains secure and robust in elections going forward.

To summarise, the Government are content that first past the post is the appropriate system for use in UK parliamentary elections and local council elections in England, and that the supplementary vote system should be used for single executive positions. We currently have no plans to make any further changes to that approach. Although I appreciate that that is disappointing news for many hon. Members in the room, we will continue to welcome discussion and feedback on this important topic. In closing, I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park for securing this important debate, and all hon. Members who have contributed.

Grenfell Tower Fire: Ninth Anniversary

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for raising this truly important issue. The ninth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy will be, above all else, a day of remembrance, shaped by loss, love and the enduring strength of this community. I want to begin by acknowledging the survivors and relatives of those who died at Grenfell Tower; I know they have the deepest sympathies of the whole House and our most profound respect.

The fire at Grenfell Tower, which claimed 72 innocent lives, was a national tragedy and a scandalous chapter in British history. We will never forget what happened that night, and we must make sure nothing like it can ever happen again. I recognise how each anniversary is intensely personal and deeply painful for bereaved families, survivors and the wider community. I am also struck every day by the grit and resilience of this courageous community, not least in the way it leads the commemorations. The Government will continue to be guided by the community and honour its voice. As I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, it is right that the community shapes how the day is marked and that we stand alongside it in support. I have had the privilege of meeting many members of the Grenfell community, and I carry with me a lasting impression of their strength and determination.

I want to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about justice and respond to them briefly. This Government recognise the importance of justice and acknowledge that it remains a central concern for the community. In the light of recent announcements, I want to respond to those concerns. The Metropolitan police has been investigating the Grenfell Tower tragedy since June 2017. It is one of the largest and most legally complex investigations the Met has ever conducted, with around 220 officers and staff dedicated to the investigation. Those responsible must be held to account, and we fully support the Met in its important work, which must remain independent. We also remain supportive of wider Government involvement, including from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, and I know that on a cross-Government basis we are focused on ensuring that justice is served.

We are mindful of this community’s enduring spirit at a time of continued change at the Grenfell Tower site. This Government will continue to support bereaved families and survivors and the local community, and to work with the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission to create a memorial worthy of those we remember. The Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Act 2026 is now in force, providing the statutory authority needed to take forward the construction of the memorial and ensure its long-term care.

The design team, Freehaus, is working with bereaved families, survivors and the local community to help shape the memorial. It is right that the voices of those most affected by the tragedy remain central to these decisions, guiding what comes next. The memorial will honour those who lost their lives and all those whose lives were changed forever. It will be a place for people to remember, to reflect and to pay their respects. This anniversary reminds us of our shared responsibility to honour the dead and to make sure that Grenfell’s legacy is shaped by those most directly affected. It is in that spirit that I now turn to what this Government are doing to make sure that such a tragedy can never happen again.

As I set out in my recent written statement to the House, alongside the May 2026 Grenfell Tower inquiry progress report, the tragedy exposed deep and long-standing failures in the systems that were meant to keep people safe. The loss of 72 lives was a profound and preventable failure of oversight and accountability by industry, successive Governments and regulators. Bereaved families, survivors and the community continue to remind us of the human cost of those failures and the need for lasting change. The Government have accepted the inquiry’s findings and are taking forward reforms to build a stronger and more accountable building safety system. Since February 2025, we have completed 21 of the inquiry’s recommendations, and we remain on track to deliver all recommendations by the end of 2029.

We recognise that too often, inquiry recommendations have been made and accepted but not implemented, and we are determined that that will not be the case here. We are continuing to explore ways to improve transparency and accountability so that the public can see that the Government are following through on their commitments. We accepted the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s recommendation to maintain a public record of recommendations made by inquiries. That tracker was published on gov.uk last summer and shows the progress made on implementing recommendations from 2024 onwards. It will be updated regularly and expanded to capture new inquiries as they conclude. I note my hon. Friend’s comments on the national oversight mechanism, and I know how important that is to the bereaved and to survivors, notably Grenfell United.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is also conducting an inquiry into this issue. We welcome that work, and have submitted evidence to support the Committee’s inquiry. The Government have been clear that supplier exclusion must be carried out in line with the Procurement Act 2023, and must not jeopardise the ongoing criminal investigation. The pause does not prevent the Cabinet Office from resuming or undertaking future debarment investigations. In the interim, we have taken steps to stop senior officials and Ministers associating with the seven most highly criticised companies in the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report. Across Government, Ministers and officials will no longer share platforms with those firms.

As the Secretary of State set out to Parliament earlier this year, remediation remains a central priority. In the King’s Speech, we set out our commitment to bring forward the remediation of unsafe cladding Bill—a decisive step towards fixing the cladding crisis and making sure that those responsible are held to account. We will introduce a new legal duty to remediate, requiring those responsible to identify and fix unsafe cladding promptly, or risk criminal prosecution. Where they do not act, a new remediation backstop will allow a third party to step in and carry out the work. Each building made safe means fewer families left waiting, and real progress in helping people move on with their lives.

We will never forget those we lost, and we remain focused on making sure that such a tragedy never happens again. Grenfell was the result of deep and widespread failings, and it is our responsibility to address them. As we continue with these efforts, we remain firmly committed to supporting the Grenfell community. We recognise the profound impact of the tragedy on the whole community, and in particular on children and young people. Working with the Department for Education, we have provided more than £800,000 in additional funding to support the physical health and emotional wellbeing of children and young people in schools serving the Grenfell community, as the tower is carefully taken down. That is alongside a further £8 million provided by the Department of Health and Social Care to support the physical health and wellbeing of the community during this period.

Our thoughts are also with the residents living in the community around Grenfell Tower. They deserve safe, high-quality homes. Refurbishment work on the Lancaster West estate, led by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and supported by further Government funding, will make a real difference. That work must be shaped by the views of residents themselves, as they know their community best.

We expect swift progress from RBKC in response to the C3 regulatory judgment by the Regulator of Social Housing, and the regulator continues to engage intensively with RBKC on its improvement activities. I am concerned to hear my hon. Friend’s comments about the change in RBKC’s scrutiny arrangements and will seek further advice about that. In addition, we will continue to explore stronger and more independent oversight to ensure that RBKC sets the standard of an exemplar council, and so homes are delivered to the standard and at the pace people rightly expect.

As I come to a close, I acknowledge that I am the latest in a long line of Ministers who has had responsibility for the Government’s response to the tragedy and the recommendations from the inquiry, and I acknowledge that that is hard and difficult. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater for the tenacity and constancy that he has shown to the community he represents with such determination.

As we look ahead to the future of the homes and the community around Grenfell, we are reminded once again of the strength that is shown in how people come together to remember, to support one another and to make sure that those who were lost are never forgotten. That strength must also guide us, and I pledge to the House that we will continue with determination, guided by those most affected, so that the legacy of Grenfell is one of lasting change.

Question put and agreed to.

Participation in Democracy

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Written Statements

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

Healthy participation is fundamental to a strong and resilient democracy. Yet engagement in democratic life cannot be taken for granted, and too many people and communities continue to face barriers that leave them feeling disconnected from it.

The Government are committed to encouraging broader and more inclusive participation in our democracy. To support that ambition, I am today announcing the launch of the democratic engagement fund, a new Government grant to support civil society organisations to design, test and deliver place-based interventions aimed at helping to widen participation in democratic life.

The fund will focus in particular on groups and communities that have historically experienced lower levels of turnout and participation. Evidence indicates that barriers to engagement, including capability, opportunity and motivation, can disproportionately affect groups such as young people, frequent movers, ethnic minorities, people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, disabled people and those experiencing homelessness. There remains, however, limited evidence on which interventions are most effective in reducing or overcoming these barriers. By testing and evaluating a range of approaches in different local contexts, the fund will help to build a stronger evidence base on what works to enhance democratic engagement.

The fund also aims to provide early insight on engaging young people in our democracy, which can then be built upon ahead of the expansion of the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds. This will support the successful delivery of the Government’s commitment to encouraging the participation of young people in our democracy.

Backed by a total of 2.5 million, the democratic engagement fund will provide grants of £1,000 to £50,000, with most awards expected to be around £25,000. The fund will support practical, locally led approaches that can build trust, remove barriers to participation and deepen people s connection to democratic life. At a time when confidence in democratic participation must be actively renewed, this investment will support action in communities across England while strengthening understanding of how different interventions can address barriers to engagement. Applications to the fund will open on 22 June 2026 and close on 31 August 2026, with projects taking place in 2027.

Further details of the fund, including its objectives and eligibility criteria, are set out in the prospectus published today on www.gov.uk. Through the democratic engagement fund, the Government are taking practical action to support innovation, deepen understanding of what works, and help to ensure that more people, in more communities, can participate meaningfully in our democratic life.

[HCWS93]

Draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. The draft order was laid before the House on 21 May 2026.

Over the course of the past year, Parliament has debated, agreed and decided—through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, which received Royal Assent in April—that the voting system for mayors and police and crime commissioners should be changed to use the supplementary vote system. The SV system was used when the positions of elected mayor and police and crime commissioner were first established, decades ago, and the Government believe that it is the most appropriate voting system for single executive offices, where it is essential that an individual has a broad mandate from their electorate.

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act contains the main measures required to change the voting system used for those types of elections, and they will be commenced in due course. However, a number of other changes must be made to the election conduct rules via secondary legislation to fully enable the use of SV—for example, updating the images of ballot papers to allow a voter to select multiple preferences, and updating guidance to electors and the procedures used at the count should there be a second round of counting. We stated during passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that the Government’s intention was to implement the change to SV for any mayoral or PCC election taking place after the scheduled May elections this year.

The order has been drafted to be concise and so will make only the necessary additional amendments to enable SV to be used for both combined authority and combined county authority mayors, including those who exercise police and crime commissioner powers. Therefore, the order will not make amendments with regard to elections for local authority mayors, the Mayor of London or police and crime commissioners. Further legislation will be brought forward for those in due course.

The draft order will make the change to SV for any combined authority or combined county authority mayoral election for which notice is given on or after the date that the order comes into force. As this is a reversion to the original voting system used for mayoral elections, the SV process will be familiar to administrators and electors, so implementing the changes will be straightforward and we are confident that returning officers will be able to make the necessary changes.

The conduct rules for elections of combined authority and combined county authority mayors are set out in the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017. The draft order will make a number of amendments to the 2017 order. As I have said, the SV system was used when combined authority mayors were first established, so the changes will largely revert the 2017 order to its original drafting. The Electoral Commission has been formally consulted on the changes and has raised no objections.

Articles 3 to 5 of the draft order will amend schedules 1 to 3 to the 2017 order, respectively, which set out the conduct rules for these mayoral elections, both when the poll is a stand-alone poll and when the poll at a mayoral election is combined with the poll at another type of election or referendum. The amendments will update the guidance given to voters in polling stations to reflect the fact that they now have the option to select a second preference. They will also update the various processes involved in counting the votes to reflect that a second round of counting may be required. They will also make a number of consequential amendments throughout the conduct rules to ensure that references to votes refer to first and/or second preference votes as appropriate.

Schedules 1 and 2 to the draft order contain updated statutory electoral forms. Schedule 1 sets out the forms in respect of a stand-alone mayoral election, and schedule 2 sets out the forms where a mayoral election is combined with another type of election or referendum. Two types of forms require updating to enable SV. The first is the ballot paper. A new ballot paper image is provided in the draft order to allow voters to select both a first and a second preference of candidates. The draft order also contains the ballot paper to be used when there are only two candidates running, because in that scenario voters will not be given the choice to select a second preference and the poll will revert to a simple majority voting system. The second form is the postal voting statement. Such statements contain guidance to postal voters, and the draft order provides new postal voting statement forms, which will inform the voter that they may select both a first and a second preference where three or more candidates are running.

These are straightforward changes necessary to implement a change set out in primary legislation, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, and I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the draft order. I look forward to answering any questions Members may have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I note the comments of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. He is quite right: the arguments for and against this particular move have been rehearsed elsewhere in this House. I note, too, his intention to press for a Division.

With regard to the potential PCC election in Norfolk, the Government’s view is that it would not be appropriate to change a voting system when a ballot has already been triggered. Therefore, while we will move forward at pace with the changes to the systems for PCCs and other mayoral elections, we do not feel it is appropriate to do so at this stage.

The draft order is necessary to allow the SV system to be implemented for combined authority and combined county authority mayoral elections to ensure that those elected to those positions have a broad base of support from their electorates. We believe that to be of particular importance for single executive officers.

Question put.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026: Commencement

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Written Statements

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

When elected mayors were first established by the Local Government Act 2000, they were elected using the supplementary vote system. This system, which is suitable for the election of single executive office holders, such as mayors ensures a broader level of support for the person elected.

This voting system for mayoral elections was changed following the Elections Act 2022, which removed the supplementary vote system and replaced this with a simple majority—first past the post—system. This Government have always been clear that supplementary vote is the more appropriate system for electing mayors.

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, which received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026, reintroduces the supplementary vote system for mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections. It was the clear intention of the Government, as stated during parliamentary passage of the Act, that this return to supplementary vote would be implemented ahead of any future relevant elections after May 2026. The Government are conscious that there is now a possible scenario in which a mayoral election may need to be held in Greater Manchester in the coming months, subject to the outcome of the parliamentary by-election in the Makerfield constituency.

We are therefore taking action to seek parliamentary approval to deliver that change in all scenarios. I have today laid the legislation necessary to support the implementation of these measures for combined authority mayors and combined county authority mayors. The Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026, which makes the required changes to conduct rules, ballot papers, postal voting statements, and guidance and instructions to voters, will now be considered by Parliament under the affirmative procedure. Relevant changes to the secondary legislation governing conduct of elections for local authority mayors, the Mayor of London and police and crime commissioners will be brought forward as soon as possible later this year.

The Government’s intention, subject to the approval of Parliament, is for the secondary legislation to be in force by 19 June 2026.

We will work with the Electoral Commission and local authorities to support implementation of this change, to ensure all rules are clear and understood, and to support clear communications with electors.

[HCWS65]

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Written Statements

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

The Grenfell Tower tragedy exposed deep-rooted weaknesses in the systems designed to keep people safe. The preventable loss of 72 lives remains a profound failure of oversight and accountability which should never have occurred. The bereaved, survivors and local community continue to remind us of the human cost of those failures and of the importance of lasting reform.

This Government accepted the inquiry’s findings and is today publishing the May 2026 Grenfell Tower inquiry progress report, setting out the action taken and the further work under way to deliver a more robust, coherent and accountable building safety system. Since February 2026, we have completed a further nine recommendations, bringing the total of closed recommendations to 21 since February 2025. We remain on track to deliver all recommendations by the end of 2029.

Alongside the May progress update, we are publishing:



A call for evidence on the building professions, trades and occupations;

The college of fire and rescue consultation;

The building control independent panel report and Government response;

The public engagement policy;

An Office for Product Safety and Standards research paper.

The publications alongside this progress report illustrate the continued progress being made towards implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations and wider reforms of social housing and the construction sector. While not all these documents in themselves close a recommendation, they represent important steps in the work needed to do so, and form the foundations to support sustained, system-wide change. They seek to address fragmentation and ensure that those responsible for building and fire safety have the support they need to keep the public safe in their homes.

The Government will also bring forward a remediation Bill, which will drive forward the remediation of unsafe cladding by giving regulators the powers they need to compel the worst blockers to take action, and make those responsible pay towards the cost of fixing the problem they caused.

Call for evidence on the building professions, trades and occupations

Following on from publication of the single construction regulator prospectus in December 2025, we have today launched a call for evidence on the built environment professions, trades and occupations. This goes beyond the specific recommendations in the Grenfell Tower inquiry for fire engineers, fire risk assessors, principal contractors and architects to tackle the underlying findings of the inquiry. This concluded that the skills, knowledge and experience of all those engaged in the construction industry are critical to making sure our buildings and environments are safe, high quality and high performing.

This call for evidence seeks information about current barriers, opportunities and interdependencies shaping how people work and behave during all stages of the building process. The outcomes of this exercise will help to set the shape and scope of the new overarching strategy for the professions, trades and occupations which will be published in 2027. This will set out a long-term plan for regulatory and non-regulatory reform across Government and the sector, in addition to the delivery of the specific recommendations around professions.

The call for evidence will run for 12 weeks until 12 August 2026.

Building control independent panel report and Government response

The Government have today published the final report of the building control independent panel, alongside our response. The panel was established, under the chairship of Dame Judith Hackitt, following a recommendation of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 to consider whether building control functions should be performed by those who have a commercial interest in the process; and whether all building control functions should be performed by a national authority.

We welcome the panel’s clear assessment of long-standing challenges in the system, despite the professionalism and commitment of many of those working within it. The report sets out principles for reform, alongside recommendations for action in the near term and options for longer-term reform.

The Government agree with the panel’s assessment and accept the direction of travel it has set out. Our response makes clear that building control must be properly supported as part of a well-functioning wider building safety system, building on reforms already delivered since the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

We will now take forward detailed work on the panel’s recommendations at pace, including how reform can be taken forward in a way that strengthens public safety, supports the profession and maintains confidence across the sector. We will set out further detail as this work develops.

College of fire and rescue consultation

We are today publishing a public consultation on the establishment of a new college of fire and rescue. This consultation seeks views on the role, design and delivery of a new centre of excellence to support the capability, professionalism and resilience of the fire and rescue sector.

The consultation marks an important step in delivering the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. The inquiry identified serious and systemic weaknesses across the fire and rescue sector, including inconsistent professional standards, variation in training and leadership, and fragmented responsibilities. As the cornerstone of our reform programme, the college will address these challenges and build on the recommendations from the phase 1 report by collecting and curating operational learning and providing a trusted national voice on risk and fire behaviour. The college will therefore play a critical role in raising professional standards and improving outcomes for the fire and rescue workforce.

The consultation sets out proposals for the college’s strategic purpose and the functions it could fulfil, including, but not limited to, leadership and command, recruitment and training, and culture and integrity. It also seeks views on how the college could operate in practice.

This consultation will run for eight weeks, closing on 15 July, and we strongly encourage responses from the public, the fire and rescue sector, other blue light services and any other respondents with an interest in this work. The consultation will be available on gov.uk and will be laid in both Houses.

Public engagement policy

The Grenfell Tower inquiry details significant widespread failings that led to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. Of these failings, and the many individuals and organisations named, seven firms were most significantly criticised for their actions. Sir Michael Moore-Bick found that some of these organisations acted with “systematic dishonesty” and

“engaged in deliberate, sustained strategies to mislead the market.”

The inquiry found that materials were used on Grenfell Tower that firms knew were not fit for purpose, and that safety was deprioritised behind ease and economic gain.

In response to these findings, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has implemented a policy to advise Ministers and senior officials not to share a public platform with any of these firms. The principles of this approach have since been shared across Government.

[HCWS51]

Fire and Rescue Services: Funding

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, particularly given your specific interest in this matter. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for securing this important debate, and for the consistent way in which he raises the issue in the House in his role as shadow Minister for crime, policing and fire. I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position.

We all know about the role that fire and rescue services play in keeping people safe. Every day, firefighters and fire service staff protect lives, prevent harm and provide reassurance to communities. Alongside responding to fires, they attend road traffic collisions, floods, wildfires and other emergencies. They deliver vital prevention and protection activity, and increasingly support wider resilience efforts at a local and national level, as hon. Members have mentioned.

To carry out that work effectively, fire and rescue services rely on a mix of funding from central Government, council tax precept, retained business rates and specific grants. Getting that framework right is essential, particularly at a time when services face changing risks, increasing complexity and growing demands, beyond traditional fire incidents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) was right that 14 years of Conservative austerity have absolutely battered our fire and rescue services. Fourteen years of Conservative cuts to local authority and fire service budgets have left many areas operating on a shoestring: 20% of firefighter capacity was lost across the country during that period. Throughout the period, the Fire Brigades Union and its membership have worked tirelessly to protect the public and do more with less.

We are working hard to remedy that. That is why the 2026-27 local government finance settlement marks a significant change. After a decade of short-term settlements, it delivers the first multi-year funding settlement for local government in 10 years. It gives fire and rescue authorities the stability and certainty that they need to plan ahead, invest in their workforce and estates, and make sound, long-term decisions in the interests of public safety.

[Kim Johnson]

This morning, I met Anne Davies, whose husband Jeff became the first UK firefighter to have his death from cancer officially recorded as having been caused by the job. Does my hon. Friend agree that this investment in the fire and rescue service will provide the necessary equipment so that no more firefighters die as a result of industrial injuries?

[Samantha Dixon]

I would like to point out to my hon. Friend the speech that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made at the recent FBU conference, announcing welfare checks for fire and rescue service members. That significant move will protect the workforce for the future. That is really important, and is welcomed across the sector.

Importantly, since the provisional settlement, the Government have secured an additional £15 million for fire and rescue services. That ensures a minimum uplift of 3.8% in core spending power in 2026 for all stand-alone FRAs, with some services receiving increases of more than 7%.

[Vikki Slade]

Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service’s core spending power is going up over the three years only because of the increase in local taxpayers. The actual amount being provided is going down, not just in real terms but in actual cash terms. We simply do not have enough money to keep our fire stations open. Will the Minister commit to meet us again to look at reforming our funding formula for Dorset and Wiltshire?

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I will come to how the Government are addressing the reform of the funding settlement for fire and rescue services shortly. It is an important point that all Members who have attended this afternoon need to understand for the context of our future fire and rescue services.

Cleveland Fire Authority, which serves Stockton West, will have access to £37.8 million in core spending power in 2026-27, which is an increase of 3.8%. That provides the authority with greater certainty about how it can best serve the communities of Stockton-on-Tees and the wider Cleveland area.

However, although the Government set the national funding framework, decisions about how resources are deployed locally must rightly remain with fire and rescue authorities and chief fire officers, who are best placed to understand local risk and demand through their community risk management plans, and to make operational decisions in consultation with the workforce and communities. That speaks to the wider point that Members have made about local decisions reflecting local needs.

[Greg Smith]

In Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes, there was a consultation. The public overwhelmingly said no to cuts that that fire authority was pushing, and firefighters very clearly said, “No, this is crazy. Don’t do it.” How can the Government ensure that fire authorities, which are making local decisions, reflect the important views not just of the public, but of firefighters themselves?

[Samantha Dixon]

Fire authorities, by and large, are locally elected representatives; they are accountable to their communities, they should serve their local communities, and they need to respond to what they hear from consultations. That is an important point for Members from Dorset and Wiltshire; they need to respond to what their local communities are doing in the way that the Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service has done in recent days.

[Matt Rodda]

Will the Minister give way?

[Samantha Dixon]

I am going to make some progress.

The Government are committed not only to providing stable funding, but to continuing to work with the fire sector to make sure that the funding system remains fair and responsive. Funding allocations for fire and rescue authorities are determined through a national funding formula, which assesses relative need using factors such as population and other cost-and-demand drivers.

The current fire funding formula was designed more than a decade ago. As part of the fair funding review and following a consultation, the Government updated the relative needs formula for fire and rescue, using the most up-to-date data available and changes in individual authority’s allocations so that they reflect updated data in the formula.

Looking ahead—this is really important in relation to the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade)—we have committed to working with the fire sector on a comprehensive review of the formula ahead of the next spending review. As part of that engagement, every fire and rescue service in England has been invited to participate in sector engagement workshops, the first of which is taking place in Manchester today. It includes chief fire officers, heads of finances and relevant officers. It is an important opportunity to reform funding for the future.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I am also a member of the FBU parliamentary group. I understand that consultations on the formula are going on, and we welcome them. Will the Minister ensure that trade union representatives are built into those regional consultations?

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his point, because it brings me to the work of the ministerial advisory group—a group established following our manifesto commitment to work with the entire sector. The ministerial advisory group involves the National Fire Chiefs Council, the inspectorate, the Fire Standards Board, the National Joint Council, the Local Government Association and the Fire Brigades Union. They sit at the table looking at reforming the role of the firefighter, the funding for the fire sector, and the governance of and arrangements for the wider sector. I have asked that group to be bold in its decision making, because after the past 14 years, the sector cannot continue as it is. We need to support that work as fully as we can. Local fire authorities need to listen to their communities, work with their communities, and work with the Government to support their communities going forward.

Funding is only one part of the picture. There is exciting work ahead of us. There is a generational opportunity, and this Government are determined to seize it.

Question put and agreed to.