Oral Answers to Questions

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

Obviously, we take decisions on local reorganisation on a county-by-county basis. When we are in a position to issue a “minded to” notice, we explain at length how we will balance the competing interests to get the right balance, but I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point. The identity of place matters, and places that are urban have quite a different character and economy from those that are rural. By and large, I think we try to strike that balance well in the decisions that are taken.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Earlier this year, a young puppy was found in South Derbyshire, and its suspected mother was discovered in squalid conditions on a farm in Derbyshire Dales, alongside numerous other dogs, some of which were dead. The conditions were so horrific that one environmental officer was physically sick. This incident has stayed with and haunted me and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), particularly given that the environmental team officers, after putting animal welfare first, were subsequently suspended and dismissed. Will the Minister meet us to discuss how we can empower local authorities to prioritise animal welfare without fear of jurisdictional disputes, conflicting local policies or the risk of prosecution failure?

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the widely varied roles of local government and how connected local government is to communities. Many local authorities take pride in reaching the gold standard from animal welfare charities. I am happy to take up her point and perhaps respond in writing.

Budget Resolutions

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

There were many welcome announcements in this Budget to help give people a little breathing space—from the £100 for households in council tax bands A to D to paternity leave payments for self-employed fathers. I personally really welcome the investment in getting more women into tech, as recommended by the Government’s women in tech taskforce. At a time when trust in the tech industry is low, we need women in tech more than ever. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I have quite a focus on that.

However, following a meeting yesterday at Gresley Old Hall with members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme in South Derbyshire, I want to focus on them. I speak today on behalf of 1,141 scheme members and their families in my constituency. These men spent their working lives doing some of the hardest and most dangerous jobs in our country. They kept our lights on, our homes warm and our industries running. Their pensions are deferred wages earned through years of dangerous work, not taxpayer handouts.

I welcome the transfer of the £1.5 billion investment reserve in 2024, and the Chancellor’s announcement to end surplus sharing so that 100% of future surpluses go to members, but the job is not finished. There is still approximately £1.2 billion in the guarantor’s fund, and members need certainty that it will be transferred in full without further delay. Yesterday, what I had hoped would be a meeting to celebrate progress became one where I found myself apologising, because people who have waited decades for justice are once again being asked to wait again, and time is running out. About 100 former miners die every week, and some will never live to see the justice they have spent years campaigning for.

This is also about our former coalfield communities. That money will be spent in our towns and villages in supporting local shops, businesses and families, and in helping growth in postcodes in South Derbyshire. I have raised this directly with Treasury Ministers and the Prime Minister’s office. I have also pledged to donate my next annual parliamentary salary increase to charity until miners and their families receive what they are owed. I stand in solidarity with them, not just in words but in deeds too.

I want to finish with words from Gary Chamberlain, who I met yesterday:

“If you think this is a storm in a teacup, think again. This is just the start of it.”

Gary is right. For Gary, for my 1,141 MPS member constituents and their families, and for mining communities across the country, I say this to the Government: please release the remaining £1.2 billion, give members the certainty they deserve and ensure that their bonus payment arrives on 23 December, as originally planned, in time for Christmas.

We are the Labour party. It is only a Labour Government who will deliver justice for our miners. We must not be a Labour Government who ask them to wait yet again. Our miners have given enough to this country. It is time this country gave them what they are owed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving us breathing space with a little bit more time. It is a pleasure to respond to this Budget by talking about growth in every postcode.

North West Leicestershire is a former mining area, so I welcome the progress made on the miners’ pension. I welcome the confirmation that surplus sharing and the standstill will be abolished to protect bonus pensions, helping members to benefit from the success of their pensions. No Government have ever done more on pensions for former mineworkers than this one, but as the Chancellor said himself, the job is not finished. It is clear that more work is needed to resolve the substantial undistributed guarantor fund surplus currently held within the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The miners who powered our country and our homes and who supported us deserve our support now, and I want to reassure my constituents that I will do just that.

North West Leicestershire is home to one of the three sites in the only inland freeport in the UK. The site in Leicestershire has created considerable concern, which I share, particularly for Diseworth—an 825-year-old village with heritage status. While the new data centre covenant is helpful, I worry that it will apply only to AI and not to the creation of new mega-sheds more broadly, which impacts communities such as mine. The other two sites in the freeport are covered by the Mayor of the East Midlands, so I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement on devolution and the settlement for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland—something I have long called for. I look forward to continuing the discussions on how devolution will deliver greater benefits and strategic powers to ensure that the freeport site for Leicestershire has a mayor fighting its corner.

The powers offered to mayors on transport could be transformational for Leicestershire. Transport connectivity is a significant barrier to growth locally. My constituent Eli spoke to me recently about the impact that poor public transport has on their access to further education. They said:

“I wake up before six in the morning to catch a 7 am bus to college, which is always packed, standing room only due to there being too many students for the capacity of the public bus services. Even if I do everything right, the buses are unreliable—either being late or completely absent—which is treated as my responsibility by my college”.

A lot is said about demand in rural areas. In fact, Arriva increased its patronage by 30% for one of my local routes because it started one bus stop earlier, connecting the route to another village and allowing more kids to get to college. Just think about what we could achieve if we want to grow even more. North West Leicestershire still has no passenger rail service anywhere in the constituency, making it home to the two largest towns in the country without any access to rail, which restricts growth and investment. If we want growth in every postcode, transport has to be a priority.

North West Leicestershire has so much potential, including in our SME sector. I know that this will surprise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but nearly 30 years ago I wrote my dissertation on small business support, so I know how much we limit our growth if we fail to invest in small businesses. I have always advocated for dedicated business support, just like we saw in the universal offer we had from Business Link. We now have a patchwork that is devolution dependent—another reason why devolution for Leicestershire is so vital.

[Samantha Niblett]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—we are neighbours and friends in our neck of the woods, but I benefit from being part of a mayoralty that can have money devolved to my region, and she does not. Does she agree that, as well as we work together now, it would be even better if we could be part of the same funding pot and overall leadership?

[Amanda Hack]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that incredibly important point. The Mayor of the East Midlands does not cover the whole of the east midlands, and I think that gives us the opportunity to continue to talk.

Because I now have a bit of time left, I note that the Chancellor confirmed that land sold to social housing providers will now be VAT free. After two decades working in the social housing sector, I cannot express the difference that that will make to social homes and growth in our communities. House building is also a massive builder of growth; it helps brick manufacturers in my constituency, and it helps builders and local tradespeople to grow. We should not underestimate that important step forward.

Black History Month

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend speaks for all of us when he says that it is time to call this out. It is vital that, as a society and as parliamentarians, we say, “No more”—that what we stand for is a country that is united, and that we will refuse to hear the racism that is now seeking to rewrite history, including the contribution of his forefathers.

I pay tribute to the Windrush Commissioner, Rev. Clive Foster, to Professor Uzo and the Elders in Cardiff, to Ros Griffiths and the Friends of Windrush Square, and to so many other leaders from communities across the UK who work tirelessly to continue to right the wrongs of the Windrush scandal. Let me also thank all at the Black Cultural Archives in Windrush Square for their incredible work—their documentation of history and their approach to education and awareness, from enslavement to abolition, and on medicine, race and activism. I also support the campaigns that we have heard about today for greater inclusion of black people’s stories and histories in our culture and, indeed, our schools.

This month, we also celebrate the extraordinary contribution that black Britons continue to make today. Black History Month is about understanding and appreciating how history has shaped the present, but it is also about the choices that we make now about what kind of country we want to leave for the next generation. I congratulate the Minister on her opening speech, and I am grateful that the debate is being held in Government time. She has been rightly recognised for her contribution in this House and in her community. I want to echo her tributes to the inspirational Lorna Jackson and Professor Jason Arday, and to recognise the important contribution that black people from across our community make and the racism that they experience. I want in particular to mention our black footballers, whom we should recognise; they do us proud every single day.

As we mark 39 years since Black History Month began in Britain, we should recognise the role of black women. Too often, their experiences sit at the intersection of racial and gender inequality, and their achievements receive far less recognition than they deserve. We should celebrate the women who have broken barriers in Parliament, in public life, in business, in education, in our NHS and in our communities. Today, I want to talk about “sistory”—women who did not wait for history to happen; our sisters who made it, and who are still making it.

Last year, I had the privilege to meet two remarkable Bristol bus boycott sheroes, Joyce Morris-Wisdom and Dr Barbara Dettering. Joyce was just 14 when she joined the protests in 1963. More than 60 years later, this remarkable grandmother continues to share her story and inspire new generations. Barbara, originally from Guyana, helped organise the movement, co-founded St Pauls carnival and built lasting community institutions. Their contributions belong to a wider tradition of leadership by black women in Bristol. They include women such as Carmen Beckford MBE, Bristol’s first race relations officer, and Peaches Golding OBE, the UK’s first black female lord lieutenant—different generations of women who have challenged discrimination, built institutions and opened opportunities for those who followed.

These are women who helped challenge Bristol’s colour bar in 1963—the year my father came to the United Kingdom—and contributed to the momentum behind Britain’s first Race Relations Act, under a Labour Government, in 1965. The law was strengthened in 1968 and again in 1976, extending protections against discrimination and strengthening enforcement. Sunday 22 November will mark 50 years since the 1976 Act received Royal Assent.

Madam Deputy Speaker, like you I pay tribute to the Mother of the House, who has been mentioned more than once today. Next year marks 40 years since she was elected as Britain’s first female black Member of Parliament. She was elected alongside Bernie Grant, Paul Boateng and Keith Vaz. These were not simply historic breakthroughs —their influence continues to shape Parliament and Britain today.

I was the first female Punjabi Member of Parliament. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali); we were all honoured to help her get elected to the House. I congratulate her on her own first: she is the first Somali Member of Parliament. I note that she, like so many through history, has faced down those who said that she had no right to even be a Member of Parliament. That campaign was a wake-up call to the racism that begins even before a campaign starts. It is for us to say to everyone, whoever they are and whatever their background, that they too, as someone who is proud to be in Britain, have a place in this House.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Earlier this year, I was delighted to visit the Southbank Centre, in the Minister’s constituency, to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Festival of Britain. As part of that, there was a magnificent celebration of youth culture through the medium of dance. A particular scene celebrated the excitement of the Windrush generation coming to our shores, but then talked about the adversity that that generation faced. It was a stark reminder that we are not born racist, but if we allow racism to seep into our society, like the poison that it is, we let the bad people win. We are not those people. Does my hon. Friend agree that 75 years later, we are still celebrating the festival of Britain, and that festival definitely includes a very diverse bunch of people?

[Seema Malhotra]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chetwynd Bridge

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dave Robertson]

Festival organisers and the estate all support the urgent replacement of the bridge, which is the primary access route to the estate. They have told me and my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire and for Tamworth about the serious impact on the events set-up of not being able to bring lorries across the bridge and having to use the detour. They are really concerned about what a permanent closure might mean. If we do not get this replacement, a permanent closure is inevitable—it is a case of when, not if.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his incredible leadership and work on campaigning to get this bridge sorted. He knows Ollie Neilson, who runs Catton Hall and who shared with me that just three festivals run at the estate in the last 20 years have brought £20 million to the local economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about emergency services or people having a fun time at festivals, but about the local economy?

[Dave Robertson]

I could not agree more. The Government want to talk about growth in every postcode: well, here is some growth for our postcode. Lifting the restrictions will make it easier for people to move around our parts of Staffordshire and Derbyshire, which will directly impact the ability of businesses to invest internally, to grow and to continue to drive our local economies. It is really important.

Before I come to my conclusion—I have a couple of minutes—I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire, for Burton and Uttoxeter and for Tamworth for all their work and support on this matter. The bridge does not affect just one constituency; it affects at least four, and its effects go much further afield, into Staffordshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire.

Park Home Owners

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[James Naish]

Thank you, Sir Alec. I will press on, but the hon. Member is absolutely right and has touched on some issues that I will talk about. I congratulate him on ensuring his residents got their money back.

Most concerning, and often alluded to by MPs, is the imbalance of power. A park home resident may own the home they live in, but they are not in control of the land beneath or around it, and they often have a very limited say in related decisions. When the same person or entity controls the site, the pitch, the rules, the maintenance, potentially the utilities, and the conditions under which the home is sold, it is understandable that residents feel exposed.

That can and must change. It needs only relatively minor adjustments to legislation. I trust that the Minister and his team will prioritise that in the next parliamentary Session, given the tangible difference that can be made to the lives of 160,000 people up and down the country.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[James Naish]

I will press on and see where we get to. I will not go into detail about many key issues facing park and mobile home owners—I am sure colleagues will touch on them, as they have already started to—but I want to mention, up front, some key items that are common across all sites.

The first is maintenance and site standards. Site residents frequently report poor upkeep, damaged roads, drainage issues and neglected communal areas, despite continuing to pay high fees directly to the site owners. One of my six park home sites has repeatedly raised issues about poor waste disposal, leading to rats on site, and intermittent issues with water and heating quality. Such issues raise fundamental questions about transparency and accountability in how residents’ money is used.

Secondly, there is the transparency of pitch fees and charges. While preparing for the debate, I was made aware of several threats of eviction for non-payment of pitch fees and charges, some of which have been legitimately contested by residents. More than once, the management of mobile home sites has been described as the wild west. It is clear that stronger protections are needed to prevent unscrupulous practices.

Thirdly, the word “enforcement” has already been mentioned. In one case, a constituent of mine was chased for six years by a management company to pay for drain clearance that was not her responsibility. Although rights exist, and local authorities have powers, many residents feel unsupported when issues arise. They may be passed between councils, tribunals and advice services. They may fear repercussions for complaining. That creates an enforcement gap between legal rights and the ability to exercise them, particularly for vulnerable residents.

Fourthly, transparency over utilities has been raised with me by constituents at one of my weekly surgeries. Where residents receive electricity, gas or water via the site owner, it can be difficult to understand billing, fairness and eligibility for support. Residents need clear, enforceable rights to transparent billing, fair pricing and clarity on the Government’s engagement with Ofgem’s work on resale pricing.

Finally, there is the 10% sales commission, which has been raised several times today. For residents, that is a direct loss of equity, often at the moment when they need their money most, potentially to move closer to family, move into more suitable accommodation or fund care costs. The charge is poorly understood, insufficiently transparent and increasingly disproportionate, as the value of park homes has risen. In 1983, a park home sold for £12,000 would have generated a commission of £1,200, about 14% of an average salary at the time. In 2026, a park home sold for £160,000 would generate a commission of £16,000, about 42% of the current average salary. The commission is still 10%, but the cash value has grown substantially.

I recognise that site owners argue that the commission forms part of their business model and helps to support investment in sites. However, there are already routes for that to be done transparently. For example, under the framework in the Mobile Homes Act 2013, improvements to a park can be reflected in pitch fee reviews, which involve a proper process and residents being consulted. What residents primarily object to is effectively being charged twice by site owners: once through pitch fees and other charges, and again through a 10% deduction from the value of their home when they sell.

The inequity is reflected in the ever-changing justifications for the commission. Depending on who people speak to, it has been linked to road maintenance costs, the offsetting of pitch fees, the maintenance of site viability and/or the modernisation of infrastructure. No wonder residents are sceptical about how and where the proceeds are spent.

This debate is ultimately about fairness. It is about whether residents can enjoy the home that they have bought on the terms on which they bought it. It is about whether people can understand their bills, challenge unfair charges and sell their homes freely. It is about whether the law is meaningful in practice, not just on paper, and whether a 10% commission charge introduced decades ago remains fair and proportionate today.

I hope that the Minister will respond to several points. First, will the Government consider stronger protections at the point of sale, so that buyers are clear about the legal status of a site and their ongoing obligations before they purchase? Secondly, will Ministers review whether local authorities have the resources, expertise and duties needed to consistently enforce site standards? Thirdly, will the Government work with Ofgem to ensure transparent and fair utility charging for residents who receive energy or other utilities through site owners? Finally, will the Minister confirm today that, following the call for evidence, the Government are prepared to consider real reform to the current commission arrangements?

Park or mobile home residents are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for basic fairness, transparency and security in the homes that they have bought. Many have worked hard their whole life, invested their savings and chosen park home living because they believed that it would suit them and offer peace of mind. Like all of us, they deserve a fair system that protects them when things go wrong. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions and the Minister’s response to Members across the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate and to represent park home owners in my constituency, and to follow the passionate call for action from my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish). It is genuinely touching to see that we have a cross-party consensus between many in this House on the need for justice for our park home residents.

Problems relating to park homes have been a constant and worrying part of my casework since I was elected. I regularly speak to residents who are frustrated and angry that their security—the security of having a home—is at risk because of the power imbalance between park home owners and site owners. It is not an exaggeration to talk about park home justice.

I pay tribute to park home campaigners in my constituency. I asked them yesterday if I could put some of their names on record, because they are great tribunes there, but they did not feel that it would be appropriate or right for me to name them because of the relationship with their site owners. However, I would like to give a shout-out to two councillors in my patch, Shabina Qayyum and Samantha Hemraj, who have consistently fought on the side of park home owners for longer than I have and who brought me up to speed on these issues.

This debate speaks not just to individual cases of people falling through the gaps or a blip, but to a systemic failure in the law, regulation and enforcement of decent standards for park home residents. The reality is stark. Like other speakers, I highlight the predatory nature of the relationships. Many residents feel that site owners prey on relatives of homeowners who die by buying up their homes cheaply and selling them on at a huge profit. In one part of Peterborough, a home that was recently bought for £25,000 was sold a few weeks later, when the homeowner died before Christmas, for £85,000. That is in addition to the rank injustice of the 10% commission that site owners make on all their sales.

The bigger issue is that, in too many cases, the state is blind to residents’ frustrations and too weak to deal with the injustices they face. Too often, maintenance is poor, despite increasing charges and fees being passed on to park home residents, and local authority enforcement is often weak.

[Samantha Niblett]

A constituent of mine, Marion Webster, is a keen supporter of the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign. Like my hon. Friend’s constituents, she feels that it is incredibly unjust that, if she wants to sell her home, she has to give 10% away. That almost puts fleecehold and leasehold to shame by comparison. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Government to take action on the back of this debate, which I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing?

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The purpose of the review, and therefore of my statement, is to address growing concerns about foreign influence on our elections, particularly the attempts by hostile states to get control of our elections and influence them in ways that will favour them rather than the British people.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the Rycroft report, especially the focus it puts on the threat of social media upturning our democracy. It was astonishing in the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee yesterday that the representative from X repeatedly stated that X was not politically biased and appeared to decouple himself from Elon Musk and the platform itself. Elon Musk has incited hatred in this country and backed very right-wing candidates and parties on his platform. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the recommendations on foreign financial influence extend to any Member of this House receiving any income from X or any other social media platform?

[Steve Reed]

The recommendations are very clear in their scope. I hope my hon. Friend will allow the Government to take the necessary time to respond to those recommendations in detail—there is a lot in them—and then to bring forward amendments to the legislation and take that through both Houses in the usual way.

Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. It is bitterly disappointing that Reform could not be bothered to field a single MP to come and stand up for the east midlands in this debate about productivity and economic growth in the region. People need to be careful what they vote for if they want people who will stand up for them.

The east midlands is my home, and I am proud to say that there are Members of Parliament present who represent places that my family and friends live, which is wonderful. We have always been a region of makers, builders and innovators. Our communities were forged in the industrial revolution, and in South Derbyshire they were built on coal and clay. In fact, it is still possible to buy the iconic TG Green blue-and-white-striped Cornishware. I think almost every grandparent had one of the famous mixing bowls, which are brown on the outside and white on the inside.

Across the constituency, we have businesses innovating, creating jobs and driving growth for the wider regional economy. At the heart of that is advanced manufacturing, and Toyota Motor Manufacturing UK in Burnaston remains one of the most significant automotive plants in the country, supporting more than 3,000 jobs and anchoring a wider supply chain across the region. South Derbyshire is also well placed to benefit from the opportunities created by the east midlands freeport, which aims to attract high-value industries and businesses that are focused on science, technology, engineering and maths.

A strong skills pipeline will be essential to that success. We need our two new schools—New House Farm and Spencer academy—and I hope that my letter to the Department for Education, which contains data and evidence demonstrating why it must ensure backing for the schools, is taken heed of. We await a decision. I was delighted to attend the opening of the green skills academy of Burton and South Derbyshire college, which is driving sustainability in construction and retrofit and teaching people how to install heat pumps and solar panels. That brings me to the fact that we have more than our fair share of planning applications for battery energy storage systems and solar farms, which helps us make the case for the importance of having a local area energy plan.

Our economy is driven not just by large global employers; small and medium-sized enterprises across South Derbyshire are also innovating and creating opportunity, and I am forever grateful to our farmers for feeding us. South Derbyshire contributes strongly to the region’s visitor economy too: National Trust’s Calke abbey attracts visitors from across the country and Mercia marina is the largest inland marina in Europe. Our district is one of the fastest growing in England, with significant house building and population growth but without the infrastructure to support it. I am supporting local councillor David Shepherd to try to secure a GP in Stenson Fields.

Transport remains a connectivity challenge for us. Our largest town, Swadlincote, has not been served by a railway station for quite some time. The reopening of the Ivanhoe line, as championed by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), would reconnect our communities, support local businesses and help people access jobs and education.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I want to out myself: I am a west midlands MP, not an east midlands MP. But what my hon. Friend is speaking about is a structural failure of transport across the east and west midlands. The east midlands receives 54% of the UK’s average transport spend per head, which is the lowest of any region or nation in the country, but for rail that figure is 40%. As I often say, I can get from Stafford to London in about an hour and 10 minutes, but if I want to get across to one of the other east midlands cities—Derby, Leicester or Nottingham—the picture is completely different. We have built excellent lines up and down the country, but the lack of lines across the country is really holding back the development of the wider region. Does she agree that to maximise growth in both our regions, we have to invest in rail from east to west?

[Samantha Niblett]

I could not agree more. Reopening the Ivanhoe line would not only give us access to Burton, Coalville and eventually Leicester, but enable onward journeys to bigger cities including Birmingham and London. I support the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) made for a direct line to Manchester, too.

Through the work of Mayor Claire Ward, we have a real opportunity to unlock the potential of some of our region. South Derbyshire already has the ingredients for success: world-class manufacturers, innovative engineers, ambitious entrepreneurs and strong communities. What we now need is investment that matches that potential. Let this debate be a rallying cry that when we invest in South Derbyshire and the east midlands, we invest in one of the most dynamic and productive parts of the country, with communities ready to grow, ready to innovate and ready to help drive the region’s and the country’s future prosperity.

Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 General Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope the point is well made that, as part of the NPS process and more widely, we are engaging with developers and operators to determine whether the Government should be making further interventions that are necessary and proportionate to encourage the take-up of such solutions.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

In the States, a lot of data centres have had pushback from local communities, which are seeing an increase in their energy bills. We cannot quite work out why. Will the Minister commit to work with me, DESNZ and possibly DSIT to ensure that when data centres are built as national infrastructure—because of this change in legislation—that will not mean that consumers end up paying higher prices for whatever reason? I welcome the focus on using waste heat to benefit local communities, but I feel somewhat anxious about that increase in consumer bills because of the building of data centres.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, but she tempts me to stray way outside my departmental responsibilities. Instead, I commit to ensure that the relevant Minister from DESNZ is notified about her concerns and that we all reflect, as a Government, on the point made.

In conclusion, notwithstanding the range of considerations about data centres that we have discussed, I wish to draw the Committee back to what the draft regulations seek to achieve. They are merely an enabler for data centres that might be considered of national significance to be capable—only at the request of developers of such projects—of being directed to an alternative mechanism for obtaining development consent. Applications for data centres directed to the NSIP consenting route will undergo a thorough and robust process. As I said, that will include examination by an independent examining authority where local communities and others can participate and register their views before the Secretary of State decides whether to grant consent. I hope that the Committee will agree that it has considered these amending regulations and will be supportive of them.

Question put and agreed to.

Property Service Charges

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank my right hon. Friend for providing that very useful context. I will come on to that in my speech. One of the challenges we have is that property service companies are seeking to make a profit, yet they are unregulated and free to do as they will. It is for this place to get a handle on that. I hope that today we can think constructively about potential solutions to address the problem, the scale of which, across the House, we all recognise. We do not want our constituents to continue to face it. I am afraid to say that FirstPort is not covering itself in glory. I have now heard hundreds of times over about its lack of responsiveness, lack of transparency on costs and inadequate explanations of service charge increases. Residents have told me about being billed for services they have never received, like window cleaning, with no avenue to formally challenge and remediate. Any opportunity to charge a resident is used to the full.

These things are all symptomatic of an industry that prioritises extracting maximum value from leaseholders, regardless of the human cost. There is no incentive for property service companies to act any differently. It is incredibly hard for leaseholders to remove them, so the companies have free rein to do pretty much what they like. This fundamental power imbalance must be addressed, and it must be made easier for leaseholders to take their business elsewhere.

The Park 25 service charge for the year ending 30 April 2026 is estimated to be just under £1.9 million— 13% higher than last year’s estimate. The increase in costs is primarily to cover the future replacement of playground equipment, street lighting, road repairs and other infrastructure. Park 25 residents are also paying council tax for exactly those types of things outside the estate. Out of the £1.9 million service charge, FirstPort keeps around £142,000 in fees, which works out at just under 8% of the total service charge. How easy was it for me to find that £142,000 figure in FirstPort’s costs breakdown? Not very—I had to total up numbers across many pages of costs, as there is no nice, neat summary at the front showing the total amount.

That 8% may or may not be out of kilter with industry—I found it difficult when researching to confirm one way or another, which is an issue in itself. The key point to recognise here, though, is that there is absolutely no incentive or requirement for FirstPort to keep the cost base low. In fact, the more money it spends on maintaining the estate and the more people it employs to deliver services, the smaller the percentage proportion its management fee appears to be—a perverse incentive indeed.

It would be very easy for me to berate property service companies throughout my speech, and I suspect that others will take up that mantle during the debate. However, we must recognise that it is the current system that allows the companies to operate in this way.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

South Derbyshire district council has taken the bold and rather commendable decision to ban any new property management fees, and to backdate that to January 2025. However, that does not help those who already have homes they bought before 2025. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should press our Government to legislate to help those who are tied into these arrangements to come out of them?

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for that point. An important debate for us to have today is about what we do going forward, both for those who have not yet bought a leasehold and to help our constituents who are in this situation right now. I am really interested to hear everyone’s views on that.

These companies are a symptom of the problem; they are opportunists making money from an inequitable system. It is this House that must take responsibility for addressing the intrinsic unfairness and urgently make the changes needed to unshackle leaseholders. I hope that we will today hear hon. Members’ views on the solutions, not just the issues. We cannot keep building new housing estates under this same model, perpetuating the problem. This is increasingly important in the light of the Government’s ambitious plan to build 1.5 million new homes over the next few years. I have to say, if nothing has changed when the time comes for my children to purchase a property, I will be strongly advising them not to purchase a leasehold on a private estate.

To start us off, I will give the House my view. I think making it easier for leaseholders to change property service company is important, as is better regulation and higher standards, but that will not fundamentally transform the situation. What is needed—what is critical—is a change to the default model, so that homeowners are not paying both the council and a private company for the exact same services.

One sensible and equitable option would be that local authorities are obliged to adopt communal land and infrastructure on completion of new estates in all but the most exceptional cases. For that to work in practice, developers would need to be obliged to ensure that the infrastructure meets the council’s standards before transfer. That way, owners of leasehold properties would be put on an equal footing with everyone else, paying for communal services once through their council tax. That would certainly deal with future issues.

But what about those who, like our constituents, are already trapped? It may be that something more radical is needed, such as a mandatory direction to all local authorities to adopt communal land where requested by existing estates. It would be difficult, I know, in this current financial environment and with the likely variability of estate quality, but it would certainly address much of the issue and allow my constituents to sell their properties and move on with their lives.

I know that this Government are also keen to move forwards and towards commonhold arrangements, especially for flats, which essentially put management of the estate in the hands of leaseholders themselves. There are some benefits to commonhold over the current model, but it is not the silver bullet that is needed and brings its own set of problems. Anyone who, like me, has been involved in a residents’ association or similar organisation—or, indeed, who simply understands human nature—will know that most people do not want to pay out for significant works, so the works will not get done, which in time will result in crumbling roads, failing roofs and falling home values. Again, it will become difficult for residents to sell their properties. It is just another version of the same trap, and one that pits neighbours against each other. I urge the Government to think again on plans to make commonhold the default tenure for new build flats.

Oral Answers to Questions

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Lady outlined another benefit of community land trusts: getting local buy-in. The availability of land is an issue for CLTs. I have already set out some of the ways that we are supporting them through new investment. As the Secretary of State said earlier, the new social and affordable housing programme will be designed with the flexibility necessary to support a greater diversity of social and affordable housing supply, including community-led housing.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

10. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of the capital funding request from the Coalfields Regeneration Trust.

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

We recognise the excellent work being done by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and remain committed to working with it. As my hon. Friend will know, the current fiscal position remains challenging. It is in that context that we are considering funding requests.

[Samantha Niblett]

The Coalfields Regeneration Trust is asking for £50 million to support local initiatives that deliver training courses and community cohesion at ward level. I have spoken to the trust about supporting constituents of mine in ex-coalfield communities in Swadlincote by improving the confidence of people on long-term benefits, so that they can build towards getting paid work, and about providing activities that support community cohesion. I recently visited Bloomin’ Gardens & Landscapes in Church Gresley. People there told me that they were concerned about the lack of interest in careers in gardening and horticulture. What can the Minister do to help me help my constituents, by ensuring that they have opportunities in gardening and horticulture, and can improve their communities?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The Government remain committed to supporting ex-coalfield communities, such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and to tackling the decline and neglect we saw under the Conservative party. It was our party that established the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in 1999, and we are committed to working with it to support our coalfield communities. That comes alongside our wider efforts to invest in communities that were held back under the Conservative party through our trailblazing Pride in Place programme.