Local Government Reorganisation

Steve Reed Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

This Government were elected on a promise to repair the broken foundations of local government. In 2024, councils were on the brink financially, while a third of the country was left paying for wasteful duplication as a result of having two tiers of councils in their area. That cannot be acceptable. Years of underfunding has led to a crisis in social care, the decline of our town centres and rubbish piling up in our streets. That visible failure contributes to a decline in trust, and it was caused by Tory austerity and 14 years of economic mismanagement.

This Government will not stand by and let that decline continue. We cannot just snap our fingers and reverse the last 14 years overnight, but we can act now to secure a better future. To get there, we have already announced fairer funding that realigns resources with need, but we also need to eliminate the financial waste of two-tier councils, so that we can plough the savings back into the frontline services that local people care about the most. Today’s announcement is part of that.

We must move at pace to remove the confusion and waste of doubled-up bureaucracy. Local residents do not know which of their two councils is responsible for which services. No one would ever design a system in which one council collects rubbish and another gets rid of it. In many parts of the country, residents’ hard-earned council tax pays for two sets of councillors, two sets of chief executives, and two sets of financial directors. That is wasting tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

The previous Government sat back and ignored this problem, but this Government will not. We are committed to the most ambitious local government reorganisation in a generation. My priority is cutting out this waste, so that we can invest more in the frontline services that residents care about. That means moving as quickly as possible to the new, streamlined, single-tier councils that can make that happen. I have asked councils to tell me where holding elections this year to positions that will rapidly be abolished would slow down making these vital reforms, which will benefit local people, and I have listened to what councils told me.

In December, the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness wrote to 63 councils that were due to hold elections in May 2026, asking to hear their views. I have carefully assessed more than 350 representations from those councils that have elections scheduled for May, and from others interested in the outcome. I have carefully considered arguments made about capacity, reorganisation and democracy, and I am grateful to everyone who took the time to express their views.

I can now confirm my decisions to the House. I have decided to bring forward legislation to postpone 29 elections; I have deposited a list of those in the House of Commons Library. I received one further representation this morning, which I will consider; I will then report back to the House on my decision. In all other areas, council elections will go ahead as planned; many councils offered no evidence that elections would delay reorganisation in their area. That means that of the 136 local elections across England that were scheduled for May, the vast majority will go ahead as planned.

In areas where elections are postponed, councillors will have their terms extended for a short period. Once the new unitary councils are agreed, we will hold elections to them in 2027. I have written to councils confirming these decisions, and I will shortly lay the necessary legislation before both Houses.

I am not the first Secretary of State to seek to delay elections to speed up essential reorganisation. The shadow Secretary of State suggested on Tuesday that the previous Government had not done the same thing, but he has perhaps forgotten the postponements in Weymouth and Portland in 2018; in Aylesbury, Chiltern, South Buckinghamshire and Wycombe in 2019; or in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset in 2021.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

For two years!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), but I do not expect him to walk in and start mouthing off the moment he sits down. I am sure that he would like to catch my eye, and that is not the best way to do so.

[Steve Reed]

Indeed. It was the right hon. Member, the self-styled new sheriff in town—now, of course, a member of Reform UK Ltd—who made many of these decisions.

To those who say we have cancelled all the elections: we have not. To those who say it is all Labour councils: it is not. I have asked, I have listened and I have acted —no messing about, no playing politics, just getting on with the job of making local government work better for local people.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

“This Government have moved seamlessly from arrogance to incompetence, and now to cowardice. Some 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote. It was the Government who rushed through a huge programme of local government reorganisation, imposing new structures and timetables, and it is the Government who are failing to deliver them. Rather than take responsibility for their own failure, the Secretary of State has chosen to dump the consequences of their incompetence on to the laps of local councils.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 57.]

That is what I said on Monday, when I dragged the Secretary of State’s Minister—the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern)—to the Dispatch Box. I say it again today, directly to him.

In his statement, the Secretary of State plays heavily on what he claims is a wasteful system. He has said publicly that he thinks these elections are “pointless”, so it is clear what he thinks and it is clear what he wants. He wants to cancel all these elections, so why does he not simply say so? Why does he not have the courage of his own convictions? Why did he write to councils asking them to ask him to cancel the elections? Why, when they did not give him the answer that he wanted, did he write to them again asking basically the same question? Why was his Department putting pressure on councils to ask for cancellations as late as last night?

I know why. He knows why. We all know why. It is because he wants to shift the blame. He wants to say, “I didn’t make them do it.” He wants a political gotcha. He is putting councils in an impossible position, squeezing them financially, imposing the costs and disruption of large-scale reorganisation on them, making promises about structures, timescales and funding, and then reneging on those promises. Then, to add insult to injury, he is trying to dump the consequences of his arrogance and incompetence on to the laps of the local councils.

It has always been the Conservative position that these elections should go ahead. The Secretary of State tried to claim in his statement that there were precedents, as his Minister did on Monday, but the scale and scope of these cancellations is totally unprecedented. I ask him directly: what was it about the Labour party’s collapse in the opinion polls that first attracted him to the cancellation of local elections? Is he as unsurprised as I am that the vast bulk of councils asking for their elections to be scrapped are Labour-run councils?

I give the Secretary of State notice that Conservative Members will vote against these proposals. Elections are the foundation stone of democracy, and when his Department puts intolerable pressure on councils, shifting the goalposts or pulling the rug from under them—whichever metaphor one chooses to use—he should have the courage to come to this House and say that it is his decision to cancel elections, rather than passing the buck to local government leaders.

[Steve Reed]

I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman’s case would be much stronger and would sound less self-righteous if he had not done exactly the same thing, for exactly the same reasons, when he was in government—only, unlike him when his party was in government, I have imposed nothing. This was a locally led approach. [Interruption.] He was a member of the Cabinet, and he is trying to claim that Cabinets do not take decisions collectively. He was in the Cabinet that took these decisions and he backed them to the hilt. Now, in opposition, he believes the opposite. He seems to think he has become a Lib Dem. He is supposed to have consistency in what he believes.

This is a locally led approach. I was guided by local councils, which came to me with their views. I respectfully suggest that his argument is with those Conservative councils and leaders who have requested postponement so that they can get on and deliver a reorganisation that will benefit their residents, but which he is now trying to block for party political reasons.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House with his statement. Although he has outlined that there is a clear precedent, from 2019 and 2021, for postponing local elections, he reassured my Select Committee back in November that these elections would go ahead. Residents in those areas will be disappointed that their elections are being postponed.

I want to challenge the Secretary of State on what he has outlined and on his talk about eliminating waste. I agree that we need to respond to local leaders, especially where they have valid concerns about the process of reorganisation. We all knew that this would be a resource-intensive process, and we are aware that all our councils are dealing with many demands—adult social care, children’s social care, temporary accommodation—but our councils should not have to face choosing between frontline services and elections. Democracy is not an inefficiency that should be cut out. Every council should have the resources to run local elections. Can he assure the House that councils that have applied for their elections to go ahead will still have the resources to manage frontline services?

I also want clarity from the Secretary of State on any potential legal challenge. I understand that the court has given a date on which it will consider a legal challenge. Is there any possibility that the elections will go ahead if the Government lose? That would leave little time for councils, councillors, political parties and the Electoral Commission to go ahead. Can he outline any contingency planning that has been done, should that happen?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for her questions. I reassure her that I have imposed nothing. I took representations and listened to local councils, and today I am merely responding to the representations that I heard. Most councils will go ahead. It is the councils themselves that have reassured me that they have the resources to go ahead with elections and deliver the reorganisation that is so important to improving frontline services for local people. I am acting on the information that they have given me; I am imposing nothing. She will, I hope, appreciate that it is not appropriate or possible for me to comment on legal proceedings.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I remind the hon. Lady that these postponements, which are at the request of councils, affect only those councils that will shortly be abolished anyway. They are happening so that we can more quickly have elections to the new councils that will replace them. I respectfully suggest to her, as I did to the shadow Secretary of State, that her argument is actually with those Liberal Democrat councils and Liberal Democrat council leaders who have requested postponement so that the reorganisation can go ahead on schedule. I have imposed nothing; I am merely responding to them. I suggest that she go away and perhaps have a cup of tea with some of them, so that they can explain to her how what they have requested does not damage democracy.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I should make it clear that local elections will be going forward in full in Milton Keynes and that I look forward to continuing to work with my brilliant, hard-working Labour councillors locally. One of the reasons for delaying the elections is the time it is taking to go through the local government reorganisation process. That affects elections, but it also affects the creation of the new combined authorities, which is happening in parallel. Given the delays, will the Department look at the fast-track programme for the combined authorities, and at whether it is worth adding areas that do not face the reorganisation challenges, such as Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes?

[Steve Reed]

This is the biggest reorganisation in a generation, and it is very important that it be delivered with as much speed as we can muster, because of the benefits to local residents, who will see more money available to spend on things like fixing potholes and caring for older people—rather than paying for two sets of councillors, two sets of chief execs and two sets of finance directors, which the Conservative party was happy to see continue for all the 14 years it was in power. Of course, I will listen to my hon. Friend and others if they have suggestions about how we can further speed up the process and renew local democracy across the country.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that elections in Essex are going ahead; indeed, they should have taken place a year ago. However, he will be aware that elections have also been proposed for new unitary authorities next year, although we in Essex do not even know what the unitary authorities will be. Will he say whether it is still his intention that we should have elections for the new authorities next year?

[Steve Reed]

As I said in my statement, it is my intention that the elections to the new unitaries will go ahead next year.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I have to say that I find the bleating from the Conservative party—which delayed elections in Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire and Somerset, as well as in several other areas named by the Secretary of State—pretty astounding. As welcome as the reforms are, they are taking up considerable time and capacity for local authorities, including Oxfordshire county council. The council is prioritising, among other things, economic growth, which this Government have said is their No. 1 mission. I urge the Secretary of State and his team to look at picking up the pace of these reforms, as welcome as they are, so that local areas and the councils that emerge from them can get on with delivering for their local residents.

[Steve Reed]

I completely agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says. We want to go ahead with this reorganisation precisely so that we can improve public services and let councils get on with what they should be doing. Growing local economies and putting more money in the pockets of local people, including his constituents, is our priority.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

I was very interested to hear what the Secretary of State said. I represent a two-tier local authority area, and I live in a two-tier local authority area, yet I seem to pay considerably less council tax than people living in neighbouring local authority areas that are Labour-controlled and single-tier. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how?

[Steve Reed]

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, his party fiddled funding to councils so that areas voting Labour were less likely to get funded. He does not have to take my word for it: the former Prime Minister was captured on video standing in a garden in Tunbridge Wells and boasting about how he was ripping money away from poorer communities to give it to wealthier communities. Perhaps it has something to do with that.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State knows, I am a very strong supporter of local government reform, especially for cities such as Exeter. It is not just about waste; it is about being held back within a two-tier system. It is also worth pointing out that all parties represented on Exeter city council are in favour of unitary status for Exeter. Can the Secretary of State confirm that we are moving full speed ahead with local government reform and that unitary status for places like Exeter will improve services, reduce waste and deliver the sustainable jobs and growth in living standards that we desperately want in our city?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are proceeding with this reorganisation in order to eliminate duplication and the cost of that waste, so that the money can be spent on frontline services instead. I have asked councils for their views on whether postponement would speed up their ability to carry out the reorganisation and get the new, streamlined councils off the ground, and I have responded to their representations.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Somerset underwent local government reorganisation during the last Parliament, with an independent report citing that the Conservative administration’s business case was marked by poor decision making, while its reckless decision to freeze council tax for six years has seen over £330 million in lost revenue. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that new unitary councils, such as Somerset, are put on a fair financial footing? Will he reconsider the decision to remove the remoteness uplift, which will force councils to consider cuts to vital services?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

The fair funding review that we have announced is intended to ensure that, unlike under the previous Government, funding follows need. We took on board the new indicators on deprivation, and funding is now much more closely aligned with them. That is as it should be, because those are the areas that need extra funding. The hon. Lady will find that rurality is still taken into account in funding for social care, and given the distance that people may need to travel, it is important that such services remain available to them.

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s Department issued very clear guidance on 6 February last year, which said that

“we expect local leaders to engage their Members of Parliament, and to ensure there is wide engagement with local partners and stakeholders, residents, workforce and their representatives, and businesses on a proposal.”

My constituents are concerned that the proposal by Nottingham city council for reorganisation in Nottinghamshire fails to meet that test. Can the Secretary of State give me and my constituents in Gedling an assurance that his Department will firmly apply the guidance that he set on 6 February 2025?

[Steve Reed]

Yes, we will apply that guidance. Of course, we will listen to all representations about proposals for reorganisation, including my hon. Friend’s proposals for Nottinghamshire.

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

A year ago, the then Deputy Prime Minister assured us and promised us that none of the delays would be for more than a year, yet five of the current 29 that are going to be delayed are from last year, and 21 of the 29 are Labour-controlled councils. The Secretary of State is aware that we have a judicial review that is due to be heard in February. I obviously do not want him to comment on the case, but can he confirm that, as this Government believe in the rules-based order, they will adhere to and comply with the rulings of the judge?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I cannot comment on legal proceedings—it would be entirely inappropriate. I think the best response to his question is to quote the “new sheriff in town”, the right hon. Member for Newark, who is sitting directly in front of him and who took exactly the same decision in exactly the same circumstances. This is a direct quote from him:

“Elections in such circumstances risk confusing voters, and would be hard to justify when members could be elected to serve shortened terms.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 23WS-24WS.]

For once, he got it absolutely right.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I take issue with the absolute brass neck of the shadow Secretary of State, who talked about the Government putting pressure on local government finances and then devolving the blame. Nothing could better describe the destructive austerity policies of the last Government, who devastated local councils across the country.

On the matter in hand, I welcome the decision to go ahead with elections in Hampshire and Basingstoke. That was the will of local councillors, though I accept that different areas have different circumstances. Are we still on track for the local government reorganisation process in Hampshire and Basingstoke? Can I impress upon the Secretary of State the importance of reaching a decision that endorses the proposal from Basingstoke, Hart and Rushmoor councils for a north Hampshire authority?

[Steve Reed]

I am seeking to ensure that we remain on track by responding to the comments I have had from councils, and ensuring they have the resources so that the process goes ahead as everyone intends it to.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I support unitarisation and the efficiency savings it brings, but may I caution the Secretary of State a little on his language? A lot of the waste he is talking about is people’s jobs. Many hard-working council workers, who have huge uncertainty about what will happen to them over the next couple of years, will be concerned to hear that sort of language used as we discuss this in the Chamber. What support is he giving local authorities to help those council workers find new jobs once the LGR process is complete?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member makes a very important point, and he is right to be concerned about people working for councils. Of course, the overall increase in funding for local authorities means they have more resources to support their staff members, who may be concerned about their jobs in these circumstances, and I urge affected councils to focus on precisely the issues to which he has brought to our attention.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As a former leader of Worthing borough council, I pay tribute to my councillor colleagues, who did not come to the decision they have made lightly. They were informed by the officers, and they have had 15 years of underfunding on the south coast. Pockets of deprivation in coastal towns have long been ignored, and I very much welcome the fairer funding formula, which now recognises that. As we are on the fast track in Sussex, could the Secretary of State please reassure us that unitary authority decisions will be announced as soon as possible, and that the boundary commission will make sure we have the right sized wards for our new unitary authorities at the earliest possible opportunity?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is of course a very pugnacious champion for her constituents and her constituency. She has had conversations with me about this very issue, and made her point very clear. We intend to make those announcements as soon as we can so that there is certainty, and we can move ahead to the new structures.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Having served as both a district and a unitary councillor, I actually support the Government’s move towards unitary authorities. My Brigg and Immingham constituency is served by two unitary authorities—North Lincolnshire council and North East Lincolnshire council—both of which want to continue as they are, and that position is supported by the hon. Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin). When the Secretary of State reviews the two-tier Lincolnshire county council area, can he give an assurance that he will leave the two existing unitaries exactly as they are?

[Steve Reed]

Unfortunately, I cannot prejudge the outcome of a consultation process, but I can perhaps say that I have been very impressed by the work done by North East Lincolnshire council, with no prejudice to the decision that will follow.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

First, would the Secretary of State stop saying this is a locally led process. The power rests solely with him, and each of these delays is his decision and his decision alone.

Secondly, the real question here is: why are elections to be delayed for a second year? When I was the Secretary of State, the legal advice I received—including from Sir James Eadie, the Government’s chief legal adviser —was that it was not legally sustainable to delay for a second year, hence we did not. Even during covid, we kept the elections going and did not delay for two years. What the Secretary of State is doing is almost certainly illegal. If he is so confident of his position, will he publish his legal advice and publish the legal advice that I and the then Prime Minister received when we decided not to delay for a second year? Then we might be able to have faith in what he is saying.

[Steve Reed]

As I say, the right hon. Member was of course the Secretary of State who failed to act on eliminating the waste that came from duplication and allowed this two-tier system to continue, with millions and millions of pounds of council tax payers’ money wasted on duplicate councillors, duplicate chief executives and duplicate finance directors, instead of ploughing that money into frontline services. On those few occasions when he was brave enough to take a decision, he imposed; by contrast, I have asked and I have responded. However, the reasons he gave were the right ones. In his words:

“Elections in such circumstances risk confusing voters and would be hard to justify where members could be elected to serve shortened terms.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 23-24WS.]

He got it right for once. He should be proud of himself.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I do have concerns about the undermining of democracy, not least in that some Members of the House who have always insisted on by-elections after defections now appear to be running away from the electorate. Will the Secretary of State absolutely dissociate himself from the comments made by a Member of the governing party who could not confirm, when asked three times, that the general election would never be delayed?

[Steve Reed]

There is no question in ordinary circumstances of a general election being delayed. That has only ever happened in cases of national emergency, and that remains the case.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

I agree with the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir Lindsay Hoyle), who has said that these elections should go ahead. Indeed, democracy delayed is democracy denied. In the past, when there has been a delay to local elections, I cannot remember it ever being for longer than one year. When Margaret Thatcher rightly abolished the Greater London Council, the term of the GLC was extended by one year only. Any delay has never been longer than one year, and one of two or three years is a complete denial of democracy. It is quite clearly a way of Labour avoiding humiliating defeats on 7 May. As they are going to be delayed, would the Secretary State please consider allowing the people of Havering to have a choice about our becoming part of Greater Essex instead of Greater London?

[Steve Reed]

I remind the hon. Member that his party did the same thing in the same circumstances—I should say his “former party”, because he walked out on it last week. Proposals about what happens in Essex are currently subject to consultation, and he is more than entitled to make his views known.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He has outlined that the purpose is to save moneys, cut down on waste and improve efficiency. In Northern Ireland, we undertook the reorganisation of councils, reducing their number from 26 down to 11. Councils need only one chief executive, one head of each department and one council headquarters. Two or three councils together have greater buying power than one, so ultimately there are greater savings. However, seven years later, local people still feel disenfranchised from their local council. I am trying to be helpful in asking this question, but can he look at the Northern Ireland experience, and does he acknowledge that restructuring is a very delicate balance and must have public buy-in?

[Steve Reed]

I do agree with the hon. Member. I think it is very important that we get this right, which is why I was careful to listen to representations from councils due to undergo reorganisation to ensure that we do get it right. I want to see those savings made and to see council tax payers’ hard-earned money spent on frontline services, not wasteful duplication.

Chinese Embassy

Steve Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

This statement follows the decision I made today to grant planning permission and listed building consent for a new embassy in London.

The proposal is for the redevelopment of the Royal Mint Court site in the London borough of Tower Hamlets to provide a new Chinese embassy. It would involve the refurbishment and restoration of several listed buildings, and associated works.

The decision was in line with the recommendation of the independent planning inspector who held a public inquiry into this case between 11 and 19 February 2025.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers making planning decisions must follow a quasi-judicial process. This means they must make decisions fairly, based on evidence and planning rules.

The decision letter and associated inspector’s report fully explains the reasons for the decision and is available on the Government’s website. The decision letter comprises the Secretary of State’s letter, the inspector’s report, and the following annexes: annex A (Schedule of Representations); annex B1 (List of conditions for the listed building consent); annex B2 (List of conditions for the planning permission); and annex C (Consolidated Drawing Schedule and revised drawings). Annex C is a separate document. The relevant plans to which these permissions relate are secured by condition. I will deposit a copy of the decision letter in the Libraries of both Houses, including all annexes.

Representations received from parties as part of the reference-back exercise are listed in the decision letter and are available on request. For convenience, I will deposit a full set of the reference-back correspondence in the Libraries of both Houses.

All material considerations were taken into account when making this decision.

The decision is now final unless it is successfully challenged in court.

[HCWS1261]

Tower Hamlets Council: Best Value Duty

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

This Government will do what it takes to fix the foundations of local government. That includes taking prompt and direct action in the small number of councils that are failing their best value duty and not meeting the high standards expected by local residents. In that context, I would like to update the House on the London borough of Tower Hamlets.

On 22 January 2025 Ministers announced a statutory intervention for the London borough of Tower Hamlets, to be in place until 31 March 2028. The intervention was established to secure the council’s compliance with its best value duty following failings identified during a best value inspection in 2024. The statutory support package centred on the appointment of ministerial envoys to act as advisers and oversee improvement work that the council had already begun. The Government were clear that the council would need to drive forward changes at pace and that further action would be taken should it prove necessary. This was reiterated following the envoys’ first progress report in July. One year into the intervention, I welcome the early signs of progress and the council’s constructive engagement with the envoys. However, I am concerned that the council has not understood the severity of its situation or moved beyond planning for improvement into action and impact. These are concerns which have also been raised with the council by the envoys as part of their routine engagement.

I consider that the council is not sufficiently mindful of, or able to assess its own position. This is a view shared by the Local Government Association in its October progress review against the 2023 corporate peer challenge, where it describes the council’s “tendency towards optimism bias”. The council’s external auditor has also observed

“an ongoing reluctance within the organisation to fully acknowledge the scale of the challenge it faces”.

The council will not be able to move forward without a clear understanding of where it is now and how it needs to change.

This is slowing improvement. The council’s auditor has raised concerns about a lack of urgency from the council in response to its statutory recommendations issued in February, as well as a slow response to other significant issues such as the departure of the section 151 officer and investigating serious matters of non-compliance. Where the council has recognised issues and made plans for improvement, such as the developing continuous improvement plan, it is unclear that these are translating into measurable delivery. The Local Government Association also noted in its progress review that the council has “lots of plans” and “a plan for a plan”—but that “consistency, coherence and a strong delivery narrative’” and the “use of evidence and data” are needed to develop and demonstrate the fulfilment of any strategic vision for Tower Hamlets.

I also have material concerns about the council’s financial management and governance, which appears to be deteriorating. The significant weaknesses and statutory recommendations from the external auditor represent areas of serious risk and the auditor highlights the ongoing absence of an effective internal controls environment to safeguard public money. This is in the context of continuing allegations about leadership, governance and culture coming from a wide range of stakeholders. These risk weakening public confidence in the council. While not a best value issue, recent reports of councillors abandoning their constituents to stand overseas will only have further undermined the public perception of members’ commitment to the borough and to the improvement journey. This behaviour demonstrates an appalling lack of respect for residents and should not happen in any local authority.

Having carefully considered the auditor’s November draft annual report and interim value for money report for 2024-25, the Local Government Association’s October progress review against the 2023 corporate peer challenge and other relevant material, I remain satisfied that Tower Hamlets council is continuing to fail to comply with its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, governance, leadership, culture and partnerships. I am also satisfied that the council is now failing to comply with its best value duty in relation to its use of resources.

I am therefore minded to exercise my powers of direction under section 15(5) and (6) of the Local Government Act 1999 in relation to the London borough of Tower Hamlets council to secure its compliance with the best value duty. Given the evidence of ongoing concerns, I believe that a strengthened and expanded version of the current intervention is necessary to get the council on track for sufficient improvement by the scheduled end of the intervention. This Government are committed to taking whatever action is needed to limit the length of statutory intervention to that which is absolutely necessary.

I am proposing a revised package of statutory support, which builds on the collaborative working to date between the envoys and the council, but recognises that the scale of challenge facing the council requires greater capacity for support and oversight. The proposal is therefore centred around increasing the powers available to the envoys and increasing their overall capacity, including through the appointment of an additional assistant envoy with expertise in finance. In detail:

I am minded to issue the envoys with powers to exercise council functions associated with governance, financial management and the recruitment, performance management and designation of statutory and senior officers. These powers are intended to safeguard the process and to be treated as in reserve, similar to the approach in Warrington borough council, to be used only where necessary to ensure compliance with the best value duty.

I am proposing to increase the allocated working days to 150 days for the ministerial envoy, and 120 days for each assistant envoy. This is commensurate with other interventions and proportionate to the scale of work required.

In order to strengthen the council’s finance function as part of its corporate core, I propose to expand the envoy team through the appointment of an additional assistant envoy with expertise in finance.

The envoys have written to Ministers outlining the terms of a new project designed to address the long-standing allegations made against the council, and unfavourable perceptions of the council’s activities which persist among its staff, stakeholders and the community at large. These perceptions are of real concern to the envoys. They are planning a series of “deep dives” regarding patronage in recruitment and staff promotions, resource allocation (community assets and community grants), housing allocations, licensing and planning decisions, and the structure, functions, activities and roles within the mayor’s office and mayoral advisory team. I share the envoys’ concerns, in particular regarding the mayor’s advisory team, and I am pleased that the council recognises this project as an opportunity to demonstrate transparency. However, considering issues faced by external bodies investigating non-compliance and the council’s tendency towards optimism, I propose to issue new directions requiring the council to support the project to the satisfaction of the envoys. This will ensure the project is appropriately independent and delivers its objectives comprehensively and in a timely manner. To that end, and to more broadly establish appropriate governance for this next phase of the intervention, I am also proposing to streamline all assurance mechanisms to sit under a single improvement board, to the satisfaction of the envoys.

In line with procedures in the 1999 Act, I am inviting representations from the London borough of Tower Hamlets and any other interested parties on the proposals on or before 2 February. The council is due to report to me later this week on delivery against the current directions. I have extended this submission deadline until the end of the representation period, should it wish to make changes. The envoys will also report during this period and I will carefully consider both reports alongside any representations before deciding how to proceed. If I decide to amend the intervention package in the manner described here, I will then make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act and nominate a further assistant envoy. Any directions that I make will be without prejudice to making further directions, should this prove necessary.

This action is not proposed lightly. It is clear that there are some officers and members in Tower Hamlets working hard with the support of the envoys to improve the council for the residents of Tower Hamlets, and this announcement should not deter them from their commitment. Rather, I consider that the proposed package will provide them with the focused support and challenge necessary to hasten the pace of improvement and provide local residents and businesses with greater assurance that the council is on a path out of intervention and towards longer-term stability. This Government are committed to providing the London borough of Tower Hamlets with whatever support is needed to ensure its compliance with the best value duty and to realise sources of growth in the borough. Growth is the defining mission of this Government, and I expect all parties to continue to work in partnership to secure Tower Hamlets’ contribution to a stronger economy.

I will deposit in the House Library copies of the documents I have referred to, and publish the relevant letters on gov.uk. I will update the House in due course.

[HCWS1253]

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

1. If he will review the methodology for assessing housing affordability used to set local house building targets.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

The Government are committed to building the new homes people need so that we can end the housing crisis that we inherited. The method for calculating local housing need aligns with the Government’s ambition for 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament. That reflects affordability, and there are no plans to change it.

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response. The housing formula has resulted in huge increases for parts of rural England, including a doubling of the number in my East Hampshire constituency, and it should be reviewed overall. However, this question is about one specific aspect, whereby in an unintended way, the mix of housing that is being delivered might be skewed. I have written to the Secretary of State’s colleague, the Minister for Housing and Planning, and all I ask is that the Department looks at that with an open mind and considers it fully.

[Steve Reed]

I am always happy to listen to suggestions from the right hon. Gentleman and ensure that he gets a response. I reassure him that housing targets reflect the baseline of local housing stock, but I will ensure that he gets the letter he has requested.

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

2. What discussions he has had with the Mayor of London on the rate of house building in London.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

The Mayor of London and I discussed the rate of house building in London as soon as I came into office at the beginning of September last year. House building in London is flatlining because the previous Government failed to take action when it was clear that it was happening from 2023 right across the country. Last October, the mayor and I launched a joint stimulus package to increase house building in London, and we and our teams remain in regular contact to ensure that we can get on and build the new housing that Londoners need.

[Katie Lam]

The Secretary of State mentions a countrywide problem, but numbers of housing starts in London are particularly pitiful. There were only about 370 new starts for every month of last year, which is the lowest level for almost any region for any year that I have been alive. There are nearly six times as many starts in the south-east, even though the housing crisis there is exported from London. It would be good to hear a little more about exactly what the plan involves, what number of starts the Secretary of State expects to see this year, and, if that target is missed, what will happen next.

[Steve Reed]

Because of the time it takes between submitting an application and getting spades in the ground, we are seeing the tail-end of what was going on under the previous Government. We have already changed planning legislation and passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which will dramatically speed up the planning process to get more housing through the system faster, lowering the cost for developers of getting those homes built. We have made changes to the national planning policy framework to speed up house building in and around London and across the rest of the country, and we expect to see that upturn over coming months.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

In Battersea, we are delivering more affordable homes for people to buy and rent, and I welcome recent plans by the mayor, the council and Battersea power station to deliver more than 200 social homes. Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming those plans, which show that Labour in London is delivering for local people?

[Steve Reed]

I am more than happy to add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friend to Wandsworth council on ensuring that it is increasing the supply of affordable housing around Battersea power station, where we desperately need more. There is a fantastic development there, but on the Wandsworth side there were inadequate levels of social housing under the previous Conservative Administration.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

At the outset of the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), one could be forgiven for thinking that we had an entirely new Mayor of London. In fact, this year we celebrate, or perhaps more appropriately commiserate, a decade of Sadiq Khan’s tenure as London Mayor. In that decade, in the most prosperous city in Europe, Sadiq Khan has overseen not just stalling but consistently falling rates of private construction starts. Recent figures from Molior show that London began building just 3,248 new homes in the first nine months of 2025, leaving it on track to start building fewer than 5,000 in total in 2025.

Incredibly, the Government’s response has been to cut their floundering mayor’s housing targets by 11%, but skyrocket targets in outer London authorities, where the vast majority of greenbelt land is. That includes an increase of almost 400% compared with previously approved London planning targets in my local council area of Bromley. Will the Secretary of State please explain why people living in places such as Bromley and our local greenbelt must pay the price for Sadiq Khan’s decade of failure and uselessness?

[Steve Reed]

Of course it is not the Mayor of London who can change planning legislation but the Government, and despite knowing the problems, the previous Government did nothing for 14 years. It has taken this Government to make those changes, even though we have been in power for barely a year and a half. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Bromley; the figures for Bromley show that it managed just 70 housing starts last year across the entire borough. That is entirely inadequate and it needs to do better.

[Gareth Bacon]

What the Secretary of State did not say is that local boroughs are not in charge of building out planning consents, and he did not acknowledge that London boroughs are subject to the London plan. The Secretary of State claims that he is working with the Mayor of London, who writes the London plan, to build more homes, but unlike the Secretary of State, the facts do not heed the mayor’s spin. According to Molior, there were just 3,950 new homes sold in London during the first half of 2025 and just 3,248 private housing starts in the first nine months of 2025, against a nine month target of 66,000. The Secretary of State said last year that his own job should be on the line if he fails to meet his housing targets, so why does he not practise what he preaches, do Londoners a favour and tell sorry Sadiq to pack his bags over his decade of failure?

[Steve Reed]

As the hon. Gentleman should know, changes to the London plan were part of the package that I announced with the Mayor of London, because this Government are prepared to work with the Mayor of London to get the homes built. The previous Government wanted to hobble the Mayor of London so that he could not get the homes built, in order that they could score silly little political points rather than giving people the homes that they need to live in. The previous Government were happy to sit back and watch homelessness double over 14 years. We are not: we are going to build the homes that this country needs, including in London.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

3. What recent progress his Department has made on delivering 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

This Government inherited a housing crisis, with the sector flatlining nationally since 2023. In October, the Mayor of London and I launched a joint package to speed up house building in London. In December, the Minister for Housing and Planning launched a consultation on reforms to the national planning policy framework to increase housing supply, including moving to a default “yes” to applications near railway stations. All of that will increase house building and help us to achieve our targets during this Parliament.

[Lincoln Jopp]

In my Spelthorne constituency, as a result of action taken by the independent, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green-led borough council, we have not had a local plan for a couple of years. It was finally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 25 November, but there has been a planning wild west in Spelthorne for the last couple of years, which I am keen to bring to an end. Will the Secretary of State use his good offices to influence the planning inspector to try to turn around this local plan as soon as possible?

[Steve Reed]

I certainly urge all local authorities to ensure that they have a local plan in place. When we came into government, two thirds of local authorities did not have a plan, but they need one to help developers know what they can build and where, and to speed up house building, which we all want to see.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

When we are building the new homes that we desperately need, it is important that we think about playgrounds and access to play. I have just audited all the playgrounds in Hastings and Rye. I found that many parents and children have to walk for over 20 minutes to get to a playground, particularly in new build estates, and housing associations have shamefully closed many playgrounds in recent years. Will the Minister meet me to discuss these findings, how we can ensure that new house building includes access to play and how we can put pressure on housing associations to live up to their duty to provide play?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes the important point that we are trying to build not just homes but communities. Those communities need the facilities and infrastructure that allow them to meet their wider aspirations for the places where they are located. Some of those points will be addressed in the new NPPF that we have brought forward, but I am more than happy to ensure that she gets the meeting that she wants to ensure that the detail of what her constituents want to see is included in the changes that we bring forward.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

The Secretary of State talked about increasing the pace of build-out, but as we strive to achieve the target of 1.5 million new homes, quality is important too. Will the Secretary of State say whether he will use the powers in the Building Safety Act 2022 to make the New Homes Ombudsman Service mandatory, because only 60% of developers are currently signed up to that scheme?

[Steve Reed]

We are making changes to building standards and the Building Safety Regulator, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. I am happy to look at the proposal that he makes and to engage with him further if it would be helpful.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

In Blackpool, we have a waiting list of around 12,000 for social and council housing. Given the deprivation throughout Blackpool, we know that the quality of housing is below where it needs to be, and so many people are struggling with their health and other conditions. Will the Secretary of State outline for me and Blackpool council what more can be done so that we can build the social housing we desperately need and meet the 1.5 million target?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend describes a situation in Blackpool that I am sure Members across the House will recognise from many other constituencies, with the desperate need for more social and affordable housing. He will be pleased to be reminded that the new social and affordable homes programme of £39 billion, which will deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in this country for a generation, opens for bids next month. I hope that his local authority will be keen to make applications to it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

With a new year often come new year’s resolutions. Will the Secretary of State make a new year’s resolution to accept the truth that the Government will not meet their 1.5 million housing target, which he set out? Will he confirm that he still thinks his job is on the line if he does not achieve that? Huge focus has been placed on rural areas with no infrastructure, but cities—often Labour cities—have been left off the hook, so will he commit to changing the formula to make it fairer and, more importantly, more deliverable?

[Steve Reed]

If the hon. Gentleman’s party had not scrapped house building targets around the country, we might see more of the kinds of homes that we need in every single part of the country—urban, suburban and rural. As for our targets, the judgment of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, which was set up by the previous Conservative Government, is that this Government will oversee the biggest increase in house building for 40 years. That will put the key to their own home into the hands of people who were denied it under the Conservatives.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to implement the provisions on leasehold reform in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to help tackle damp and mould in social housing.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

The death of Awaab Ishak, aged just two years old, was tragic and it was avoidable. Awaab’s law came into force for the social rented sector last October, and it forces landlords to fix dangerous damp and mould and make emergency repairs to fixed timescales. We have consulted on a revised decent homes standard, including proposing a new damp and mould standard, which will ensure that landlords keep properties free from damp and mould, and we will respond to the consultation shortly.

[Liam Conlon]

Social housing disrepair and neglect is one of the most common issues in my inbox, particularly in Penge, Crystal Palace and Anerley. In one case, a mum in Penge saw her two children develop breathing problems and be forced on to inhalers due to persistent damp and mould. We know that the health impacts of mould can take hold quickly, so can the Secretary of State set out the steps his Department is taking to guarantee the right of social housing tenants to immediate action in such cases, ensuring that the suffering of my constituent and her children is not repeated?

[Steve Reed]

I am very sorry to hear of how my hon. Friend’s constituent and her children have suffered in that circumstance, and I thank him for his question. Awaab’s law, which is now in force, will require social landlords to take urgent action to fix dangerous homes or they will face the full force of the law. As part of these reforms, landlords must now consider the circumstances of tenants that could put them at risk, including the presence of young children, or those with disabilities or other health vulnerabilities. Alternative accommodation must also be offered if homes cannot be made safe within the required timeframes. We all hope that these changes will save lives.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

My constituents, three single mothers, have suffered at the hands of builders who built substandard homes without crucial damp-proof membrane and damp-proof courses. That meant that my constituents’ homes were riddled with damp and mould, and the house builders have not addressed this serious fault for far too long. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that house builders can be held to account by residents, and that, if needed, local authorities can end relationships with underperforming house builders to protect residents?

[Steve Reed]

There are measures other than Awaab’s law in place that may be able to help, if I understood the detail of the case. I would be very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. We could look, for instance, at warranties, or at building enforcement; those may be ways to get action taken. If he would be kind enough to write to me, I will ensure that he gets a full response on that point.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

15. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the provisional local government finance settlement 2026-27 on Greater Manchester.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

T1.   If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

House building in this country ground to a near halt in 2023 because the previous Government failed to reform our planning system, despite knowing that it is too slow and cumbersome and deters development. Our Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 18 December last year. It delivers fundamental reform to the planning system, speeding up the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. Thanks to this Government, young people who have been denied the chance of their own home will now get the key to their own front door at last.

[Peter Prinsley]

I am concerned about the villages in my most beautiful constituency of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket; there, people tell me that they are increasingly concerned about the lack of affordable housing in rural communities. What steps is the Minister taking to increase the supply of affordable housing for local people in rural villages through reforms to the planning system, and how will those reforms support the rejuvenation and long-term sustainability of our villages?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just remind everyone that this is topicals? You are meant to set an example, Peter—come on.

[Steve Reed]

Our planning changes will support affordable rural housing by giving rural authorities greater flexibility to require affordable housing on smaller sites. Our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, which opens to bids next month, is available to rural authorities as well.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I am sure we all agree that we cannot have sustainable communities if we do not have sustainable high streets. Would the Secretary of State agree that a fourfold increase in business rates over this Parliament does not make high-street businesses sustainable?

[Steve Reed]

Of course high streets are vital to local communities. That is why it was so sad to see high streets up and down the country fall into severe decline in the 14 years in which the Conservatives were in power, during which the right hon. Gentleman served in the Cabinet. Units closed down; their shutters were pulled down, and the graffiti and litter in front of buildings deterred people from going to the high street. This Government are committed to restoring our high streets and protecting the businesses that operate there.

[Sir James Cleverly]

So many words, yet no answer. I asked the Secretary of State specifically about a fourfold increase, like the one that the White Lion on Streatham High Road in his constituency faces. We are talking about a 400% increase, even after transitional relief, from £3,000 a year to £12,000 a year. Will he urge the Chancellor to scrap business rates for businesses like the White Lion on Streatham High Road, and other hospitality and leisure businesses on the high street?

[Steve Reed]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that the measures put in place during the pandemic were always intended to come to an end; his Government were going to do the same thing. The Chancellor is looking at the impact of revaluation. She is fully aware of the concerns raised by publicans in Streatham and across the country, and is reviewing the situation, and we expect an announcement in due course.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

T3. Major planning applications in Durham, such as those for the Milburngate site and Stack in the city centre, have been stalled for years. This has not only left two white elephants in the city centre, but had a significant impact on jobs, the economy and key venues that have been left undeveloped. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that major developments in the City of Durham and across the country are not subject to long delays?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

Landlords will face the full force of the law if they fail to comply with regulations that have now come into force thanks to Awaab’s law. We expect social housing to get a lot better than tenants have seen over recent decades.

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

The local government settlement strips £27 million from East Riding of Yorkshire council. I learned today that there will be an additional £21 million cost over the next three years from the minimum wage and the jobs tax. Does the Minister really think it is acceptable that local residents should have sky-high council tax rises and falling quality of services?

Electoral Resilience

Steve Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting the statement. When we each enter this Chamber, we carry on one shoulder the duty to represent our constituents and, on the other, the responsibility to protect this democracy. The case of the former MEP Nathan Gill has revealed the threat that our democracy faces today, and I know it has caused deep concern right across the House. On Friday 21 November 2025, Mr Gill was sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison for accepting bribes linked to the Russian state and attempting to advance that state’s twisted interests. It is the longest sentence handed down to a politician in such a case in our nation’s recent history.

While we must commend the work of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, who successfully prosecuted this case, it is right that we now take a step back and look at how we can protect our democracy against such appalling crimes. Let me be clear about what the crime was. An elected politician took bribes to parrot the lies of a hostile state responsible for the death of Dawn Sturgess, a British citizen, on British soil. He took the side of those responsible for invading a sovereign European state, and he was prosecuted while Putin’s military targeted the civilian men, women and children of Ukraine. At the time, he was a Member of the European Parliament, supposedly representing the British people, and he went on to become a senior leader of a UK political party. We must learn the lessons, so that this can never happen again.

Following discussions with ministerial colleagues, I have today ordered an independent review into foreign financial interference in UK politics. It will be led by the former permanent secretary, Philip Rycroft, who will report both to me as Secretary of State responsible for elections and to the Minister for Security, as the chair of the defending democracy taskforce. The facts are clear: a British politician took bribes to further the interests of the Russian regime—a regime that forcefully deported vulnerable Ukrainian children and killed a British citizen on British soil using a deadly nerve agent. This conduct is a stain on our democracy. The independent review will work to remove that stain.

The purpose of the review is to provide an in-depth assessment of the current financial rules and safeguards, and to make recommendations. I will deposit a full copy of the terms of reference in the House of Commons Library. I have asked Philip Rycroft to report back by the end of March, when I will return to this House to set out his findings and the Government’s response. It is right that the review be independent of Government and independent of any political party. It is also important that I make it clear to the House that investigating crimes and examining broader allegations of wrongdoing remain the responsibility of the Electoral Commission and the police, not of this review. Individual Members should continue to refer to the National Protective Security Authority guidance, and to speak to the parliamentary security authorities if they have any specific concerns. The findings of the independent review will build on the Government’s election strategy and on the counter political interference and espionage action plan, and will inform the elections and democracy Bill that we will bring forward next year.

We published our strategy for modern and secure elections earlier this year. It will close loopholes that should have been closed long before we entered office. It will strengthen rules on donations, so that only legitimate donors can support legitimate campaigns. It will also clamp down on the free rein that shell companies and unincorporated associations have to make donations without first undergoing proper checks. However, since the strategy was published, events have shown that we need to consider whether our firewall is enough. The independent review will look at that, focusing on: the effectiveness of our broader political finance laws; the checks and balances in political regulations on identifying and mitigating foreign interference; safeguards against illicit funding streams, including cryptocurrencies; the rules governing the constitution and regulation of parties; and the Electoral Commission’s enforcement power. It is right that the review looks at these critical issues in depth, and I stand ready to do whatever is necessary to protect British democracy from foreign and hostile interference.

I mentioned the weight of responsibility that each of in this House should feel. Those who seek to disrupt or attack the foundations of our democracy will never prevail. Britain will always be a democracy, because the people of this country will never have it any other way, and because the choices of the British people will always be the guiding star for our nation. I thank all hon. Members who have come to the Chamber today. I am highlighting the threat of foreign interference because the first responsibility of His Majesty’s Government is to keep our people safe. Our ability to protect this nation and its values is always stronger when this Parliament presents a united front, so I hope that Members from right across the Chamber will offer their support for the independent review. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Paul Holmes.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. Let me begin by saying that protecting the integrity of our democratic system from foreign interference is not a partisan issue. It goes to the heart of public trust in our elections. Interference in our elections by foreign actors is something that we must all be vigilant against. I concur fully with what he said about Nathan Gill, and join the Secretary of State in giving sincere thanks to the CPS and the police. Any such crime deserves full condemnation from all Members of this House.

The Government announced their election strategy back in July, a strategy that affects all of us in this House. However, there was no consultation of political parties before the strategy was released. There has also been no formal consultation since it was announced. December marks the first time that the Government have engaged with the parliamentary parties panel. We do, however, welcome the announced independent review led by Philip Rycroft, and we wish him well in his work. Will the Minister commit to all parties being consulted during the new independent review’s work? Does he also accept the long-standing convention that Governments should not unilaterally impose changes to the law affecting political parties without proper consultation and cross-party engagement?

On electoral resilience, last week the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission noted that the commission was not consulted at all on the cancellation of the 2026 mayoral elections. Will the Secretary of State update us on whether council elections are going ahead, or will he cancel more elections at the last minute? Will he give electoral officials plenty of notice, whatever he chooses to do?

Delving into the Government’s statement, I note that the Government have signalled their intention to introduce “know your customer”-style checks on political donations, but political parties are not banks or the taxman. During the passage of the National Security Bill, the last Government committed to looking at greater powers for information sharing between relevant agencies and with political parties, precisely to identify irregular funding sources. Does the Secretary of State agree that such information sharing would help political parties to meet these new duties? I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement on cryptocurrencies, and the clarity that they will be in scope of the independent review.

The Secretary of State is absolutely right to mention Russia. The last Government legislated for a foreign influence registration scheme to stop covert foreign influence. Can the Minister explain why the Government have repeatedly refused to extend the scheme to China? What reasons are there for leaving such a gap in our national security framework, and will China be included in the scope of the independent review? Unfortunately, that decision sits uneasily alongside the Government ramming through the planning application for the Chinese embassy. How is that meant to convince Members of this House that the Government take seriously foreign interference from all malign powers across the globe?

There are clear loopholes that the Government need to address. Loopholes created by the Scottish and Welsh Governments allow Chinese residents in Scotland and Wales to make donations to UK political parties and politicians. What steps are the Government taking to close those loopholes, and to ensure that safeguarding is consistent throughout the whole United Kingdom?

Finally, protecting our democracy requires transparent cross-party discussion. Centralised power that bends the knee to the Chinese does not have the United Kingdom’s national interests as a priority. The Secretary of State now has an opportunity to set the record straight, and reassure the House of this Government’s commitment to taking seriously foreign interference by any malign influence. I hope that the concerns I have outlined are directly addressed today.

[Steve Reed]

I warmly welcome the hon. Member’s support for the review. I agree with him that this is way above party politics; this matters to all of us. It is about the integrity and safety of our democracy, and about ensuring that the safeguards in place to protect those precious things are sufficiently robust.

On the election strategy and the Bill that will be brought forward in the new year, we will of course engage with parties on aspects of that Bill before it is brought to the House. The hon. Member asked about the elections that are scheduled to go ahead; they will go ahead. He asked about cryptocurrency. That will be in the scope of the review, and I expect the independent reviewer to take a view on the subject. It has been raised by Members in all parts of the House, but I am sure that the hon. Member and other Members of his party will want to make their views clear to the reviewer before he comes to his conclusions. Again, the review is fully independent, but I would expect China to be fully in scope because of the questions that have been raised about the threats that China poses to national security, which are well documented.

We will engage with the devolved Administrations on applying the independent review’s findings on matters relating to elections that are within their competency.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

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

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

I thank the Secretary of State for making his statement. Far too often, Members right across this House take elections for granted. The fact that we can go to the ballot box and cast our votes in a free and fair election is something that we have to fight for and protect, so I welcome the fact that the investigation will look into this, and particularly the foreign donations angle. It cannot be right that while political parties can raise millions of pounds in cryptocurrency, the source of that funding is unchecked, so I welcome the review into illicit funding, which will ensure that we can trace the source of political donations.

I also welcome the appointment of Philip Rycroft, and I hope to go through the terms of reference, which, as the Secretary of State outlined, will be published later. In welcoming this announcement, it is important that we look at the fact that democracy is under attack. We need to ensure that accountability and independence stay in check. The strategy and policy statement introduced by the previous Conservative Government were a step in the wrong direction; they gave politicians undue influence over the Electoral Commission. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the strategy and policy statement will be abolished in the upcoming elections Bill, and whether the independence of the Electoral Commission will be protected in future?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her support for the review, and I look forward to the Committee making its views clear to Philip Rycroft and his team. I agree with her about the problematic nature of cryptocurrency, and with her concerns about the anonymity of donors. It is important that there be transparency about where that money comes, and that we see who is seeking to influence British politics and democracy, particularly if they are malign, hostile foreign or state actors. She asked a question about the elections Bill. That will be published in the new year, and the details will be clear to her then.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

First, I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of the content of his statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the statement and the decision to establish an independent review. This is a serious issue that clearly demands action, and we will follow the review closely.

Public trust in politics is dangerously low. Polling consistently shows only 9% to 12% of the public trust politicians, which should seriously worry every Member of this House. Restoring trust must begin with integrity and transparency. People need confidence that the information shaping our political debate is accurate. Trust also relies on fairness. Every vote must count equally, and that requires a fair and credible electoral system. Finally, and most relevant to today, trust depends on transparency about political finance. Voters should know who funds our politics, and should trust that wealthy individuals, corporations or foreign interests cannot buy influence or access.

With that in mind, will the Government accept that a small number of extremely wealthy individuals now wield disproportionate influence over British politics? That includes overseas donors, which raises serious questions about foreign interference. In a recent Westminster Hall debate, Members from across the House spoke out about this strongly. Finally, will the Secretary of State commit to donation caps, which are supported by voters across every major party?

[Steve Reed]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the review. We have now had that support from all sides of the House, and that is appreciated. It is very important that the House of Commons stands united against the potential threats to our democracy from hostile foreign state actors. Our democracy is one of the most precious things we have, and it is important that we all work together across the Chamber to protect it. We are not targeting any particular states or individuals with this review; we are looking to confirm that the safeguards that protect our democracy from inappropriate or malign foreign financial interference are robust enough. I look forward to Philip Rycroft’s findings when we have them towards the end of March.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) recently failed to declare on time hospitality in a French villa from the wife of the former Russian deputy Finance Minister. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the offer and acceptance of gifts and free holidays from Russian oligarchs will be in the scope of the review?

[Steve Reed]

I preface my response by saying that the review is not looking at individual cases, but the broader issue of gifts and hospitality and how they may be used by malign, or potentially malign, foreign agents or state actors will be in scope for the independent review.

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

I hope that the Rycroft review will take account of the fact that the giving of money is by no means the worst aspect, or the main aspect, of treacherous behaviour, because very often these people do what they do out of a genuine belief in a potential enemy’s point of view. It would be interesting to know whether the crime would have attracted such a large sentence as it did if, instead of just money being given, it had been a matter of clandestine contact because the person was willing to spout the Russian line anyway. Let us not be overconcerned with the giving of the bribe, which is often a bonus to people who want to betray us to a potential enemy in any case.

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Member makes a very important point. The Security Minister, who is sitting alongside me, leads the defending democracy taskforce, which will be taking a wider view of the threats to our democracy as they evolve, and so too must our safeguards evolve to keep our democracy safe. Philip Rycroft’s review will focus on malign foreign financial interference, given that we know from the Nathan Gill case that there may be weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and we want to ensure that our safeguards are as robust as they can be.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and thank him for mentioning the forcible deportation of Ukrainian children by Russia. I recently co-ordinated a cross-party letter to the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), asking him to ensure that the human rights of those children are protected in peace negotiations. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that, although that letter was supported by almost every party across this House, not a single representative from one particular party sought to sign it, and that was the Reform party?

[Steve Reed]

I commend and congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaigning for the kidnapped children of Ukraine. We would expect representatives of all political parties to seek to support those children’s interests in being returned home to their parents and carers. Perhaps most shocking of all is the fact that, despite the widespread knowledge that that was going on, this individual chose to accept bribes from the Russian Government, who were responsible for those heinous activities, betraying his country into the bargain.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am curious to know in what respect our existing laws were insufficient to deal with this appalling case. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the best way to reassure the public on electoral resilience is never again to delay local council or mayoral elections?

[Steve Reed]

Well, I am curious to know exactly the same thing, which is why I have appointed Philip Rycroft to lead an independent review, so that we can find out.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

I welcome this review and the fact that it is independent. It is really important that this is seen to be above party politics, because we must protect our democracy; it is very clear that it is fragile and under attack from foreign forces. I want to ask the Secretary of State about the terms of reference. Will the review look at the role of social media companies? There is no doubt that foreign state actors are using that as a vehicle to spread disinformation and undermine our democracy.

[Steve Reed]

It is an independent review, and the reviewer and his team will be able to look at whatever they think may be problematic relating to the core terms of reference. The central part of those terms of reference is to focus on potential malign foreign financial interference in UK politics. That may or may not have a bearing on the point my hon. Friend raises.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The Secretary of State is right to highlight the appalling case of a senior UK politician being convicted of bribery for taking money from Russia. I am also concerned about a UK political party getting a donation—the largest single donation from a living person—from money abroad, from cryptocurrency. Can he assure me that this independent review, which I welcome, will consider political donations and potentially recommend where we set a political donation cap?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise concerns about cryptocurrency. There is no way of knowing for certain what the origins of that financing might be. It appears to be potentially a back door for malign foreign actors or states to seek to influence British democracy, and we cannot allow that. It will be up to the independent reviewer to choose where he wishes to go with the investigation, but I am sure that the hon. Member and other members of his party will make clear the points he has just made and that they will be fully considered.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I would like to follow up on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) about social media. This is really important. If a foreign Government are funding third parties to post false comments on social media in order to mislead people exercising their democratic rights, surely that must come within the terms of the Rycroft review. Could the Secretary of State confirm that that is up to Philip Rycroft and that he has the capacity to bring it within the terms of the review, given that particular issue?

[Steve Reed]

Yes, that is correct. What my hon. Friend has just described are foreign financial attempts to influence our democracy, and that will be in scope for the review.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As a former elections Minister, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I wonder if he would reflect on two points, together with his hon. Friend the Security Minister, with regard to the defending democracy taskforce. First, the Electoral Commission has plenty of influence, but it possibly needs more financial resource and sharper teeth that it can deploy more quickly. Would he reflect on that and ask Sir Philip to advise on that point? Secondly, the response of our police across the country is, at best, patchy when it comes to their interpretation of their key and pivotal role in defending democracy and ensuring that it works fairly and well for all of us. Through the taskforce, can he ensure that there is a more uniform approach from the police on this issue?

[Steve Reed]

I welcome the hon. Member’s question; he makes important observations. The role, resources and powers of the Electoral Commission will be in scope for the review, as will the role and enforcement powers of other agencies, including the police, if the reviewer sees fit to pursue that.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

As Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement following the case of Nathan Gill. There is nothing worse than the enemy within. It is quite clear that there are significant loopholes in the current system. Money is flooding in. In fact, we have taken evidence about cryptocurrencies on our Committee as part of our defending democracy inquiry. I am interested to hear from the Minister when the terms of reference will be published, and I echo the points made about media ownership and social media. Will the Secretary of State appear before the JCNSS when we hold our inquiry in January and February?

[Steve Reed]

I am always happy to receive invitations to appear before inquiries of that level of importance. The terms of reference will be laid in the House of Commons Library today—indeed, they may already have been—and I refer to my earlier comments on social media.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

In terms of looking at political finances, we are supportive of the review, and I thank the Secretary of State for announcing it today. Donations made to political parties are one thing, but donations made to either candidates or politicians are another thing and can be considered slightly differently. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this will be part of Rycroft’s review and that he will look specifically at donations to main political parties that are made outside the normal electoral cycle?

[Steve Reed]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the review. The circumstances she describes will be in scope. We need to look across the piece to ensure that the safeguards we have in place against foreign influence on our democracy are robust at all levels, all tiers and all elections.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that this appalling case of a senior Reform politician being jailed for accepting Russian bribes shows that the corrupt Putin regime is not only cyber-attacking our national infrastructure and interfering with our critical infrastructure under the sea with its shadow fleet, but trying to attack the very heart of our democracy itself? Can he explain how, when this review is concluded, the full powers and resources that might be recommended for the police, the security services and the other agencies that can protect our democracy will be provided?

[Steve Reed]

I will be responding directly to the findings of the commission when they are available at the end of March, and I will bring those responses back to the House. I agree with my hon. Friend’s point: the Russian dictatorship is clearly using malign information activity at scale to threaten the national security and integrity of democracies across the advanced democratic world, including in the UK. We must understand, as the threat evolves, that our safeguards are evolving similarly to keep our democracy safe.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the Rycroft review. In an earlier reply, the Secretary of State said that the role of the Electoral Commission will be in scope. If that is the case, it needs involvement from Opposition parties across the House—earlier in his statement he said that that probably would not happen, but perhaps it should happen with this taskforce, or more widely with the defending democracy taskforce. Given that the shocking case that he refers to started off in the European Parliament, may I invite the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues to look at the role of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly—I believe I am the only MP in history to have served on all three, although not on the same time, I hasten to add—as well as the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly? From my experience, all those have been subject to at least very low-level Belarusian or Russian influence operations.

[Steve Reed]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, not least because it gives me the opportunity to correct any misimpression. The independent review will be engaging cross-party across the House and will be hoping—indeed expecting—to hear from Members of all parties who have a view to share. I am convinced that all of us, in all parties, want to ensure that we can defend our democracy against malign foreign interference, whether that is from Russia or anywhere else.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and sending a clear message that attacks on our democracy will not win. This Government will not let that happen, and the British people will not let it happen. My right hon. Friend might be aware that the BBC sought to question the former leader of UKIP in Scotland, who also made pro-Russian interventions in the European Parliament at the same time as Gill, but he refused to answer those questions. With that in mind, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the review will have the resources it needs to leave no stone unturned when examining Russian interference in our political system?

[Steve Reed]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Our democracy is one of the most precious things in our country, and we must all do everything in our power to protect it. Resources will be made available to the independent review from my departmental budgets, and we will hear from the reviewer himself about exactly how he sees the review moving forward. I will make sure that it has appropriate resourcing to carry out the functions that the House of Commons is asking of it.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Members across the House expressed their deep concerns on this issue in the Backbench Business Committee debate on foreign interference that was led by my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), last Thursday, so I am glad that the Government have taken this step today. There is clear evidence that other leaders of UKIP and Reform UK also associated with Nathan Gill’s Russian handlers. There is also evidence, laid out—albeit in redacted form—in the Russia report from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Russian money seeking to influence other parties and elections. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the review will be free to look back as far as it needs to inform its recommendations, including to the referendums of 2014 and 2016, and that it will be free to publish its findings without ministerial censorship?

[Steve Reed]

The review will certainly have the freedom to be fully independent, because that is important if we are to have confidence in its findings, but it will be forward looking; there will be no relitigating of previous elections. Although we know, not least from the Nathan Gill case, that there have been attempts by malign foreign actors to interfere in British democracy, there have been no findings that the outcomes of any elections to date were affected by malign foreign interference. The point of the review is to ensure that we maintain safeguards that are robust enough to protect future elections from malign foreign interference.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I echo colleagues’ comments regarding social media sites. In Bexleyheath and Crayford, we have seen more and more examples of anonymous users, particularly on Facebook, spreading disinformation not just at election time, but also to undermine trust and faith in public bodies outside election time. As well as the review, will the Secretary of State give us assurances about how we can continue to work with colleagues across Government to look at these issues, and at how foreign interference is playing its part in them?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend speaks to a very real threat not just to our democracy, but to our national security, from foreign financial interference. We are all aware of bots and the role they seek to play in influencing the views of electors in elections. That is a function of foreign financial interference, and it will be in scope of the review.

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

The irony of hearing the Secretary of State talk about protecting democracy a week after cancelling mayoral elections will not be lost on millions of British voters. Nevertheless, we welcome the review, of course. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it will also cover the influence of the Chinese communist regime on the Labour party—a senior MP allegedly received hundreds of thousands of pounds of donations from a potential Chinese spy—as well as a Labour Government who gave away our valuable and strategic Chagos islands, a Labour Government who were responsible for the Chinese spy case collapse, and a Labour Government who are kowtowing to China over the mega-embassy?

[Steve Reed]

The leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), when asked to conduct an internal review into the Gill matter, of course refused to carry one out—although, to give him credit, he did say that he would welcome a review by the Government into these matters, so I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) does not welcome the review we are discussing today. To be clear: all potential sources of malign foreign financial interference are in scope for this review. If the review finds failings in any political party, I expect the leaders of other political parties, as I do my own party leader, to put the country first and their party second.

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

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on social media, and I hope we can meet the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is responsible for elections, ahead of the publication of the elections Bill to see what we can do about those protections. The Secretary of State has announced a very good review. Will the money that is coming into this country, particularly related to changing our politics on abortion rights, trans rights and other areas, be within scope of the review?

[Steve Reed]

I am sure that the elections Minister would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her concerns. The review will look at any foreign financial interference in our democracy, and I would expect the points she raises to be in scope.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and the establishment of the independent review, and I agree with colleagues across the House who talked about the importance of the resilience of our democracy as well as about its current fragility. I note that the Secretary of State does not seem keen to give us too many spoilers about what to expect in the elections Bill in the new year, but I my question follows those asked by my colleague from the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). If the review recommended a cap on donations or restoring the independence of the Electoral Commission, would those be things that the Secretary of State would support?

[Steve Reed]

We certainly understand the risks posed to elections; for that reason, as we published in the strategy in July, through the elections Bill we will seek to strengthen the rules on donations to political parties. The findings of the independent review will inform what is in the Bill.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement and the leadership that the Secretary of State is showing on this issue. Our democracy is important and requires our active protection. Does he agree that as well as actions that the Government can take, there is far more that individual political parties, particularly Reform UK, can do on due diligence and vetting procedures, to stop people being elected in the first? We continue to see too many horror stories relating to people up and down the country once they are in office, when they should have been stopped in advance.

[Steve Reed]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s points about due diligence. It is no secret that the Government are looking at standards in public life. The Prime Minister has already made some changes in the code of conduct that affects all Members of Parliament, but we need to look further at how we can strengthen standards across local government that, unfortunately, were weakened by the previous Government.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. Following the sentencing of Reform UK’s former Wales leader for taking bribes to peddle pro-Russian propaganda, Plaid Cymru welcomes this review. As hon. Members will remember from the question asked at Prime Minister’s questions by Liz Saville Roberts—

[Ann Davies]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Plaid Cymru has been calling for action in Westminster and the Senedd for months, only to be repeatedly dismissed by this Labour Government, who even left it to leave Reform UK’s own leader to police his party. Unfortunately, because of the Government’s delay, there is now no time to implement reforms before the 2026 Senedd elections. Will the Minister set out exactly what steps are being taken to protect Welsh democracy from foreign interference before next year?

[Steve Reed]

Safeguards are already in place, but the fact that the review will report in March means that it will come ahead of the elections. That is because not only Members of this House, but voters across the country, will want to know that the safeguards against malign foreign financial interference in the coming elections are sufficiently robust to ensure that those elections are free and fair.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, I warmly welcome this independent review into foreign financial interference in UK politics. However, foreign financial interference is not the only threat to our electoral resilience: misinformation, disinformation and aspects of the electoral system itself are all flaws in the system. Will those issues be in scope for the elections and democracy Bill that is coming next year?

[Steve Reed]

The terms of reference will be laid in the House of Commons Library today, but the review is not the only way in which we are looking at the security and integrity of our elections. The Minister for Security is leading the defending democracy taskforce, which is looking more widely at action that we may need to take to ensure that our safeguards remain robust against the changing nature of the threat to our democracy.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Of course, the appalling crime carried out by Nathan Gill, with a £40,000 bribe to speak about Russia, is not unique. Although that bribe is the one that we know about, eight other members of Reform UK also parroted pro-Russia narratives, sometimes line by line and word by word. I have two questions: first, given that the timeline is for the review to report by the end of March, if there are parts of the electoral system that are not robust, will the Government introduce legislation before May? Secondly, given that loopholes have already been exploited, particularly on moneys entering this country, will the Government be applying the legislation retrospectively?

[Steve Reed]

I cannot anticipate what will be in the review. We have to give Philip Rycroft and his team time to make their recommendations, and then we will consider them. We are as yet unaware of the level of the threat that he may identify. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, I cannot comment on individual cases. They will be a matter for the police and if there are further prosecutions to be made, then I am sure that the police will carry them forward.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Russia is attacking every aspect of our state—our industries, our infrastructure and our way of life—and, as we have seen from the treacherous actions of the Reform UK politician outside this place, it is attacking the underpinning democracy that holds us together. While I welcome the steps and the leadership that the Secretary of State has announced, this must be a wake-up call across Government. Will he set out what steps he is taking to encourage similarly strong approaches and leadership from other Government Departments to counter Russian malign activity?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is right that it is a cornerstone of Russia’s international strategy to threaten the national security and integrity of democracies, including the UK and our partners overseas. We know that but we are seeking to check that our safeguards against that evolving threat are sufficiently robust to keep our democracy safe. Our approach will be supported by Departments right across Government. The Minister for Security is leading the defending democracy taskforce and he has already published the counter-political interference and espionage action plan, which calls on Ministers across Government to collaborate and work together to ensure that we are making sufficiently robust the safeguards called for by my hon. Friend.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Although it may seem a little tangential, will the scope of the investigation include the fact that hundreds of thousands of people who have worked in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years and who have paid their taxes are unable to influence the outcome of elections because they have an EU passport, yet hundreds of thousands of ex-pats who have not set foot in this country for decades still have an influence? Unscrupulous parties could hoover up those ex-pats and direct them towards marginal seats, thus influencing the outcome of elections. Will the Secretary of State address this issue, either through the review or the Bill?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point clearly and eloquently, but he is right that it is somewhat tangential to the review that Philip Rycroft will be leading. The review will be looking at malign foreign financial interference, but he should be reassured that no stone will be left unturned in seeking to protect our democracy, which is one of the most precious things that we have.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance to my constituents in Portsmouth North that the police have all the resources they need to pursue all remaining leads in the Gill case? Will he reassure us that the review will examine the full extent of Russian interference in our country’s politics and democracy, including any influence exerted through Government contracts or strategic infrastructure projects?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Yes, of course the police have the resources they require to pursue any lines of inquiry arising from associates of Nathan Gill, as well as in relation to any other cases and political parties. It is important that the independent inquiry that we are launching today operates across political parties, in the interest of our democracy and everybody who holds that democracy as dear as all hon. Members across the House.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Members of this House, including me, who have been targeted by Russia will be particularly horrified by the crimes of Reform UK’s former Wales leader. I am pleased that Philip Rycroft has been appointed to lead the review: we know he has been a fine public servant and has deep experience of Europe and Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the EU referendum will be in scope—[Interruption.] I think I am being heckled by a Reform UK Member, today of all days.

[Steve Reed]

As I said earlier, we are not seeking to relitigate the past. There is no evidence that the outcome of any previous election or referendum was affected by any attempted foreign interference. We are seeking to ensure that the safeguards that we have in place against any threats to our democracy from malign foreign actors seeking to use finance to influence voters’ choices in those elections and the outcomes of those elections are robust enough to keep us safe. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for Philip Rycroft’s appointment. For me, one of the important aspects of his appointment is that he has no party political affiliation whatsoever.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Some in Reform UK have suggested that its former leader in Wales, the traitor Nathan Gill—he was a traitor—was just one bad apple, yet we have learned in recent weeks that at least eight MEPs who represented the UK Independence party or the Brexit party were approached by Gill at the behest of his Russian paymasters. What is it about parties led by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) that makes them uniquely susceptible to Russian bribes? Could it be that they are already apologists for Putin?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I will not be tempted to comment on any individual cases. We are seeking to ensure that safeguards against foreign financial interference in the round are sufficiently robust.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I warmly welcome the review announced today by the Secretary of State. He is right to talk about the importance of upholding the integrity of our democracy, but this is not just about malign foreign interference; it is about things that are said in this place. One of the greatest threats to our democracy is the wilful spreading of misinformation by prominent politicians, and the Secretary of State is not without fault in that regard. He has repeatedly and incorrectly claimed that Scotland’s water quality was lower than England’s, but, in fact, it is significantly higher—I have pointed that out during a debate and in a point of order in this Chamber. Even when that was pointed out by the UK Statistics Authority, the Secretary of State refused to apologise. Will he take the opportunity to do so now, in the light of the fact that our conduct and social media posts are now in scope of the review?

[Steve Reed]

I know the hon. Gentleman did not like the facts when I made them clear in this House, but the review is not about points he dislikes but malign foreign financial interference in our democracy.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for announcing this review, which I fully welcome. Does he agree that every political party should welcome it, unless they have something to hide? Will he tell me whether the terms of reference of Philip Rycroft’s independent investigation will require every political party to co-operate? If they do not, will he name and shame them so that the public can render their judgment accordingly?

[Steve Reed]

The review will not have the powers to compel people to submit evidence, but, like my hon. Friend, my view is that members from every single political party represented in this House will want to ensure that the Russian state is not using dirty money to influence and interfere in our democratic processes. I would be shocked if any political party does not subscribe to that view, because it is what underpins the freedom of our democracy.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I am really disappointed that none of the Reform MPs who were here at the start—most of them have gone—took the opportunity to utterly condemn Nathan Gill’s treacherous acts. We should all condemn what he did; he is an absolute traitor to our country.

I am pleased that the Secretary of State is taking seriously his duties to build and protect faith in our democracy. He will be pleased to hear that I recently visited Forrester, Firrhill, Tynecastle, Boroughmuir and Balerno high schools in my constituency, to talk about our democracy and opportunities to come here and see it at work. The three most common topics they wanted to talk about were bobbing—I gave them a demonstration, of course; smartphone bans that may be coming towards them; and our electoral system and proportional representation. I know the Secretary of State takes seriously his role in protecting and modernising our democracy, so will he listen to our young people when doing so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing young people into this House; it is very important that young people get to see their democracy in action. I am sure that they, like all of us who are older, want to get dirty money out of British politics, and that is what this review is intended to achieve.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

As a member of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, I very much welcome the independent review into foreign financial interference in our democracy. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the inadequate oversight of foreign donations, particularly moneys funnelled through cryptocurrency, and the potential for malign actors to seek to influence our democracy through crypto donations?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Cryptocurrency is one route by which dirty money can covertly enter British politics in an attempt to influence the outcomes of elections. That is why crypto will be in scope for this review, and I look forward, as I know she does, to the findings of Philip Rycroft’s review.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

A once senior leader of the Reform party is now in jail for colluding with Russia. When the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) heard about that, did he launch an inquiry? Did he perhaps review his own previous statements on Russia, including saying that he admired Putin? No, he did not; he called Nathan Gill a “bad apple”. I welcome this review and the fact that all political parties will be invited to contribute, but will my right hon. Friend commit to make clear to the House, when he reports back on the findings of the review, exactly which political parties took part in this exercise of scrutiny and transparency and which did not?

[Peter Swallow]

I am pleased to say that I did. The hon. Member for Clacton is not in his place to hear my comments, but I hope he is listening anyway.

[Steve Reed]

It will be for Philip Rycroft to publish his review in the way that he sees fit, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The sentencing of Nathan Gill for bribery, alongside other recent cases, has exposed vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the UK’s political and electoral systems. The review will give us the opportunity to check that our safeguards are sufficiently robust given the evolving nature of the threat.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

May I, like others, thank the Secretary of State for his robust defence of elections and our democracy through his statement? On the Gill case, he may be aware that the Reform UK board member Gawain Towler is on record saying that he realised very quickly that Nathan Gill was raising pro-Russia questions about Ukraine in 2018. After confronting Gill, Towler simply

“accepted his explanation at face value”

and was, by his own admission, “foolish”. Does the Secretary of State agree that it cannot be good enough for any political party to simply accept the peddling of pro-Russian propaganda? Can he assure me that this review will examine all and every link with Russia without fear or favour?

[Steve Reed]

The review will absolutely operate without fear or favour. It will involve an in-depth assessment of the current financial and bribery-related rules and safeguards that regulate all political parties and political finance so that we can ensure our democracy remains safe in the decades to come.

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

rose—

[Chris Vince]

May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement? This case should be of concern to anybody who believes in this country and in our democracy, which should be everybody in this Chamber. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure, in working with the Home Secretary, that police forces such as mine in Essex, which cover my constituency, are equipped to deal with any local investigations should the need arise?

[Steve Reed]

I have by my side the Security Minister, who chairs the defending democracy taskforce. He is located in the Home Office, and I am sure that he will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments. I agree with my hon. Friend; our democracy is too precious to allow dirty money from overseas to destroy it. I hope the whole House will come together to do what is necessary to protect something as vital and precious as our freedom to choose our own Governments.

Electoral Resilience

Steve Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

His Majesty’s Government are today announcing an independent review into countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics. The review will be led by former permanent secretary Philip Rycroft, and will report both to me as Secretary of State responsible for the administration of elections, and to the Minister of State for Security as the Chair of the Defending Democracy Taskforce. It will be concluded by the end of March 2026.

The review follows the sentencing of Nathan Gill at the Old Bailey on 21 November 2025 under the Bribery Act. This case has revealed the threat our democracy faces today, and has caused deep concern across Parliament.

Mr Gill’s sentence is the longest handed down to a politician in a case like this in our nation’s recent history. At the time his offences were committed, Mr Gill sat as a Member of the European Parliament, and he went on to become a senior leader of a UK party. We should be clear about what his crimes were: An elected politician took bribes to parrot the lines of a hostile state responsible for the death of Dawn Sturgess—a British citizen on British soil. He took the side of those responsible for invading a sovereign European state, and he was prosecuted while Putin’s military targeted the civilian men, women and children of Ukraine. While the work of the police and Crown Prosecution Service in successfully prosecuting this case must be commended, it is right that we now take a step back to look at how we can protect our democracy against such appalling crimes.

The purpose of the review, which is independent of Government and of any political party, is to provide an in-depth assessment of current financial rules and safeguards, and offer recommendations. The detailed terms of reference will be deposited in the House of Commons Library.

The findings of the independent review will build on the Government’s elections strategy and counter political interference and espionage action plan, and inform the elections and democracy Bill that we have pledged to bring forward.

Our strategy for modern and secure elections, published earlier this year, will close loopholes that should have been closed long before we entered office. However, in the time since that strategy was published, events have shown that we need to consider whether our firewall is enough. The independent review will look at this, focusing in particular on the effectiveness of our broader political finance law, on current checks and balances within political regulation for identifying and mitigating foreign interference, and on the rules governing the constitution and regulation of parties, and the Electoral Commission’s enforcement power.

[HCWS1186]

Devolution Priority Programme

Steve Reed Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

Devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity for local communities, through bringing local transport back into public control, making people’s daily commute easier, tailoring local skills training to local employer’s needs, so people can get a good job, and driving regeneration of local areas, so people feel proud of the place they live in.

For too long decisions have been made centrally in Whitehall, away from the places and communities those decisions impact. Mayors and other local leaders are best placed to identify and invest in the projects and infrastructure that reflect the needs of local people and drive growth, but they need long-term funding certainty to harness their region’s potential.

Today, I am therefore pleased to confirm the long-term funding offer to the six areas on the devolution priority programme. Once mayors are in post, the six mayoral strategic authorities will receive close to £200 million collectively per year for 30 years through their investment funds. These funds will be split equally between capital and revenue, and they will be un-ringfenced, so local areas can choose how they want to invest this money in local priorities. This investment will promote growth in the six areas, and as the baseline of our funding commitment, it will be additional to devolved funding streams from other Government Departments, such as adult skills funding and transport funding.

Each area’s individual yearly investment fund allocation, based on their populations, are as follows:

Cheshire and Warrington combined authority: £21.7 million per year

Cumbria combined authority: £11.1 million per year

Greater Essex combined county authority: £41.5 million per year

Hampshire and the Solent combined county authority: £44.6 million per year

Norfolk and Suffolk combined county authority: £37.4 million per year

Sussex and Brighton combined county authority: £38 million per year

Beyond the allocations based on population, each new mayoral strategic authority will be supported to build core capacity to ensure they can deliver for local people. All six areas will receive £3 million each as a minimum flat payment over the next three financial years, in addition to an initial payment of £1 million each when the statutory instruments are laid in Parliament, to help with the costs of establishing the new authorities.

The Government recognise that mayoral strategic authorities are most successful when they are built on a strong history of partnership and joint delivery. Moving forward, we will therefore seek to facilitate the establishment of foundation strategic authorities in areas without a foundation of collaboration, to build local capacity ahead of areas accessing mayoral powers. These foundation strategic authorities will be empowered to deliver for their residents in the interim. The Government plan to engage with local leaders about creating a new wave of foundation strategic authorities to ensure more residents can see the benefits of local control.

For devolution priority programme areas, as they have already made great progress towards the establishment of their mayoral strategic authorities, the Government ambition to foster collaboration ahead of implementing mayoralties will be facilitated by allowing for a meaningful period of time between the mayoral strategic authorities’ establishment and inaugural elections.

Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria have previously requested a delay of their inaugural elections to May 2027, to align with the majority of planned local elections, which could help voter turnout and enable further local savings. These areas have both successfully established unitary authorities.

The Government are also minded to hold the inaugural mayoral elections for Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Greater Essex in May 2028, with areas completing the local government reorganisation process before mayors take office. This is because devolution is strongest when it is built on strong foundations; therefore, moving forward we will ensure strong unitary structures are in place before areas take on mayoral devolution.

The Government intend to establish mayoral strategic authorities in all the devolution priority programme areas as soon as possible, to ensure sufficient time for meaningful preparatory work and to continue to build local collaboration. We will provide each devolution priority programme area with a proportion of their investment funds to ensure they can start delivering on key local priorities and deliver the benefits of devolution on the ground ahead of the mayors taking office. Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria will therefore receive half of their annual investment funds in 2025-26, while Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Greater Essex will receive a third of their annual investment funds in both 2026-27 and 2027-28.

Our commitment to ensuring areas across England can access the growth benefits of mayoral devolution holds firm. We will continue to engage with local leaders across the devolution priority programme towards the establishment of these mayoral strategic authorities.

[HCWS1128]

Overnight Visitor Levy

Steve Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

The Government’s mission is clear: we must do all we can to unlock economic growth. For too long, England has been one of the most centralised countries in the developed world. That means that decisions made in Whitehall—far away from the reality of places and communities across the country—have too often failed to reflect the needs of local people. Mayors and other local leaders are best placed to identify and invest in the projects and infrastructure that drive growth and make a place attractive for visitors and residents. Mayors and other local leaders know their local history, local culture and the unique attributes of their places that draw visitors in. But they need powers and funding to enable them to harness England’s potential and unlock growth through investment.

English mayors have come together to ask for an overnight stay levy through the “right to request”. Together they made the case to the Government for the power to raise a new local revenue stream to realise growth-boosting projects that improve the experience for everyone, from hosting mega-events in Liverpool like Euro 2028 to revolutionising bus services in York and North Yorkshire to connect the coast with the moors and the historic towns and cities; from accelerating the redevelopment of Oxford Street in London for world-leading shopping and cultural experiences in the heart of the capital to delivering the Commonwealth games cultural legacy in the west midlands. These are the projects that both make communities, and world-leading visitor destinations. As mayors consider these investments in the months ahead, they will engage with communities and local businesses on what is right for their local economies.

Today I am meeting the mayors’ request and announcing the next big step on our path to devolution. Mayors in England will be given the power to raise revenue locally through a new overnight visitor levy, and we are consulting on whether to also grant this power to leaders of foundation strategic authorities. This is a groundbreaking step for the future of devolution, with transformative investment potential for England’s tourism sector and the wider economy.

With this new power, local leaders will be empowered to deliver more long-term, locally led investment in transport, regeneration and cultural assets that can unlock growth and improve the public realm for residents, businesses and visitors. Making places more attractive to visit and to live and work in will attract further investment and improve the visitor experience. I am therefore proposing that constituent authorities within strategic authorities that implement a levy should be eligible for a share of revenue raised, for growth-related spending.

Around the world, countries that have embraced fiscal devolution enjoy far greater local investment, and that investment is in the things that matter most to their communities. They can move faster to seize local opportunities without burdensome central Government oversight, and they can tailor policy and projects to match local economies. That is why we are embarking on this new era of fiscal devolution in England, giving local leaders the power to raise and invest money into projects that raise living standards in their local areas, and improve the experience for tourists.

Mayors have already proven what is possible when they are given the tools to deliver. Using a business rates supplement, the Mayor of London delivered the Elizabeth line, connecting communities right across London, and tourists from Heathrow airport to the heart of the west end. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has used his mayoral precept on council tax to provide far improved bus services, including free travel for 16 to 18-year-olds through the “Our Pass” scheme. It is outcomes like these that drive my commitment to devolution, and why my department has already taken such significant steps to strengthen it, including through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill currently in Parliament. This goes alongside our commitment in the fair funding review 2.0 to improve the business rates retention system to more consistently support mayors in driving growth, as well as existing arrangements for retained business rates in mayoral areas.

Giving local leaders in England the power to introduce a visitor levy in their area will bring them up to speed with their international counterparts in New York, Milan, Paris and Prague as well as in Wales and Scotland. But a visitor levy on overnight stays will not necessarily be the right lever everywhere. This is about providing mayors with another fiscal tool in their toolbox for growth.

Tourism is vital to our economy, and tourism should share in the growth benefits delivered by investment funded by this levy. England is one of the world’s leading tourist destinations, attracting over 130 million visitors each year. Investment in the places that people visit will help to build on England’s reputation as a world-leading destination. I recognise that businesses, and potential visitors, may have concerns about the effects of a new levy, and I take these concerns seriously. I expect mayors to engage constructively with businesses and their communities to hear these concerns throughout the consultation period and beyond. Local leaders will also run a formal local consultation before making use of the new power.

Tomorrow, my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and I will publish a consultation with the detail of the proposed levy, and I urge all those interested to respond to it, to make this a power that works for strategic and local authorities, businesses, local communities and visitors alike.

[HCWS1097]

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to build more social and affordable homes in the South Shields constituency.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

This Government are delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. Our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme will build around 300,000 homes over 10 years, with at least 60% for social rent, backing councils and housing associations to build at scale. The Conservative Government failed to build the homes this country needs. They put homes out of reach for too many British families, allowed homelessness and rough sleeping to double over their 14 years in power and choked off the economic growth that this country needs. This Government will “Build, baby, build” to make the dream of a secure home a reality for everyone in this country.

[Emma Lewell]

After a long campaign from myself and constituents, South Tyneside council has eventually agreed to curtail any new houses in multiple occupation, but we remain saturated with them. My right hon. Friend knows that they are no substitute for good social housing, so does he have any plans to strengthen the licensing regime, to close down badly managed HMOs and to deliver better housing?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her petition, which the Department will respond to in the usual way. Planning authorities have the power to limit the number of HMOs within their locality, and they may withdraw a permitted development right in a specific area using an article 4 direction, but we are keeping this policy under review. I am aware of the concerns that her constituents have expressed to her, and those that others have expressed to their own MPs.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

The Government’s affordable homes programme will contribute 180,000 social homes over the 10-year period, but Shelter has called for 900,000 homes over that period. Could the Secretary of State tell the House how much he expects social providers to provide on top of the 180,000 to be provided by the affordable homes plan?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware, as I am and as Shelter is, that we inherited a housing crisis from the previous Government, who failed to build sufficient numbers of social and affordable homes. The £39 billion that this Government are investing over 10 years will give us the biggest increase we have seen in a generation. We know that in the long term we need to go further than that, but I hope he will agree that this is a very positive first step.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Ministers are claiming that this is a record amount of funding for affordable housing in South Shields and across the rest of England, but why are they consistently refusing to publish a breakdown of the annual funding under their 10-year programme? Is it because the majority of the cash is backloaded into future Parliaments and then exaggerated by inflation? The small-print prospectus says that the homes must be completed by 2039. That is 14 years away. As with Labour’s house building target, is this not just an exercise in hoodwinking people by promising homes that are never going to see the light of day in this Parliament?

[Steve Reed]

It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman mentioned 14 years, because that is the amount of time his party was in government, and it left us with this crisis, rather than building the social homes this country needs. The £39 billion is a record. It will give us the biggest increase in social and affordable homes that this country has seen in a generation. Conservative Front Benchers should be welcoming that, as we do here. Bids to the social and affordable homes programme will open early in the new year, and we will then start to get those homes built so that people who were denied a decent home under the Conservative Government will get one with this Government.

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

2. If he will take steps through the planned homelessness strategy to increase Housing First provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

3. Whether East Sussex county council elections will take place in 2026.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

Our vision on local government reorganisation is clear: we intend to create stronger single-tier local councils that are better equipped to drive economic growth and improve local public services. The Government’s intention remains for all elections scheduled for May 2026 to go ahead, including East Sussex county council.

[James MacCleary]

Cuts to adult social care, collapsing support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, roads full of potholes—the list goes on. The Conservatives have failed East Sussex for too long and should be held to account. Another delay would mean that the current administration will have their term extended to six years. Can the Secretary of State give me and residents across East Sussex a clear answer on when we will know if we will have the chance to vote this May?

[Steve Reed]

First, I recognise the circumstances that the hon. Member describes, which were left behind by the previous Government’s approach to local government funding. As I said earlier, it remains the Government’s intention that those elections will go ahead as scheduled, unless there is a very strong justification otherwise. That is what will happen.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The Secretary of State really needs to do better than that. With local government reform not being in the Labour party manifesto and with the Prime Minister last week refusing to rule out further cancellations of local elections, will the Secretary of State now rule out—not “intention” but rule out—cancelling the next local elections, yes or no?

[Steve Reed]

I am sure the hon. Member will be aware that consultations and engagement are going on with local authorities, but the Government’s intention is that all the elections scheduled for next May will go ahead next May.

[Paul Holmes]

Here we go again: it is the Secretary of State’s “intention”. I remind him that he actually leads his Department and can set the legislation going forward. He needs to accept that the uncertainty created by this Government in relation to local government reorganisation, on sizes and funding, has meant that leaders have scrambled to meet the ever-changing expectations, with no leadership from this Government. Will the Secretary of State put his money where his mouth is and support the Opposition’s amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill tomorrow that would ensure that local elections go ahead and that local leaders have the certainty they need?

[Steve Reed]

Perhaps to the Conservatives the word “consultation” means “diktat issued from the centre”, but to me it means listening carefully to the views of those who will be affected. My intention, and my preference, remains for the elections to go ahead on schedule.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It has been very interesting to hear the back and forth on this question. It is not just about East Sussex, of course; it is about all the councils up for reorganisation. Councils across the country that are due to have elections next year have received letters asking them whether they would consider cancelling them. Will the Minister set out the content of those letters, and will he stand with the Liberal Democrat by backing our amendments, which seek absolute assurances for councils across the country that are putting money into organising those elections?

[Steve Reed]

It does not surprise me that the Conservatives do not understand consultation, but it does surprise me that it is also difficult for the Liberal Democrats. We are engaging with the councils that will be affected. There is precedence for this where elections would result in only a very short term in office. Our intention, and my preference, is for the elections to go ahead. We want to cut the cost of politics, simplify decision making for local people, and deliver stronger economic growth and better public services in every part of the country.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the level of his Department’s funding for Buckinghamshire council.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

9. If he will provide additional support to local councils to help them increase levels of funding for social housing stock.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

We have taken decisive steps to support councils to invest in social housing, including committing to a new 10-year rent settlement and the launch of our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. We are very clear that we want to see councils increase the level of social housing.

[Will Stone]

Will the Secretary of State tell us a bit more about the additional support that the Government can offer local councils, like Swindon, to invest in existing council housing stock, especially in areas like Penhill, with flats that desperately need investment?

[Steve Reed]

The Government are supporting councils to invest in new and existing social housing through the new 10-year rent settlement and our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. A further £14 million is being provided this year to boost council house building skills and capacity. In addition, the warm homes social housing fund will provide £1.2 billion from 2025 to 2028, and we have committed over £1 billion between 2026 and 2030 to support cladding remediation for social landlords, ensuring equal access to building safety funds.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

We are facing a national affordability crisis, but handing out planning permissions like confetti did not bring down prices under the last Government and there is zero reason to expect it will do any better this time. Does the Minister accept that relying on private developers to bring down prices can never work, because they simply stop building whenever prices start to fall?

[Steve Reed]

Respectfully, I wish to correct the hon. Gentleman. The reason we are allocating £39 billion to build more social and affordable housing—the biggest amount in a generation—is precisely to avoid the very scenario to which he refers.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

10. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the floods resilience taskforce on future planning considerations.

--- Later in debate ---

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

17. What steps he is taking to improve the private rented sector for tenants.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

Labour’s Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is the biggest strengthening of tenants’ rights and protections in a generation. From 1 May 2026, 11 million renters in England will benefit from the changes that this Government are making, including an end to section 21 no-fault evictions and preventing unfair rent hikes.

[Tom Rutland]

In my constituency more than 10,000 residents are renting privately. These families, couples, friends and individuals have too often been the victims of excessive rent hikes, no-fault evictions, substandard conditions, and a private rented sector that benefits bad landlords and disadvantages fair landlords and good tenants. Can my right hon. Friend tell me when the measures in the Renters’ Rights Act will come into effect and give security to my constituents who rent privately?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is, I know, an outstanding advocate for his constituents. We will deliver our reforms in three phases. On 1 May next year, we will implement reforms to reshape the tenancy system and remove barriers to renting, including abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions, limiting rent increases to just one a year, and outlawing bidding wars. The implementation dates for Awaab’s law and the decent homes standard are subject to consultation. The 11 million renters in England, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency whom he mentioned, will not forget that the Conservatives and Reform UK voted against these important changes that will benefit renters throughout the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I recognise what the Secretary of State has said about protection for those who rent houses, but desperation is the issue for many people who rent their accommodation, and who find themselves in financial difficulties while living—as we heard earlier from the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock)—in a small, one-bedroom flat. Will the Secretary of State please speak to the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, who I think would be the Minister for Communities, about what the Government here are doing, to ensure that we in Northern Ireland can be a focus of attention?

[Steve Reed]

I recognise what the hon. Gentleman has said. The answer is, of course, to build more social and affordable housing, and to increase the supply of housing more generally. I am, in fact, due to meet the relevant Northern Ireland Minister to discuss these matters, and I look forward to that.

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

19. If he will take steps through the fair funding review 2.0 to ensure that the most deprived lower layer super output areas receive the largest increases in funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

At the general election last year, Labour promised the biggest boost to renters’ rights and protections in a generation. Earlier this month, our historic Renters’ Rights Act 2025 gained Royal Assent, and it will transform private renting for 11 million renters in England. The reforms will be introduced in three phases. The first phase, including abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions, will come into effect on 1 May 2026. Those 11 million renters will never forget that Reform UK and the Conservatives opposed these changes, which will massively benefit renters’ security by allowing them to remain in the homes that they love.

[Emma Lewell]

The hospitality industry in South Shields has really struggled over the last year. There are now deep concerns, which I share, about the imposition of a tourism tax. Can my right hon. Friend explain what assessment he has made of such a tax’s impact on beautiful little coastal tourist towns, like mine?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend tempts me to venture into terrain that is properly within the decision-making jurisdiction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She only has to wait 48 hours to find out what the Chancellor has decided. I suggest that she ask the Chancellor on Wednesday, rather than me this afternoon.

[Mr Speaker]

It will all be on Sky News in between. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and even the Secretary of State himself have said that they will not touch council tax bands in this Parliament. Does he not recognise that a new tax, or levy, revaluation or surcharge, would be a de facto breach of that commitment, and will he therefore rule it out?

[Steve Reed]

Again, much as I would like to comment on matters that are properly for the Budget, the right hon. Gentleman will know that there is a very long-standing convention that prevents me from doing so.

[Sir James Cleverly]

All the Secretary of State had to do was repeat his earlier commitments. He chose not to do so. Labour’s unfair funding review shows that the party is consciously starving well-run councils of money, penalising councils that have kept council tax low and subsidising his political friends in high-spending, wasteful, Labour-run councils. How on earth can the Secretary of State justify this blatant party political decision?

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman will remember his former colleagues being caught on video boasting about how they were taking money away from poorer areas, and giving it to wealthier parts of the country that needed it less. Through the fair funding review, this Government are ensuring that funding is aligned with need and with deprivation. That is the right thing to do.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

T6. This follows on from previous questions about the fair funding review. Luton has seen local services decimated, due to years of Conservative decisions, which stripped consideration of deprivation and need from the funding formula. Under a fairer funding system, Luton is set to gain. What can we expect to see from the formula in places like Luton, which suffered so badly under the Conservative Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

I have residents from Tillicoultry who have not had access to their homes for two years because of RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Their lives have been turned upside down. A year ago, the Scottish Government were given the largest settlement figure in the history of devolution, but they have not helped my residents. Will the Secretary of State inform me what discussions his Department has had with regard to residential RAAC with Scottish Government counterparts?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and I would be happy to write to him with details of our engagement with the Scottish Government.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

T8. A more dynamic and active market unblocking pathways to home ownership and boosting local businesses by up to £1.2 billion—I am sure if someone offered that to the Secretary of State, he would bite their hand off, so why, when those are the benefits of scrapping stamp duty on homes, is he not lobbying the Chancellor to do just that on Wednesday?

[Steve Reed]

The Conservatives foisted Liz Truss on us as Prime Minister. I am very surprised that they have failed to learn from that disaster. Unfunded commitments they have no idea how to pay for cause only trouble to the economy, including to the housing economy.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Cornwall has been campaigning for fair funding for years under successive Tory and Liberal Democrat Governments. We are so pleased with the fair funding formula 2.0. There have been some consultation changes, so can the Secretary of State please confirm that they will not disadvantage Cornwall and that we will get the increased fair funding we deserve?

Planning Reform: Next Phase

Steve Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

The Government are committed to building 1.5 million homes in England this Parliament. This will require house building at levels not seen in over 50 years, but it is essential to restore the dream of home ownership and ensure every family can access a safe, decent, and affordable home.

Meeting this commitment requires a combination of ambition and resolve: ambition in the scale of our reforms, and resolve to see them through. We have already taken significant action—including introducing mandatory and higher housing targets, modernising green belt policy, taking the Planning and Infrastructure Bill through its final phases, and accelerating growth supporting infrastructure. It is now time to press ahead with our next phase of reform—going further on fixing the foundations, transforming the housing market and building homes for those who need them most.

Over the coming weeks, I will set out the actions that comprise this next phase of reform. That starts today, with three pro-growth planning reforms designed to accelerate house building: unleashing development around rail stations, intervening to support growth, and streamlining the statutory consultee system.

Unleashing development around rail stations

First, development of the right quality and density around train stations enables working families to benefit from greater opportunities to live in close proximity to transport hubs—saving them time and money—alongside unlocking more opportunities for jobs, education, and sustainable growth.

That is why—as part of a revised, more rules-based national planning policy framework—the Government intends to provide a “default yes” to suitable planning applications for development within a reasonable walking distance of well-connected stations. This will give greater certainty for house builders, allow development to be approved more quickly, and unlock tens of thousands of new homes during this Parliament.

This new policy will form part of the consultation on a revised NPPF by the end of the year, and will apply to land around both train and tram stations with a sufficient frequency of services. Recognising the significant benefits for jobs and growth that can be unlocked by building around train stations, these rules will extend to land within the green belt—continuing efforts to ensure that a policy designed in the middle of the last century is updated to work today. As with other green-belt land, the golden rules would apply, ensuring higher levels of affordable housing, local infrastructure and green space are provided to local communities.

The new approach will apply equally across all local authorities, so that these benefits are realised across the country.

Intervening to support growth

Secondly, while planning decisions are principally for local authorities, I hold powers that allow me to take over applications and determine them directly—ensuring the right decisions are taken in the local and national interest.

Given the scale of the housing crisis, and the imperative of building the homes we need, I want to use these powers in a more focused and active way. I will require local authorities to notify me where they intend to refuse an application for 150 homes or more—providing me with the opportunity to decide whether to take it over.

This will be enforced through a new consultation direction and a change to legislation, and supported by a revised call-in and recovery policy.

The Government will also commence new provisions that allow called-in applications to be dealt with faster through written representations, rather than requiring an inquiry, where requested by the main parties.

Streamlining statutory consultees

Thirdly, the statutory consultee system requires reform. Statutory consultees play a crucial role in the planning system by providing expert advice on significant environmental, transport, safety, cultural and heritage issues, ensuring informed and balanced decision making. However, a lack of clarity in the requirements for consultation and an overreliance on statutory advice can contribute to delays and inefficiencies in the planning process.

That is why we want to ensure they offer practical, timely advice, focused on what is necessary for development approval. To that end, the Government are today publishing a consultation that proposes the removal of Sport England, the Gardens Trust, and Theatres Trust as statutory consultees in planning applications to help rationalise the planning system, as set out in the written ministerial statement on the “Reform of the Statutory Consultation System” of 10 March. Since the spring, we have also worked with key statutory consultees to develop broader reforms, which aim to cut applications requiring input from bodies such as National Highways and Active Travel England by up to 40%, saving time and effort for developers and councils.

We expect that these reforms to the planning system will reduce delays and uncertainty in the process and remove bottlenecks to economic growth.

Wider acceleration plan

These three changes are necessary but not sufficient if we are to reach our goal of building 1.5 million homes in this Parliament—which is why they mark only the initial steps in our second phase of reform. I will set out more detail on my wider acceleration plan before the end of the year, including publishing a revised version of the NPPF for consultation that establishes a more rules-based planning system, including our policy on unlocking development around rail.

[HCWS1062]