Local Government: Best Value

Steve Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Written Statements

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

I have previously updated the House on this Government doing what it takes to fix the foundations of local government. That includes taking prompt and direct action when councils are failing their best value duty. In that context, today I am updating the House on the steps we are taking in Tower Hamlets.

On 19 January, I informed the House that, having carefully considered the evidence, I was concerned that a year into the statutory intervention, the council was not making sufficient progress and had not understood the severity of its situation or moved beyond planning for improvement into action and impact. I considered that the council was not yet complying with its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, governance, leadership, culture and partnerships, and that the evidence amounted to new failure to comply with the duty in relation to its use of resources. I therefore proposed changes to the current intervention package to accelerate and strengthen the required improvement work, and invited the council and other interested parties to provide representations on the proposals by 2 February.

I received five responses. I also received the envoys’ second report, which I am publishing today. The envoys recognise the progress the council has made in some areas, including engaging more effectively with its partners, the delivery of a staff survey and the development of a more mature continuous improvement plan. They conclude, however, that

“the overall pace of change and the grip of the officer and member leadership to drive improvement is insufficient.”

They describe the council’s leadership as “unnecessarily defensive”, noting that their energy is centered on

“managing the message and writing a plan, rather than on deeper ownership of the council’s issues and driving forward key deliverables".

The envoys welcome the proposed package and believe that it will support a necessary shift in the approach of the council’s leadership.

I have carefully considered the representations, the envoys’ second report and other relevant material. I am satisfied that the council is continuing to fail to comply with its best value duty, which includes additional failure in relation to its use of resources. I am also satisfied that the council is not yet making sufficient progress or demonstrating the required level of leadership grip under the existing model of intervention. I have therefore concluded that it is both necessary and expedient for me to exercise intervention powers under the Local Government Act 1999 as I have proposed, to accelerate and strengthen the improvement work, with some minor amendments, in order to:

Streamline the governance of the intervention,

Increase the transparency and scrutiny of the council’s reporting against its improvement journey, and

Clarify the scope and intended effect of the powers being issued to the envoys.

I have today issued the council with revised directions under section 15(5) and 15(6) of the 1999 Act which in summary require the council to

Continue to implement its continuous improvement plan in a timely manner, including action to continue to address the statutory recommendations and significant weaknesses identified by the council’s external auditor

Continue to achieve improvements in scrutiny, recruitment, transparency, procurement, contract management, internal investigations, officer structure and the scheme of delegation

Co-operate with the envoys to adequately resource and deliver the deep dive project into alleged misconduct at the council

Disband its transformation and assurance board and establish an envoy-led improvement board to oversee its delivery against the ministerial directions

Take appropriate action to ensure compliance with its best value duty in relation to leadership, governance, culture, partnerships and community engagement, continuous improvement and use of resources.

To safeguard the improvement process, the envoys will be able to exercise the following functions of the council, which are to be treated by the envoys as held in reserve. In summary, these functions are associated with the

Governance, scrutiny and transparency of decision making

Strategic financial management, financial governance and scrutiny of financial decision making

Operating model and redesign of local services, and

Recruitment, appointment, structure, performance management and dismissal of senior and statutory officers.

To reflect the need for additional finance expertise and capacity in the envoy team, I will appoint an additional assistant envoy with finance expertise in due course.

For the envoy model to be successful, the council and its leadership need to grip and drive its own improvement at pace, supported, challenged and overseen by the envoys. I want to be clear in my expectation that the council’s political and officer leadership now demonstrate true acceptance and ownership of the issues and embed improvement at every level of the organisation, with clear evidence of impact and progress. I expect the envoys to see a clear change in the current behaviours of the council’s leadership, and I know they will hold them accountable if change is not forthcoming.

Additionally, I would like to highlight to all members of the council that their individual and collective contributions to the council’s improvement journey are crucial to its success. It is disappointing that some members have demonstrated a lack of commitment to improvement thus far and it is my expectation that members from all parties can put aside their personal and political differences to prioritise constructive scrutiny and debate. It is time for all members to put the residents of Tower Hamlets first and contribute wholeheartedly to the council’s improvement journey.

As we approach local and mayoral elections this May, it is of upmost importance that all interested parties work closely together to deliver safe and secure local elections. I would also like to remind the council of the importance of adhering to the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity, particularly its principles of objectivity and even-handedness, especially in times of heightened sensitivity.

The revised directions take effect from today. The envoys will provide their next report on progress in the summer, with further reports as agreed with them. As with other statutory interventions led by my Department, the council will meet the costs of the envoys and provide reasonable amenities and services and administrative support. The envoys’ fees are published on gov.uk. I am assured this provides value for money given the expertise being brought in and the scale of the challenge.

I will review the directions and the envoys’ roles at the appropriate time, to ensure Tower Hamlets has the right support to secure its recovery and to protect the public purse. Subject to clear and sustained evidence of improvement, certain functions may be returned to the council ahead of the expiration of the directions. As set out in my 19 January statement, I remain committed to working in partnership with the London borough of Tower Hamlets to provide whatever support is needed to ensure its compliance with the best value duty.

[HCWS1410]

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Steve Reed Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

I start by paying tribute to the bereaved family members of those who died at Grenfell Tower, as well as the survivors and members of the local community. Nothing we can say in this Chamber can take away what they have been through. The fire at Grenfell Tower, which took the lives of 72 people, was a terrible moment in our country’s history. It was an avoidable tragedy, and it has had lasting consequences for bereaved families, for those who survived and for the local community and far beyond. We must ensure that nothing like it can ever happen again. There is still much to do on justice, on reform and on making homes safe, but today’s Bill is about one clear part of our responsibility: how we remember Grenfell and how we keep our promise over time.

This is a simple Bill with a simple purpose: to ensure that the Grenfell Tower memorial is properly supported today and for the long term. It is for the bereaved, survivors and the community to take their decisions on what the memorial will look like. The Bill is here to fund that important work. Grenfell must not be about party politics. The previous Government promised to support bereaved families and survivors to create a fitting and lasting memorial. This Government are keeping that promise.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the sombre and appropriate way he proposes the Bill. Although the memorial is important and should be tasteful and poignant, the best memorial is the lessons learned so that no other family has to suffer as these victims’ families have suffered, and the lives that will be saved by the changes that are implemented for safety. That is the real memorial those people wish to have.

[Steve Reed]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He describes it absolutely correctly. That is why it will be the local community, survivors, the bereaved and the next of kin who will take decisions about what the memorial will look like.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is correct in everything he has said so far about the memorial. Is he willing to meet me? He has spoken about safety, and many of my residents are concerned about their safety with unsafe cladding. They are also worried about the cost of that. Will he or one of his Ministers meet me to discuss that issue further?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Part of the legacy of Grenfell must be that people are kept safe in their own homes. I would be happy to ensure that she has an appropriate meeting with an appropriate Minister, whether that is me or a colleague.

The points that Members have raised is why the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission was set up in 2019. It is community-led and there to shape a shared vision of the future of the site. After years of engagement, the commission published its report “Remembering Grenfell” in November 2023. It set out clear recommendations for: a permanent memorial at the site of Grenfell Tower; a private site where parts of the tower where people died and where their remains were not identifiable can be laid to rest with respect; and a physical and digital archive alongside a permanent exhibition, so that the story of Grenfell is preserved as a lesson for the future.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for bringing forward this piece of legislation. Can he confirm that the Bill is not only about capital expenditure, but long-term maintenance, to ensure that this is a lasting legacy for the families of Grenfell?

[Steve Reed]

I agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes. This legislation has to be about the long term; that has to be the best way we can pay tribute to those who died and their relatives from that very dark night.

The work of the memorial commission will be guided by those most directly affected. We know that views about the future of the site are deeply personal and not always shared by everyone. The Government have welcomed the commission’s recommendations and will help to carry them out. Design work led by the community is now under way, with a design team appointed after a selection process that involved bereaved families, survivors and the wider local community. The aim is to start construction of the memorial from mid-2027.

This is a very focused Bill. It gives the Government the statutory authority needed to spend public money on the construction and long-term management of a Grenfell Tower memorial. It allows for land to be bought where needed and for works to be carried out on that land. The scope of the Bill is deliberately narrow. It does not set the design of the memorial. It does not determine planning decisions. It does not set governance or ownership arrangements. It makes sure that spending connected to the memorial is carried out properly, in line with the rules for Government spending and with Parliament’s agreement.

The community will continue to work on the design while Parliament considers this Bill so that work stays on course towards a mid-2027 start to construction. The memorial will honour those who lost their lives and those whose lives were forever changed by that tragedy. It will be a place where people can remember, reflect and pay their respects. It does not take away from other work that still needs to be completed. The community has waited far too long for justice to be served. Those responsible must be held to account, and I fully support the Metropolitan police in what is one of the largest and most complex investigations it has ever carried out. We must also reform the system so that the voices of residents cannot be ignored and safety risks can never again simply be brushed aside.

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

The way in which the Secretary of State has spoken so far reflects the way we all felt post-Grenfell. We must ensure that the communities feel they have somewhere to go, somewhere to grieve. Does the Secretary of State agree that the work relating to who was responsible for the tragedy needs to continue, alongside the work on the memorial?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, and of course the police investigation continues. The families have had a long wait for justice, but justice must and will come.

This requires a new culture of transparency and accountability, which the Government remain fully committed to building. I will continue to act on the Grenfell inquiry recommendations to ensure that they lead to real and lasting change across the country. No one should ever go to bed unsure about whether their home is safe, and speeding up remediation remains one of our highest priorities. We are working with developers, freeholders and local authorities to remove unsafe cladding as quickly as possible, and we are now monitoring thousands of buildings to ensure that progress is being made.

This short but important Bill is about how we remember what we learn and what we do as a result. It ensures that national remembrance is properly supported and protected with Parliament’s consent, while also supporting the central role of bereaved families, survivors and the community. It helps to ensure that Grenfell is never forgotten, and that the lessons of that tragic night will make homes safer and the future fairer for everyone. I commend it to the House.

Housing, Communities and Local Government

Steve Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Written Corrections

The following extracts are from the Social Cohesion Action Plan statement on 9 March 2026.

[Steve Reed]

People deserve to feel proud of their neighbourhoods. Pride in Place is central to our plan to make that happen. We have now committed £5.8 billion to almost 300 constituencies and begun to set up neighbourhood boards so that local people can decide for themselves how that money is spent.

[Official Report, 9 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 80.]

Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed):

[Steve Reed]

People deserve to feel proud of their neighbourhoods. Pride in Place is central to our plan to make that happen. We have now committed £5.8 billion to almost 300 areas and begun to set up neighbourhood boards so that local people can decide for themselves how that money is spent.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Muslim people across the country face intensifying, dehumanising and often violent racism every day. Now that we have a definition, I am desperate for the conversation to move towards action. How quickly will the Government now move from definitions towards a clear and funded road map for action, including proper monitoring and accountability?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is right to call for action, and I agree with her point. We will now engage in a review of how best to disseminate the definition, and put it into action so that it makes a difference to people’s lives. There is £5 million of new funding in the report, but Departments across Government will have sources of funding that also can be used to disseminate the new definition.

[Official Report, 9 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 91.]

Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government:

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is right to call for action, and I agree with her point. We will now engage in a review of how best to disseminate the definition, and put it into action so that it makes a difference to people’s lives. There is up to £4 million of new funding in the report, but Departments across Government will have sources of funding that also can be used to disseminate the new definition.

Representation of the People Bill

The following extract is from Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill on 2 March 2026.

Social Cohesion Action Plan

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Written Statements

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

This Government have published “Protecting What Matters”, which has been laid before Parliament as a Command Paper, setting out initial steps to strengthen social cohesion in the UK.

Our first duty as Government is to protect our country. That means fighting back against hostile actors from home and abroad and bringing those of us who are proud of the UK together in pursuit of a safer, stronger, more prosperous country.

As a nation we are proof that people from different backgrounds can live, work and contribute together. But the foundations on which this country has been built, from which our principles of compassion and community were originally drawn, have been rocked.

Economic shocks, austerity, technological change, demographic changes and the rise in extremism have each made people feel as if they have lost a sense of control over their lives, their country and their community. They have reacted not just at the ballot box, but through online echo chambers exacerbated by malevolent algorithms, and in the polarisation of public life leaving us more detached from one another and less resilient.

The threat this presents to our cohesion is not academic. People from different backgrounds getting on together is not a nice-to-have, it is a fundamental precondition to the Britain we have come to expect and one that is needed for Britain to thrive in the 21st century.

This plan is what patriotism means to this Government. And if you say or imply instead that patriotism has anything at all to do with the colour of someone’s skin or their religion, then you are wrong, and we will fight you. We choose to celebrate our national successes and historic achievements, we choose to come together in the best of times and the worst of times, and we choose to take on those who try to divide us.

Our “Protecting What Matters” plan sets out our initial steps:

Confident communities: Recognising that communities thrive when there are strong connections between people from all walks of life, we will invest in the spaces and structures that bring people together and restore a sense of pride in the places we live. Headline policies include:

Committing up to £5.8 billion across almost 300 places, including up to £800 million over 10 years to a further 40 areas where social cohesion is under pressure, as part of the Pride in Place programme.

Investing £500,000 to fund additional community-led, school-linking projects, on top of the local authorities already funded.

Stronger oversight of home schooling to ensure all children receive a suitable education and meaningful opportunities to meet, learn and play with their peers.

Cohesive communities: Cohesive communities not only bring people together but create the conditions for them to integrate and live full lives. This publication clarifies our shared responsibility to manage the pace of change in our communities, support integration and remove divides within communities, encouraging people to come together and foster a shared sense of belonging and understanding. Headline policies include:

Setting clear integration expectations for communities, focused on stronger social connections, shared identity, a shared language and participation in work.

Mandating that citizenship is taught in both primary and secondary schools in order to highlight the relevance of the democratic process and constitutional principles such as the rule of law, as well as raise awareness of threats to democracy

Developing a social cohesion measurement framework to provide clearer, consistent metrics to measure local cohesion, and developing a cross-Government integration strategy underpinned by strong collaboration with local and strategic authorities

Tackling religious hatred through actions including rolling out training across the civil service, further protective security funding for faith communities, and ensuring hate crimes are prosecuted with the full force of the law.

Acting on the recommendations of Sir David Bell’s review into antisemitism in schools and colleges, and on the recommendations of Lord Mann’s review of how the healthcare system deals with antisemitism and other forms of racism.

Adopting a definition of anti-Muslim hostility that focuses on protecting individuals. With levels of anti-Muslim hate crimes at a record high, this non-statutory definition will serve as a tool to improve understanding, reporting, and wider approaches to tackling anti-Muslim hostility. It will support wider efforts to tackle religious hatred and build safer, more cohesive communities, while crucially ensuring everyone’s rights to freedom of expression are protected. Copies of the definition have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

Resilient communities: Citizens have a right to expect that the Government will foster the conditions in which connection, pride, and confidence can flourish. Underpinning all of this is keeping people safe both online and offline, and stopping those who seek to undermine our shared values by radicalising others into committing acts of extremism. Community cohesion is therefore critical to our national security. Headline policies include:

Embedding the Government 2024 extremism definition across Government, working closely with frontline partners such as the police, recognising that a consistent understanding of extremism is essential to tackling it effectively.

Publishing an annual “State of Extremism” report setting out the nature and scale of the current threat facing the UK and Government action to counter its activity and influence.

Strengthening Charity Commission powers to tackle extremist abuse, including the power to shut down charities and suspend trustees.

Strengthening measures to counter extremism in university campuses, including monitoring of non-compliance with the Prevent duty.

Enhancing our specialist disruptions unit to detect, expose and counter extremist influence across the UK.

Expanding the reach of our visa taskforce to stop extremists entering the UK.

Boosting media literacy and ensure greater transparency for online platforms.

I hope the House will support this action plan because its aims and policies are long-term, but we will be unwavering regardless, because we have already made our choice: in place of division, we have chosen unity.

We know that the real Britain has made that choice too. The real Britain is where parents put on after-school clubs and summer fetes to bring their kids together. The real Britain is where towns come out in the pouring rain to support their local football club, with the same passion as they would support their nation in the world cup. The real Britain is where councillors and officers fight for the place they call home, day-in, day-out. The real Britain is out there—it might not be as loud or as brash as those who seek to divide us, but it is far, far greater in number. Real patriotism is about backing them up. Real patriotism is on their side.

[HCWS1389]

Social Cohesion Action Plan

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s action plan for social cohesion entitled, “Protecting What Matters”.

Britain has faced global crises at many moments in our history; we got through them by staying strong and united. Today we navigate new threats to our communities and families. We must stand together once again against those who seek to divide and weaken us. They want to sow division in our streets, our neighbourhoods, our homes and our minds. They feed off deliberate misinformation, hatred and extremism, carried across social media by algorithms, and funded by hostile states and rogue billionaires determined to pull our communities apart.

Online echo chambers, hatred for those with a different point of view and an unwillingness to seek compromise have led to a politics that is more aggressive, polarised and toxic than we have seen before—certainly in our lifetimes. As a nation, we are proof that people from different backgrounds can live, work and contribute together—a multi-ethnic democracy where neighbours look out for each other—but the foundations on which this country was built have been rocked by the rapid change all around us. Economic shocks and austerity halted the once steady improvement in our living standards. Rapid technological change has transformed how we work and live our lives. Intergenerational unfairness, regional inequality, an ageing population, the Tories’ open borders experiment and the disruption caused by their asylum-seeker hotels policy—all of that—has left communities more fearful of the future and more susceptible to siren voices wrongly putting the blame on minority groups.

Today, through the publication of “Protecting What Matters”, which we laid as a Command Paper in both Houses this afternoon, we have set out our steps towards a more confident, cohesive and united kingdom. Patriotism means bringing our country together, never pulling it apart. It is not patriotic to target someone because of their religion or the colour of their skin. We will resist those who peddle that kind of hatred and division. We choose to celebrate our country and all it stands for. We choose to come together in the best of times and the worst of times. We choose to take on those who seek to divide us. That is patriotism.

Our action plan aims to build confident communities that have hope in the future. There is a direct link between declining high streets and a sense that the country is going backwards. People remember high streets from years gone by that were vibrant, buzzy, great places to socialise with friends and family. There is a real sense of anger, as well as of loss, that so many have been left boarded up and run down, covered in graffiti and full of dumped rubbish—bleak symbols of the wasted Tory years.

People deserve to feel proud of their neighbourhoods. Pride in Place is central to our plan to make that happen. We have now committed £5.8 billion to almost 300 constituencies and begun to set up neighbourhood boards so that local people can decide for themselves how that money is spent. Fair funding for councils means that funding now follows deprivation for the first time in over a decade. We are offering grassroots organisations £5 million through the common ground fund to tackle division in communities.

We will focus, too, on protecting young people from those who want to warp their minds with hatred and introduce more effective regulation of home education, with the first ever register of children not in school, stronger oversight where children may be at risk and the piloting of a new approach where new safety checks are carried out before a child can be taken out of mainstream schooling.

It is important that children grow up understanding the diversity of our nation, so we are investing £500,000 to link schools serving different communities in order to ensure that they know and understand each other better. We will establish a social cohesion measurement framework so that we can identify risks early and act quickly. We will set expectations on integration for new arrivals and the communities who will receive them, with a focus on learning English so that people have a shared language, can participate in the local community and have respect for British values, our democracy and our way of life. We will end the Tory asylum hotels policy and shape an immigration system that is fair and transparent, and that works better for all communities.

We will not allow hatred to distort the lives and life chances of those who are targeted. Right now, Muslim communities are facing shocking levels of abuse. Anti-Muslim hate crimes are at record levels and now make up almost half of all religious hate crimes—way out of proportion to the size of our Muslim population. Mosques, schools and businesses have been attacked. Women have been harassed. Families are living in fear.

We have a duty to act, but we cannot tackle a problem if we cannot describe it, so today we are adopting a non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility. This gives a clear explanation of unacceptable prejudice, discrimination and hatred targeting Muslims, so that we can take action to stop it. The definition safeguards our fundamental right to freedom of speech—about religion in general or any religion in particular—and ensures that concerns raised in the public interest are protected.

I thank the members of the independent working group chaired by Dominic Grieve, who have provided advice to me on this matter. They have been targets for abuse because they carried out that work. That is utterly unacceptable. I am grateful for their patience and their wisdom. We will now work with groups across society to consider how the definition can be used most effectively and what comes next in disseminating it. We have deposited a copy of the definition in the Library of each House.

We also remain absolutely committed to stamping out antisemitism. We have witnessed murderous antisemitic terrorist attacks both here in the UK and abroad. Sickeningly, those have led to spikes in antisemitic abuse. Since coming to power, the Government have taken decisive steps to combat antisemitism, with record funding for security at synagogues and schools, millions of pounds to tackle antisemitism in schools and universities, and new laws to stop abusive protests outside places of worship.

Today we are going even further to tackle antisemitism in schools and colleges and in the healthcare system and, crucially, clamping down hard on the extremism that so often targets Jews first of all. Work is under way across Government as we continue to root out antisemitic hatred from every part of British life. We also hear concerns about hatred and discrimination in the workplace. We are building on protections in our landmark Employment Rights Act 2025, rolling out training across the civil service and working with major employers such as the NHS. This will include training to prevent and respond to religious hatred across the entire workforce.

Confronting extremism in all its forms requires more resilient communities. We will implement the anti-extremism policies that the previous Government announced but never brought into force, embedding the 2024 extremism definition, producing an annual state of extremism report and improving our ability to monitor and stop extremist influence online and offline. We will introduce a state threats designation power to disrupt hostile state and proxy organisations. We will also strengthen the Charity Commission’s powers to tackle extremist abuse and ban visas for extremists and hate preachers.

Our universities should always be beacons of free speech, where students feel safe to learn, to disagree and to explore how they see the world, but in recent years this has been undermined and we will not tolerate that. We are introducing new measures to tackle the rise of extremism on our college and university campuses, particularly since the 7 October attacks, which include strengthening the monitoring of extremism on campuses, improving oversight of compliance with the Prevent duty and taking more robust enforcement action where it is needed.

We will also protect people from hate content online. The Government will not stand by as rogue platforms push divisive and aggressive hatred on social media. We are looking at how we can make platforms give their users more control over the algorithms that determine what they see, and we will make full use of the powers in the Online Safety Act 2023.

We have all grown up in a United Kingdom that is, by global standards, remarkably cohesive. That cohesion underpins our economic strength, our democratic freedom and our national security. It is a fundamental part of the Britain we love. We have made our choice. In place of division, we choose unity, and we know that the people of Britain have made the same choice. The division and hate spewed by a small minority will never reflect our country.

The real Britain is where parents put on after-school clubs and summer fêtes to bring their kids together, where towns come out in the pouring rain to support their local football club with the same passion as they would support their country’s team in the world cup, and where neighbours hold street parties and set up mutual aid groups to look out for each other during covid. This is a Britain to be proud of, and I commend this plan to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. However, I had no prior notice that he would overrun the 10 minutes that he was allocated for his statement by more than two minutes. He has taken 12 minutes, so the shadow Front Bencher will get their time extended to six minutes. I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, although the Government leaked it on Friday and his Department briefed it to the press yesterday. Parliament should not learn the details of Government policy through newspaper reports. This House deserves transparency.

There are some measures in this strategy that we welcome. Efforts to tackle extremism in charities and universities are important and necessary, and we welcome them, but the strategy lacks ambition and action to deliver tangible change. The Secretary of State spoke for two minutes over his allocated time, which is ironic because there is absolutely nothing new in the measures that the Government are announcing this evening.

The strategy claims that the Government intend to embed the anti-extremism principles adopted by the previous Conservative Government in 2024, but if that is the case, why have this Government reversed the position on naming extremist organisations? We now have the ridiculous situation where the Government claim they have a policy of non-engagement with extremists but refuse to say who that policy applies to. Last month, we saw this confusion laid bare when the Home Office was asked whether it engaged with the Muslim Council of Britain. Two Ministers gave contradictory answers. When asked whether the MCB had given written evidence to the Macdonald review into hate crime, the Minister for Policing and Crime, the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), stated:

“The Government’s policy of non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain has not changed.”

However, just two days later, when asked whether the Muslim Council of Britain was on the list of organisations subject to that policy, the Minister for Security, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), replied:

“The Home Office does not comment on specific groups.”

So which is it?

This lack of transparency also applies to the review itself. Will the Minister now publish the full report provided to him by the working group? Will he publish a list of every external organisation that the working group met, and every organisation his Department has subsequently consulted on that report? Will he confirm whether organisations deemed extremist or subject to the Government’s policy of non-engagement were permitted to submit evidence? So far, this review appears to have been conducted largely in secret. The Government even had to be dragged kicking and screaming into publishing an email address so that evidence could be submitted.

The proposed definition still raises serious questions. Jonathan Hall KC, the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has warned that any definition should include clear examples of free speech that are not considered anti-Muslim hatred. He says it is important that people can still openly discuss difficult but significant topics such as migration and Islamism. The definition risks undermining free speech within the law, it risks hindering legitimate criticism of Islamism and it risks creating a back-door blasphemy law.

The strategy also claims that the Government want to promote the English language, but they will not say whether they support the guidance issued to councils in 2013 by the then Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, which advised against routine translation into foreign languages. We should be investing in English language training, not endless translation. Translation undermines integration, it wastes taxpayers’ money and it ultimately harms equality. There is no legal duty on councils to translate documents into foreign languages, yet too often officials gold-plate the Equality Act 2010 and do so anyway.

Meanwhile, around 1 million adults in this country cannot speak English properly. This fundamentally limits their life chances and perpetuates separate communities. If the Government truly believed in equality, they would not turn a blind eye to practices such as family voting, where husbands effectively take the votes off their wives. Neither would they tolerate the misogyny and segregation that occur when men prevent women from learning English—[Interruption.] Labour Members might want to listen to this, because I am about to talk about antisemitism and I know that they have had a problem with that.

On the question of antisemitism, will the Government challenge anti-Israel boycotts and divestment campaigns in local government, as we have seen recently in Bristol, advocated by a party in this House? Such campaigns fuel hostility towards Jewish people and contribute to the rise in antisemitism. Local procurement boycotts of Israel are supposed to be unlawful, yet Ministers do nothing to enforce the law. They will not even compile a list of the councils pursuing such boycotts.

Added to these fears, separatism is on the rise in our country, as the Leader of the Opposition rightly set out in her speech last week. She said that

“for too long, Britain has been complacent about our culture and too tolerant of those weaponising identity politics for their own gain…Britain is a multiracial country, we must not be a multicultural one.”

[Interruption.] That was in the Secretary of State’s statement, by the way. We must reject the absurd idea that culture is something imported from somewhere else. For integration to work, people must know into what they are integrating. That means a culture that is confident, that is strong and that believes in itself. That is what this Government still seem unable to understand and unwilling to defend.

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—I think—for his comments. The reason this is the first social cohesion strategy that any Government have published for many years is that the Conservatives did not bother when they were in government. No, there has not been proactive engagement with the MCB in the work carried out by the Government or the taskforce. The previous Government did not publish a social cohesion strategy, but they did sow division in our communities. Their asylum seeker hotel policy, which we are having to clean up, caused all sorts of problems all over the country. They actively stripped money out of poorer communities and then boasted about it, leaving high streets to fall into decline and the people living in those communities feeling that the country was going backwards and was offering them nothing.

On the definition, there is absolutely no question of blasphemy laws by the back door. We will not do what the Conservatives did and stand by and simply watch while Muslim communities face targeted abuse in ways that any decent country would consider to be absolutely intolerable. As for English language teaching, they cut funding for it by 60%, and then have the cheek to stand there and say there is not enough of it going on. When I was a student, I volunteered to teach English to refugees. I suggest the hon. Gentleman does the same thing, because it is enriching for the volunteer and beneficial for the person learning English. Speaking the same language is fundamental to social cohesion.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I welcome the narrative he has spoken about, because I think it will give a lot of strength to people in my constituency. Can I ask him a practical question, though? I hear a lot from people with Muslim-sounding names that when they apply for jobs—research also shows this—they are three times less likely to get a positive response than someone with a western-sounding name, even if they have the same CV and qualifications. Of course I will be speaking about the narrative that he has talked about from the Dispatch Box, which will be welcome in my constituency, but what does he want me to say to the young Muslim and black men on the Kilburn estate in my constituency who are rejected when they are looking for jobs because of how their names sound?

[Steve Reed]

Many Members across the House will recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes, which will have been communicated to us by our own constituents. There are laws against outright discrimination, and those must be properly enforced, but we hope the definition will help the vast majority of employers—people of goodwill—who may not understand the nature of hostility towards Muslims or people who appear or sound like they are Muslim to see how employers contribute to that hostility. The intention of the definition is to enable those individuals and employers to better understand the circumstances, so that Muslim people are given the same opportunities and chances in life as anybody else.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Liberal Democrats are pleased to see the Government present this social cohesion strategy, partly because we have consistently called for its publication without further delay—it was promised last year. This should not be a political matter. We all witnessed the scenes during the 2024 riots. To suggest that a community cohesion strategy is unnecessary is to be blind to the very real challenges facing our country—challenges that have regrettably been inflamed by certain politicians who should know better. Given that almost 140,000 hate-related offences have been recorded in the year to March 2025, it is clear that action is definitely needed at a national level.

To support community cohesion, we must first build community itself and the kind of community that comes from access to shared spaces—youth clubs, green spaces and the everyday places where, regardless of background, we come to recognise how much we have in common with each other. Will the Secretary of State outline how faith communities will be properly supported and involved in proactively preventing division?

The Government also previously committed to promoting local faith covenants as a way of strengthening partnerships between councils and faith groups. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the new strategy will provide practical support for local authorities to implement those covenants, especially given that many councils are on the brink financially?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Member for her comments and her party’s welcome of the strategy. It is important that we give it as much backing as possible because there is an awful lot to fix in what the previous Government left behind.

On help to build communities, our Pride in Place funding makes available £5.8 billion across nearly 300 constituencies. The intention is that the communities themselves will take the decisions about how that money is spent. I have been to visit some of those communities already. Frequently, there is multi-faith engagement in taking those decisions on the neighbourhood boards. That brings groups together and gives them a role, together with other community organisations, in taking decisions about how they can build cohesion and, indeed, community in their localities.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

The reality is that the abhorrent rise in inflammatory rhetoric from national figures, including in this place, has normalised Islamophobia to the extent that it is now open season on British Muslims. This scapegoating feeds a hostile environment, and recent violent attacks on British Muslims show the real-world consequences. Let us be clear in this House: this is not just an attack on British Muslim communities; it is a direct challenge to the British values of fairness, respect and the rule of law. We must stand united in saying that British Muslim communities deserve safety, dignity and the freedom to exist without fear, like every other community. Can the Minister set out how the strategy will directly address this open season of hatred against British Muslims?

[Steve Reed]

I of course recognise what my hon. Friend says. We have a situation where over 40% of all recorded religious hate crimes target British Muslims. That is wildly out of proportion with the number of Muslims in our country. The reason we are publishing this strategy today, and the reason that it includes the anti-Muslim hostility definition, is so that we can better tackle the problem by describing it and then reviewing how we disseminate it with partners, institutions and groups across the country to give Muslims access to the freedom and rights they deserve, just as much as anybody else in this country.

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

Like a number of other right hon. and hon. Members, I come from an immigrant family and grew up in a household where a foreign language was primarily spoken by my grandparents, my father was bilingual and I was monolingual with the language of the country that my family had come into. The key to it all working is a willingness to integrate. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there are measures in this overall plan, which seems to have much to commend it, that are designed to prevent separatism and ghettoisation in society? Where that exists, a community becomes impossible to navigate in the way that we would all want it to be navigated.

[Steve Reed]

There is an awful lot in the report, and I cannot go through all of it because I will further annoy Madam Deputy Speaker by using up too much time, but if I might point to one area, we are allocating £500,000 to link together schools from different communities so that children growing up, perhaps with their friends from the same community, can get to know and better understand children from other backgrounds as well, and to understand that they live in and are part of a thriving, diverse community.

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

I recently attended an anti-hate crime seminar organised by the Rochdale Council of Mosques. It struck me that it was clear that innocent Muslim men, women and children are subjected to vile Islamophobia in the street and blamed for terrorist outrages, just as Jews are subjected to vile antisemitism and blamed for the actions of Israel. I welcome today’s new definition of anti-Muslim hostility, which is needed every bit as much as that existing definition of antisemitism. I note that the definition of antisemitism has not had a chilling effect on free speech either.

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his points, which are well made. It is important that, even going beyond this strategy, our existing laws against abuse and hate crime are properly enforced up and down the country, but we expect and hope that the definition will help organisations and individuals to better understand what causes anti-Muslim hostility and therefore how we can prevent it from happening.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

All forms of abuse are appalling. All forms of targeted abuse—be they against Muslim, Jewish or black communities—are even more appalling. I would be interested to know why the word “Islamophobia” does not appear in the statement, when that is clearly an enormous problem in our society. I am unclear about whether the Secretary of State took any advice from the Muslim Council of Britain, which has often been very helpful in explaining to the wider community the consequences of Islamophobia. Does he not think that there must be much greater concentration on the role of the racist far right in our society, which, on social media and elsewhere, continually incites—subliminally and overtly—violence against identifiable minorities all over the country, with devastating consequences for the security, safety and wellbeing of many people on our streets?

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct: it is important that we tackle all forms of abuse and discrimination, no matter which minority group they target. That is why, in the case of the Muslim population, we have included the anti-Muslim hostility definition as part of our report. The language for that came from the working group itself, which of course included many senior and well-respected figures from the Muslim community.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

My constituents tell me about the increased level of hate crime against Muslims. I hear stories of women being abused or having their hijabs pulled off. That is a direct result not just of most of the coverage in our right-wing media, but of politicians in this place, some of whom have held the highest offices in the land, including the Leader of the Opposition. They feed into this narrative and cause anti-Muslim sentiment. What more will we do to counter the level of racism and anti-Muslim sentiment?

[Steve Reed]

I recognise well and with deep sorrow the situation that my hon. Friend describes. It is outrageous that over 40% of all recorded religious hate crime targets Muslims—that is way out of line with the Muslim proportion of our population. We have published the report, the entire plan and the definition to encourage and support organisations in tackling the forms of discrimination that blight the lives of British Muslims up and down the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his positive statement, in which he described the society we all wish to live in. It is the society that I wish to live in, too. As he will know, I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which speaks up for those of the Christian faith, those of other faiths and, indeed, those of no faith. Respect is core to realising that we can all live together. In Northern Ireland, the past 34 years have shown that Protestant and Roman Catholic can live together. We have seen that in my constituency of Strangford. In Ards, the local mosque is side by side with the Presbyterian church, and there are no problems and no attacks—nothing happens. Christian Syrian refugees came to Ards for sanctuary under the refugee allocation of the last Conservative Government. Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to see what has been done in Northern Ireland, as he considers the pluralistic society that he desires? Will he ensure that all religious beliefs are treated and respected equally?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He is right: there will be much to learn from the experience of Northern Ireland in bringing back together disparate communities, particularly in the period since the troubles came to an end with the Good Friday agreement. I will ask my Department to reach out and make sure that we take those lessons on board.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State and his Ministers; the previous Minister, Lord Khan, who started the process; and the working group for all their hard work. The Centre for Media Monitoring launched its landmark “The State of British Media 2025: Reporting on Muslims and Islam” report today. It is the largest study of its kind ever conducted in the UK, analysing more than 40,000 articles across 30 outlets. It finds that nearly 50% of all UK media coverage about Muslims contained measurable bias, and 70% associated Muslims or Islam with negative behaviours or themes. This is not a fringe problem; it is systemic. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the definition of anti-Muslim hostility will be taken seriously by Ofcom, so that media outlets that spread conspiracy, target Muslim communities and actively undermine the social cohesion of this country are held to account?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support today and for her advice on these issues over many years. I recognise what she says: the vast majority of coverage of Muslims in the media is negative and completely misrepresents the experience and contribution of Muslim communities. Yes, it is important that we engage with Ofcom, broadcasters and indeed other public institutions to ensure that they take on board the definition and work to improve their performance.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The Secretary of State said:

“There is a direct link between declining high streets and a sense that the country is going backwards.”

I agree with those sentiments. Will he therefore consider encouraging the Chancellor to reduce taxation on high street businesses to support job creation and help them to thrive?

[Steve Reed]

We already have the fastest growing G7 economy in Europe thanks to the Chancellor, so I do not think she needs the hon. Gentleman’s advice.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

In times of increasing division, there is no place for divisive rhetoric, and the Government clearly have a role to play in supporting cohesion. The Tories clearly failed in that respect; we have heard again of their inability to embrace the United Kingdom of today. I welcome the definition of anti-Muslim hostility. Racism against Muslims, Jews and people of all backgrounds, including Sikhs, is sadly increasing and needs to be tackled. Many hate attacks on Sikhs are recorded as Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred, and it is important that that data is disaggregated. However, the United Kingdom is a very diverse country, so can the Secretary of State outline how his proposals will support people of all backgrounds, including in less diverse communities such as rural and coastal communities and smaller towns?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the response of the official Opposition was disappointing, because it implied that they have learned nothing since their historic election defeat a year and a half ago. Pride in Place—£5.8 billion distributed to almost 300 constituencies—will give some of the most held-back communities in the land up to £20 million each, and local people will choose how that money is spent. Whatever the demographic make-up of individual communities—be they more or less diverse—that will bring local people together to make decisions for themselves. The restoration of power to communities will help to build resilience within them, for whatever challenges we may face.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Does the Secretary of State believe that echoing Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech strengthens community cohesion?

[Steve Reed]

That did not happen.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

The publication of the definition of anti-Muslim hostility has been almost a decade in the making. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Faith for their determination to define the hate and prejudices that Muslims face. As the Secretary of State knows, the definition must command the confidence of the Muslim communities that it is meant to support, so will he commit to an extensive outreach programme with a diverse range of Muslim community groups to ensure that the definition has the necessary community buy-in to begin tackling the deep-rooted hatred faced by Muslims in Great Britain?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his years of leadership and advocacy on this issue. To have his support makes me even more proud that we are bringing forward the report and the definition today. Of course, it is critical that we carry out the work to ensure that the definition is disseminated widely, through local government, schools, universities, the NHS and broadcasters—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) implied—so that it can have the biggest impact possible in protecting Muslims from abuse and discrimination.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

I welcome that the strategy acknowledges that antisemitism, an increasingly concerning issue, is being normalised in many corners of society. Indeed, 2025 saw the second highest annual total ever recorded for anti-Jewish hate incidents, at 3,700. What action is the Secretary of State taking to protect the Jewish community from those who may see Israel’s involvement in Iran as an excuse to attack British Jews?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to a danger and threat that we all recognise, and much in the action plan will cover the issues he is talking about. For one thing, we are reviewing the visa watch list to ensure that extremists and hate preachers are not given visas to enter our country. Secondly, the Charity Commission will get new powers to close down charities that are promoting division, including antisemitism.

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the social cohesion strategy as we seek to unite our communities. In Altrincham and Sale West, we are fortunate enough to have some fantastic interfaith groups and organisations, and I give a special mention to “The Rabbi and The Imam” project. With antisemitism and Islamophobia on the rise, the project brings together local Muslim and local Jewish leaders to talk about their faiths, focusing on shared humanity, understanding and unity, including going into local schools. Is that exactly the kind of initiative that the Government and society need to get behind to counter extremism and hatred?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent example from his constituency; interfaith projects such as that will make the difference. Communities will be supported to take action to tackle the division that is trying to be forced on us, and on all of them, by hostile actors who want to weaken our communities and thereby weaken our country.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

In 1979 my father took me to Newton Stewart cinema to see “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”, and I recall my father being more upset by a spoof travel documentary that preceded the main film, because there was swearing in it, than he was about the supposed slights to Christianity. It was an early lesson to me that no one in this country, in a modern democracy, has the right not to be insulted or offended, so why are we in this place, the cockpit of democracy, discussing a blasphemy law by the back door?

[Steve Reed]

I am sorry that the hon. Member has chosen to misrepresent the definition. It is intended to protect Muslims from abuse that we know is shrinking people’s lives and life opportunities. One would hope that everyone in this House would get behind actions intended to give Muslim people the same chances as anyone else in our country.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the community cohesion strategy, which the Labour group of Hope not Hate, which I chair, has been calling for. The Secretary of State will know that the other side of the coin when building community cohesion is the counter-extremism work to stop people being radicalised in the first place, whether that is people on the far right with anti-Muslim hatred, or people on the far left with anti-Jewish hatred. What action will be taken to address those who perpetrate such myths about people, whether they be Muslim, Sikh, Hindu or Jew, and what resources might come from the Department to achieve that?

[Steve Reed]

The Government are intending to bring into force and fully utilise the powers available in the Online Safety Act 2023. By doing that, we think we can tackle some of the worst online sources of disinformation and hatred that are being spread around to sow division in our communities.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Muslim people across the country face intensifying, dehumanising and often violent racism every day. Now that we have a definition, I am desperate for the conversation to move towards action. How quickly will the Government now move from definitions towards a clear and funded road map for action, including proper monitoring and accountability?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is right to call for action, and I agree with her point. We will now engage in a review of how best to disseminate the definition, and put it into action so that it makes a difference to people’s lives. There is £5 million of new funding in the report, but Departments across Government will have sources of funding that also can be used to disseminate the new definition. We are committed to appointing an anti-Muslim hostility tsar, who can advise and be a critical friend to the Government in doing the work that we need to do. We will engage widely across local government, schools, universities, broadcasters, the NHS and others to agree on how we can best utilise the definition in order to support the Muslim community.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I have long been arguing that we need an overhaul of charity regulation to tackle rogue operators who are exploiting charity status to peddle extremism and hate, so I am thrilled that the Government have listened and are starting that today with new powers for the Charity Commission—I look forward to seeing the detail. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Charity Commission will have a range of sanctions to impose where needed, and that there will be clear communication with HMRC to ensure that sanctioned and shutdown charities can no longer abuse public money through Gift Aid?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Charity Commission will be getting new powers so that it can close down those organisations that purport to have charitable objectives but are really cover for promoting hatred and division. With the changes we are announcing today, that will no longer be allowed to continue.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

We all agree that there is no place in our society for hatred or discrimination against anybody, anywhere. Islamophobic incidents in the UK are at record levels; there are thousands of incidents each year, with many more likely to be unreported. Abuse is increasingly normalised and politicised through media, TV and online, at institutional as well as street level. Police data shows serious undercounting, making specialist monitoring essential. Islamophobia in the UK is not limited to fringe behaviour, and data shows a pattern of escalating hostility and normalisation in public discourse, including in this place and the other place. How will this definition be integrated into the Nolan principles, and what sanctions will apply to Members of this House and Members of the other place?

[Steve Reed]

It is for the House authorities to determine what happens with Members of this House, but the hon. Member is right to point to the huge concern that we should all share about the unacceptable level of hostility and abuse directed at Muslims. It is under-reported, in all likelihood, because we know that not all instances of such crime are reported.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Steve Witherden—[Interruption.] I mean Dr Scott Arthur.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we are easily confused.

Yesterday I attended Open Heavens church in Wester Hailes, and a man told me how he had faced open racism from his colleagues and had been forced to resign, take his employer to court, and win his tribunal—a fantastic achievement. It was a shameful episode, but what made it worse was that he was an NHS consultant, and it was the NHS that he took to court. The point he made to me on the floor of the church was that too often society views hate as a series of events, rather than a culture. Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he has presented today will result in a change of culture, rather than simply addressing events? How will we measure that as we proceed through the remainder of this Parliament?

[Steve Reed]

We will measure the outcome of the report through new measures as part of the social cohesion framework that is described in more detail in the action plan, and we will be engaging directly with major employers, including the national health service, to ensure that they are taking every possible action to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, whichever groups might be targeted.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I thank the Secretary of State for introducing this definition of anti-Muslim hostility. Many facets contribute to causing division in society, not least the cost of living. When we saw the march in London, a large number of the audience there were racist, but a large majority of the people attending were not racist, they were just concerned about the cost of living. How does the Secretary of State see this definition incorporated, in terms of holding our far-right media and social media platforms to account, and how do we balance that with addressing the cost of living crisis?

[Steve Reed]

Part of the action that the Government are taking is the allocation of £5.8 billion to some of the most held-back communities in the country—over 300 constituencies will benefit from that funding. It will be local communities, through neighbourhood boards, who will decide for themselves how that money will be spent, directly addressing poverty but also directly addressing the lack of power that many of those communities feel. That will deliver the kind of change that the hon. Gentleman is describing and that we all want to see.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Rachel Taylor to ask the final question.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

As part of my work on the Women and Equalities Committee, I have heard at first hand from victims of horrific hate crimes, who have been targeted just because of how they looked and who they were. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this Labour Government will finally deliver the funding, resources and a call to action to empower communities like mine in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, to bring people together and to combat those seeking to create division and hatred across this country?

[Steve Reed]

There is much in this report, and I hope that Members will take the opportunity to read it in full, including the definition and the many other proposals. This country is strongest when it is united, and the intention of this report is to bring this country back together in the face of those who have tried to pull our communities apart.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8 January 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme), as varied by the Order of 17 March 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 9.00pm at today’s sitting.

(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 2, 5, 16, 17, 19, 21, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 102, 105, 106, 1, 3, 4, 6 to 15, 18, 20, 22 to 36, 39, 40, 43, 45 to 101, 103, 104, and 107 to 121.

Subsequent stages

(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(4) Proceedings on the first of any further Messages from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

(5) Proceedings on any subsequent Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Gregor Poynton.)

Question agreed to.

Representation of the People Bill

Steve Reed Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

There is a lot of interest from Members across the House in this Bill, and that is no surprise, because we are all proud of our British democracy. Our democracy is a fundamental part of who we are as a country. The long history of this House has been punctuated by reforms that have strengthened it. It is precisely because of that evolution of our elections and Parliament that in a world where too many beacons of democracy have dimmed, ours still shines brightly.

As parliamentarians, we are more than caretakers of democracy; we are here to actively advance it and to protect it from threats. When hostile actors at home and abroad seek to sow division, using every means possible to undermine our elections, trying to destabilise the very foundations of our freedom and our democratic institutions, then we must act. That is why we are debating the Representation of the People Bill: to secure our elections against those who threaten them; to protect those who participate; to ensure our democracy remains open and accessible to legitimate voters; and to strengthen and preserve our democracy for the next generation.

At the 2024 general election, Labour’s election manifesto committed to strengthening our democracy and upholding the integrity of elections. We campaigned on encouraging participation in our democracy, giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote and improving voter registration, while fulfilling our pledge to strengthen protections against foreign interference, as well as to introduce rules around donations.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I have come straight to Parliament from Kingsbury school in my constituency, where the year 11 pupils were saying how much they are looking forward to being given the right to vote, so may I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing that forward in the Bill?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support for these measures? They were in the Labour election manifesto on which we both stood, and it is a great pleasure now to start to implement them.

We committed to these measures because we understand that in a democracy, people must be in control of their lives and their own country. However, because we live in a time of growing instability, conflict and change, we can best protect our democracy by making it more robust and more accountable.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

There are some very welcome measures in the Bill. I intend to table an amendment to stop oil and gas giants making donations, given the pernicious role that they play in undermining the action that we need to take on climate change. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the amendment and the need to clean up our politics from abuse by fossil fuel giants?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

We are tightening the rules on donations so that the system can be much more robust and has much greater integrity than is currently the case.

My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), published our strategy for modern and secure elections in July 2025. The strategy promised to restore faith in our democracy. It set out new tasks of future-proofing our democracy, keeping our elections safe, upholding our values and protecting against foreign interference. We promised to expand the democratic rights of young people and set a path towards automated voter registration.

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

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. Does the Secretary of State recognise that when young carers and young adult carers get to the age of 16, they have potentially already been caring for a loved one for over a decade? They are emotionally intelligent and educated enough, and have enough life experience, to deserve the democratic right to vote.

[Steve Reed]

That is a very appropriate intervention. My hon. Friend makes his point very well and I agree with what he has to say.

We will establish new safeguards on digital campaigning and allow digital voter identification. We will strengthen our elections against foreign interference, and we will protect those who put their name forward to stand in elections from harassment and intimidation. Today, this Government are making good on that commitment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The UN’s definition of an adult is somebody who is 18 years of age. Restrictions on social media are being introduced to ensure that those aged 16 and above will be protected. I genuinely and sincerely ask the Minister, when it comes to reducing the voting age to 16, have the Government considered the UN’s definition and the way that people use social media, which might mean that they are taken advantage of or abused on social media?

[Steve Reed]

Yes, we have absolutely considered that and we will continue to keep under review the important matter that the hon. Gentleman raises.

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

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the alarm that people feel about the idea of cryptocurrency getting into our democracy? Is there a ban on it in the Bill? If not, why not?

[Steve Reed]

As always, my right hon. Friend raises an important point. There are huge concerns about cryptocurrency, not least because we cannot track where the funding has come from. We have charged Sir Philip Rycroft with conducting a review into these matters. His recommendations will be incorporated into the Bill as it progresses through the House, so that we can tackle the matter properly.

The reason the Bill extends the vote to younger people, aged 16 and 17 years old, is simple: it is because young people are our nation’s future. The voting age has stood at 18 since it was lowered from 21 by the Representation of the People Act 1969. More recently, the Welsh Government lowered the voting age to 16 for Senedd elections in 2020 and for local elections in Wales in 2021. The Scottish Government lowered the voting age to 16 for the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, and subsequently for all devolved elections in Scotland. The change in the Bill will bring consistency to the voting age for all statutory elections across the United Kingdom.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the same arguments that were made over 100 years ago about women not being fit enough to vote are now being repeated for 16-year-olds? The success that ultimately came from including women in the franchise should give us confidence that this is the right thing to do.

[Steve Reed]

I certainly share the hon. Lady’s confidence that this is the right thing to do, and I thank her for making that point.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Why, if the Secretary of State is allowing 16-year-olds to vote, is he not allowing them to stand for Parliament? If somebody can vote for the lawmaker, they can be a lawmaker. That is the logical incoherence in his argument.

[Steve Reed]

To correct the hon. Gentleman, it is not me, but the House, that would be allowing 16-year-olds to vote. If people can serve in the armed forces, they should have the right to help to choose their own country’s Government, who decide on matters of war and peace. We have just heard from the Prime Minister what an outstanding job our armed forces are doing.

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

The Secretary of State will remember that when we both served on Lambeth council, I had the absolute honour of introducing the youth mayor elections. Up and down the country, there are 16-year-olds in public office, including many young people allocating funds in some cases in excess of £25,000 to other community groups. Young people have the capacity and knowledge, and they are willing to serve if we give them the opportunity. Does he agree?

[Steve Reed]

I always agree with my hon. Friend, and not just because we are friends. I remember her introducing the youth mayor scheme in Lambeth; it was a huge success and showed how keen young people were to be involved in decisions that affect them, as well as their ability to contribute to discussions and debates in a very meaningful way.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

rose—

[Steve Reed]

I will take one more intervention.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on extending the franchise. Has he thought about the 4 million people who live in this country and do not have access to voting? There are 22,000 of those people in Cambridge. This is a complicated issue, but has he given it any consideration? No taxation without representation is a powerful principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend will hear about that further along in my speech.

I need to make progress, or you will be angry with me, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are looking at automated voter registration so that about 7 million or 8 million people in this country who are entitled to vote but do not have the vote can do so. We need to ensure that as many people as possible who are entitled to the vote can exercise it.

The Bill allows prospective voters to register in preparation before they turn 16. As we extend the franchise in this way, we will focus on data protection. Information can be shared only in very limited circumstances, and we are bringing forward a new offence of information being wrongly disclosed.

To ensure that all our eligible young people can participate, we are introducing a new duty on local authorities in Great Britain and health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland to support looked-after children with their new right to vote. Local authorities and HSC trusts in Northern Ireland will have a duty to raise awareness of how to register and to provide assistance to help them do so. Extending the franchise is not simply “job done” with this legislation; we need to actively support young people to exercise their right to vote. We will offer young people the information and support that they need to do precisely that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) was saying a moment ago, up to 8 million people in the UK are either registered incorrectly or not included on the electoral register at all. Many of them find out only when it is too late, so they are denied their opportunity to vote. Our current process is out of date and has not kept pace with the world that we live in. We will replace this complicated, bureaucratic system with a modern, automated alternative that is as simple as possible and easier for voters to use. To get there, the Bill will allow pilots that test new and innovative approaches to electoral registration. Automated registration is already working in many countries: the examples of Germany and the Netherlands show how easy it can be.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

Let me make progress; I have given way a lot.

Similar reforms are already under way in Canada and Australia, and the time is right for us to follow suit. As we move towards automated registration, we recognise that we must look again at how the open register operates. Under the Bill, those registering to vote will be asked if they wish to opt into the open register, rather than opt out, as is currently the case.

There is also a moral dimension to this matter. We know that the least likely to be registered are those on low incomes, more often renting and more often younger. Our democracy is strongest when everyone can and does participate, and that is our aspiration.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

I will give way one last time.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

This is an important point. The Secretary of State must be aware that large numbers of homeless people very seldom vote, because they do not have a point of registration unless they can find a church or somebody is prepared to host them. Is there a possibility that we can make arrangements for people who do not have any fixed abode but nevertheless are equal citizens like the rest of us and deserve the right to vote?

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is not currently part of the Bill, but I am always happy to keep the position under review. We want to remove obstacles to those seeking to vote and stand in elections. These measures include absent voting and a new power to obtain information to help people to understand the election process better.

The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, but in these times of profound change, that includes acting to defend our democracy. There are too many loopholes that allow foreign money to enter and seek to influence our politics. For instance, British voters face more stringent rules when donating to political parties than companies do—even shell companies and companies that are not based in the UK.

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

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

I will give way to my hon. Friend later.

We know already that illicit finance can damage people’s trust in politics, and maintaining the confidence of the electorate is imperative. That is why we are requiring stronger checks on significant donations, requiring more transparency from those making donations and ensuring that only companies with a legitimate connection to the UK can donate to those involved in UK politics.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell).

[Jim Shannon]

We in Northern Ireland have a particular, perhaps peculiar circumstance in that we have a border with the Republic of Ireland. We have political parties in Northern Ireland and political parties in southern Ireland that are the same parties, but in different jurisdictions with different responsibilities. Can the Secretary of State indicate what controls there will be to ensure that money does not traverse the border in such a way that disadvantages those of us in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who wish to have the democratic system and policies that we have here?

[Steve Reed]

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but the existing arrangements covering Ireland will continue.

[Joe Powell]

Is the Secretary of State aware of companies such as Mercantile & Maritime UK Ltd, which made a donation of £500,000 to the Conservative party before the 2019 election despite being owned by a Monaco-based Canadian individual who has subsequently been accused of continuing to trade Russian oil during the war? Will this Bill outlaw such donations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I am sure that Members across the House will have cases and instances that they are concerned about. This legislation intends to restore integrity to the system precisely because of those concerns. I will now make some progress so that others also have the chance to speak in this debate.

A key part of our changes is the “know your donor” principle, as proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which will require political parties to take more responsibility for who is funding them. The existing rules do not specifically require recipients to consider the risk that a donor is facilitating an illegal donation, but that will now change. As the independent Rycroft review concludes, we will consider its findings, and we expect to introduce amendments as the Bill progresses.

We will also improve the transparency of digital imprint rules, recognising that campaigns are increasingly digital and that regulation must keep up with that new reality. Transparency for electors over who is trying to influence their vote is a fundamental principle.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I make progress.

We are going further with our support for the Electoral Commission. The commission is the independent statutory body tasked with overseeing elections and regulating political finance in the UK, and its work is invaluable as the guardian of our democracy, but it requires stronger enforcement to meet today’s challenges, so we will strengthen its role and powers. Through secondary legislation, we will increase the maximum fine that the commission can impose from £20,000 to £500,000. We are also re-categorising administrative offences so that in most cases, they are punishable through civil sanctions; strengthening the commission’s powers to share information; and ensuring that enforcement is stronger, more responsive and collaborative. I have heard views from hon. Members regarding the commission’s strategy and policy statement. We recognise the importance of maintaining confidence in the commission’s operational independence and ensuring it can carry out its statutory duties effectively, so we will repeal in full the power for Government to impose a strategy and policy statement on the Electoral Commission.

We will legislate to protect the officials and staff who run elections, as well as those standing for election. We have all heard about the abuse, threats and dangers that scare people away from standing for election—many, if not most, Members in the Chamber will have their own stories and experiences. This has a chilling effect on our democracy, affecting the diversity of candidates and the quality of our political debate. We will not tolerate it any more.

The Government want people to feel safe and free to engage in our democracy; harassment and intimidation have no place in our elections. The safety and security of candidates and campaigners is essential to ensuring that the brightest and best put their names forward. That is why we will protect candidates, campaigners and office holders by adding a new, statutory aggravating factor for offences motivated by hostility towards them. I am calling time on the bullies and thugs who undermine our democracy. What is less well known is the effect that similar threats have on those who administer our elections—officials such as returning officers, poll clerks, and those responsible for counting the votes. These dedicated public servants perform a vital role in our democratic process, so we are legislating to disqualify from future elections anyone who seeks to harass, intimidate or abuse them in the course of their duties.

We have listened to, and reflected on, the experiences of recent candidates, and want to do more to support individuals to feel safe and secure in their homes. Under existing legislation, candidates can prevent their home address from being published on the statement of persons nominated and on ballot papers, but those acting as their own election agents do not have that option. The Bill will remove the remaining requirement for candidates to publish their home address, provided that they supply an alternative correspondence address. We will continue to work with our partners across central and local government and with the Electoral Commission to extend protections. I hope Members across the House will continue to work with us and share their experiences of how the authorities can best protect those who put their name forward.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference that investigated the security of MPs, candidates and wider elections. I put on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State and the Government in the round for the efforts they are making to ensure that, through legislation, regulations and other efforts, we do everything we can to protect our democracy from those who would intimidate candidates and everyone else involved, including officials. It is very important work, and everyone in this House and in our country has a responsibility to do everything they can to protect our democracy.

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to others who were involved with the Speaker’s Conference. They have made a huge contribution to the shape of the Bill and the detail of its final version.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I support the Bill, but can we please ensure that the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland are funded, as are other statutory agencies? Not all these potential offences will be civil; some will meet the criminal threshold. We need to ensure that the statutory agencies responsible for capturing criminal evidence are funded to do so.

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Lady is quite right—it is important that the agencies have the resources to carry out the functions that we require of them.

The final part of the Bill contains general provisions, including on powers and commencement. I can also confirm that we have written to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Senedd Cymru to begin the legislative consent process.

I will finish by expanding on the point I began with, about Parliament’s role in the evolution of our democracy. Every Member of this House wants to strengthen trust and confidence in our democracy. This Bill is not the first to carry its name—it was a Representation of the People Act that extended the franchise to male landowners, tenant farmers and shopkeepers in 1832. It was a Representation of the People Act that granted voting rights to working-class men in 1867. It was a Representation of the People Act that finally granted voting rights to women in 1918, and another that delivered equality of voting rights between men and women in 1928. Today, we debate the latest Representation of the People Bill, responding to our circumstances today.

In an age of change, with new threats to our freedom arising, we must stand up and tackle foreign interference head-on. In a society transformed by new technologies, we must introduce automatic voter registration, and in this country, where politics feels distant for too many, we must bring democracy closer to people. 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 must always lead our nation. This is a Representation of the People Bill inspired by tradition and legislating for the future. I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Grenfell Tower: Annual Report

Steve Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Written Statements

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

The Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 was a preventable tragedy that claimed 72 innocent lives. This tragedy was the consequence of profound failures within the system of oversight. People should have been protected. This Government recognise those failures and is putting in place the reforms needed to prevent such a tragedy from ever occurring again, and to create the conditions for the safe, affordable housing that we need.

Throughout this work, we have listened closely to the bereaved, survivors and the wider community, whose experiences continue to shape our reforms. But we know there is more to do to ensure every resident feels safe in their home and can trust those responsible for building and maintaining their homes. In February 2025, the Government accepted all the inquiry’s findings and committed to taking forward each of the 58 phase 2 recommendations. One year on, my Department has today laid the first annual report, setting out the progress made on those recommendations and the wider programme of policy reform delivered during the past year.

Alongside the annual report, we have laid the construction products reform White Paper, the general safety requirement consultation document, and published a statement from the interim chief construction adviser.

These publications and announcements demonstrate the Government’s ongoing work and firm commitment to deliver the lasting, systemic change that we need—the foundation for the safe, affordable homes that people deserve.

Construction products reform White Paper

In February 2025, the Government published the construction products reform Green Paper and committed to system-wide reform of the construction products sector. Fundamental reform, ensuring robust and accountable oversight, is essential to delivering meaningful change; ensuring safe and high-quality homes, buildings and infrastructure; and maintaining resilient supply chains.

Today, we have laid a White Paper that outlines an ambitious programme of system-wide reform. We will address regulatory gaps and long-standing issues in the construction products sector, where too little has changed since Grenfell.

We will establish a trusted, proportionate regulatory framework that ensures construction products are safe, and used safely. This will support long-term growth and contribute to the delivery of more, safer homes in the years to come.

The White Paper confirms the direction set out in the Green Paper and provides further detail on a range of proposed reforms, alongside a pathway for implementation. These include measures to strengthen the regulatory regime for construction products; enhance oversight of testing and certification processes; improve information requirements, digitisation and traceability; and reinforce the role and powers of the national products regulator to drive effective enforcement.

Consultation on the White Paper will run until 20 May 2026. We encourage as many responses as possible and welcome continued engagement from across the sector to support the progress of system-wide reform of the construction products regime.

General safety requirement consultation

The White Paper also paves the way for the introduction of a general safety requirement. The aim of the GSR is to bring currently unregulated products into the construction products regulatory regime. The regulations will require that construction products placed on the market are safe and will set out specific obligations for businesses. They will also provide the national regulator for construction products with the enforcement powers necessary to uphold these obligations.

We are consulting on the detail of a proposed GSR to ensure that it is proportionate to risk, practical to implement, enforceable, and aligned with broader Government policy on product safety and growth. This consultation will run until 20 May 2026.

Guidance to support businesses in meeting their obligations will be issued by the national regulator for construction products.

Grenfell Tower memorial expenditure legislation

We have also determined that we need to ask Parliament to pass a law to provide the statutory spending authority to support the creation of a Grenfell Tower memorial. We will introduce this imminently. This does not affect any of the current work on the Grenfell Tower site, and the memorial commission and the community will continue to take the lead in shaping a fitting and lasting memorial.

Throughout this work, one principle will guide all decisions: the voices of the bereaved, survivors and immediate community must remain at the heart of decisions, now and in the future.

[HCWS1363]

Grenfell Tower Annual Report

Steve Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I start by acknowledging the presence in the Gallery of survivors and relatives of those who died at Grenfell Tower. They have the deepest sympathies of the whole House, and our most profound respect. The fire at Grenfell Tower, which claimed 72 innocent lives, was a terrible moment in British history. We will not forget what happened that night. We must make sure that nothing like it can ever happen again.

The Government accepted all the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s findings, and committed to implementing all 58 recommendations. Everyone deserves a safe, decent home. This requires a new culture of transparency and accountability. Today I can report that we are on target to complete 70% of the inquiry’s recommendations by the end of the year. Since the inquiry published its final report, we have completed 10 recommendations from phase 2, and two outstanding phase 1 recommendations. Today, I will set out the progress that we have made on reforming the construction industry, strengthening fire and rescue services, and improving support for vulnerable people. We will complete all the remaining recommendations during this Parliament. We are also publishing the construction products reform White Paper, building on the proposals we set out in December for a new single construction regulator. Our work goes beyond the inquiry recommendations, because we are determined to secure lasting change across the whole system.

Last summer, we ensured that the Building Safety Regulator had the leadership it needs to do its job well. Lord Roe reformed the London Fire Brigade and is bringing the same determination to making the BSR work. Over time, the BSR will evolve into the regulator the inquiry recommended. We are consulting on that today. We will replace fragmented regulation with clear accountability. Everyone will understand their role and the standards that are expected of them. We have already made changes to get our own house in order. Fire policy now sits within my Department, ensuring that oversight of housing, building safety and fire is properly joined up in Government.

The construction products reform White Paper sets out ambitious plans for modernising the rules. We will make sure that products are safe, and will ensure that everyone meets their responsibilities. These reforms will mean sensible regulation, fit for the future, and confidence in the safety of our homes. We will make sure that people working in construction have the skills that they need. We support the building professions, and there will be rigorous expectations relating to competence and ethics. We have also published a formal statement setting out the path to proper professional regulation of fire engineering.

One of the clearest lessons from the inquiry was the need for better fire and rescue services. I am grateful to the National Fire Chiefs Council and the London Fire Brigade for their work on improving fire and rescue standards. A new national college of fire and rescue will ensure that these improvements continue.

Protecting people means making sure that those most at risk are never left behind. New regulations requiring emergency evacuation plans for high-rise buildings will come into force on 6 April. These will mean that vulnerable people have a plan for safe evacuation in the event of a fire.

Making sure that everyone has a safe home also means tackling wider problems in social housing. Grenfell shone a light on so many wrongs that we are now putting right. Under Awaab’s law, landlords must make urgent repairs where there are serious threats to health. People have more power to hold landlords to account, and we are giving them better access to information, so they can have more involvement in how their home is managed.

Speeding up remediation is one of my highest priorities. Work to remove and replace unsafe aluminium composite material cladding—the same type as on Grenfell Tower—has finished on 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings, with work on most of the rest well under way. We are working with developers, freeholders and local authorities to remove other types of unsafe cladding as quickly as possible, and are monitoring thousands of high-rise residential buildings to make sure that they are making progress.

We have also strengthened local resilience and emergency preparations. All five local resilience forum trailblazers have been funded, and the four chief resilience officers have been appointed. We are also setting up a national system for local areas to learn from each other, so that the lessons of Grenfell lead to lasting improvements in crisis response.

It is only right that we are transparent about how we address the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s carefully considered recommendations. We will continue to inform Parliament each quarter about progress on those recommendations. Alongside this statement, I am publishing our annual report on gov.uk. We will continue with these reports until every recommendation is complete. The Government’s new public dashboards for inquiry recommendations will continue to be updated quarterly.

Throughout this work, the Government have acted on the inquiry’s findings to address the culture that allowed failure to happen, yet we recognise that for many, something is still missing. For the bereaved, survivors and the wider Grenfell community, the need for justice is deeply felt, including decisions on criminal charges. The Metropolitan police investigation, which is independent of Government, is one of the largest and most complex in the force’s history, but I know that the slow progress is painful for those who have already waited too long for the justice that they deserve.

Nothing can erase the grief suffered by the Grenfell community. Their loss, strength and determination to change things for the better guide all that we do. Failures of government under successive Administrations made this tragedy possible. That brings an enduring duty to honour the memory of the 72 men, women and children who lost their lives. As part of that duty, I can inform the House that we are introducing legislation to provide the spending authority required to support the memorial commission and the community in building and maintaining a lasting and dignified memorial.

I know that there is still much that we need to do, but there has been real progress. The foundations for lasting change are in place: a reformed regulatory system, empowered residents, accountable landlords, stronger professions and greater transparency. Our objective is clear, and we remain true to it: never again. Never again should people go to bed unsure that their home is safe. Never again should public institutions fail in their duty to protect. Never again should the voices of residents be ignored.

The actions that we are taking honour those who died at Grenfell, support those who survived and serve our shared obligation to make every home a place of safety, dignity and trust. In that spirit, I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and join him in welcoming survivors from Grenfell who are with us today.

The events that took place on 14 June 2017 were an avoidable national tragedy that should not have robbed 72 people of their lives, and they must never be repeated. It is right that in consultation with the survivors, the bereaved and those directly impacted, a fitting and lasting memorial is put in place to remember the 72 lives lost that day and the wider Grenfell community. We welcome the new legislation that the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon.

It is right that we remember the victims, and I thank the Secretary of State for giving us the opportunity to do that while he updates the House. The victims must be at the heart of how we remember Grenfell, and the Government must work with them in as sensitive a manner as humanly possible. We will support and scrutinise how the Government proceed with the memorial to ensure that the victims are at the heart of what he has decided. We believe that this matter should be cross-party, as it goes beyond party politics and it is simply the right thing to do.

The inquiry’s findings—decades of systematic failure, dishonesty and negligence—are a damning indictment of successive Governments, regulators and industry. The Government’s response last year was to accept all 58 recommendations, which is a step forward, and we welcome the commitment to action. I am glad to hear today that action on a few of those recommendations has already taken place.

The creation of a single construction regulator, the appointment of a chief construction adviser and the consolidation of fire safety functions under one Department are long-overdue reforms. While we welcome the formation of a single construction regulator, can the Secretary of State confidently state that he believes it will be more effective and help to safely build the homes that we need? Can he confirm that we will not be left with the potential delays that we have seen under the Building Safety Regulator?

When we were in government, we took decisive action to initiate this public inquiry immediately after the tragedy to learn the lessons and prevent it from ever happening again. We strengthened the regulatory regime and implemented the inquiry’s recommendations following the report from the first phase. It was welcome that this Government also accepted the recommendations. Will the Secretary of State publish a detailed plan on how all the recommendations are being implemented and their status? He gave us the update that 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings have had cladding removed. Will he update us with a road map for when the rest will be completed?

All building owners must step up, do the right thing and fix their buildings without delay, or face the consequences of their inaction. Those who intentionally cut corners on building safety must be held to account. The Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service should continue to pursue criminal charges against the small number of developers and contractors who knowingly and fraudulently cut corners on building safety for greed and financial gain.

The Secretary of State has promised to complete all the remaining recommendations during this Parliament. Will he lay out key dates for when key parts of that will be achieved? Will he update us on what stage he is at with the Grenfell site itself and future plans for it? How is he working with the victims’ families to support them?

Those who profited from cutting corners or were criminally negligent must face consequences—not just fines, but criminal charges where the evidence allows. We will support and scrutinise the support for victims and their families that the Government are putting forward to ensure that we get this right. I know that the Secretary of State and the Building Safety Minister, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), want to get this right.

Grenfell must be a watershed with a legacy of safety, transparency and respect for every resident. Let me make clear the commitment of the Conservatives to work with the Secretary of State and the Government on a cross-party basis to meet that promise.

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and welcome the tone that he has adopted. It is quite right that we should all work cross-party on this matter to speed up the outcomes that we are all looking for and that we work together in a way that shows respect to the families and those who lost their lives in this tragedy.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the single construction regulator. The BSR became a stand-alone body, separate from the Health and Safety Executive, on 26 January. Work is progressing on bringing into the BSR all the other aspects that will allow it to function in due course as the single construction regulator, which the inquiry identified as such an important part of fixing the building safety system. Lord Roe is overseeing rapid improvement in the performance of the BSR even as I speak.

The hon. Gentleman asked about remediation. It is welcome that 91% of high-rise residential or public buildings with unsafe ACM cladding have been remediated, but we recognise that there is further to go. Further acceleration plans are available, and I am happy to write to him if he would like access to that information.

Similarly, the hon. Gentleman asked about key dates in implementing further recommendations. We will continue to publish quarterly reports so that the whole House can scrutinise the progress that the Government are making with these recommendations. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), and I are meeting regularly with the families and affected groups to ensure that we hear their concerns directly and can feed them straight into the system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell)—take your time.

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

As we approach the ninth anniversary of the Grenfell tragedy, bereaved survivors in the community are still rightly advocating for truth, justice and change on behalf of the 72 people who lost their lives in an entirely preventable fire. I pay tribute to all those who have joined us again in the Gallery today and those who are watching this statement. I know that the whole House will agree with the Secretary of State that criminal accountability cannot come soon enough. In the meantime, I welcome this annual report and the progress being made in many areas, from building safety to social housing management.

We know that, too often, lessons have not been learned from public inquiries and the implementation of recommendations has not been transparent and accountable. I would welcome an update from the Secretary of State on the proposal for an oversight mechanism to ensure that recommendations are actually implemented.

When it comes to the performance of Kensington and Chelsea council, many residents are highly sceptical about progress given that, according to the independent regulator, it has a seriously failing housing department and, according to the local government ombudsman, the third worst record on complaints. On the Lancaster West estate itself, there is uncertainty over the budget for completing the promised works. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea will remain under close central Government scrutiny and that he will do all he can to broker a solution so that residents of Lancaster West—the people who least deserve to suffer—do not wait years more for their own safe and healthy homes?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate him on being such a powerful voice for his constituents and all those who have suffered and died as a result of the tragedy of Grenfell Tower. He has rightly earned respect from Members across the House for the dignified way in which he has carried out his role as a representative for the community.

The Government are very keen to make sure that we learn the lessons and implement the report. We will continue to publish quarterly reports to update the whole House, and indeed members of the public, on the progress that we are making. Work is continuing across Government, including in my Department, on setting up a national oversight mechanism to make sure that the recommendations of this and other inquiries do not just sit on shelves, but get implemented and inform improvement in the way that we deliver public services, including, in this important case, fire safety.

I had the opportunity to visit the Lancaster West estate with my hon. Friend. The Government have made £25 million available to allow work to continue on upgrading and improving the estate. He will be aware that we have concerns about the council’s delivery capacity and cost control. I am in contact with the leader of the council about those concerns in the hope and expectation that we can address them together, but the interests of the residents of the estate must come first for all of us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. My second question is about those excluded from the building safety fund. Tens of thousands of families are in buildings under 11 metres or living with products that might last an hour in a fire under PAS 9980—that is the wrong standard. We need all highly flammable materials and all buildings that have fire safety risks to be remediated. I ask the Secretary of State to address that question.

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Member for his questions and for his commitment, shared by the whole House, that we need to resolve the problems that led to the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. He asked about building control. We set up the independent panel under the chairmanship of Dame Judith Hackitt last year. That looks at decisions that may need to move into the public sector. The panel is due to report shortly, so I will not anticipate the findings that we can expect.

The hon. Member asked about the construction products White Paper, which was published today. I hope that he will take the opportunity to consider what it includes. I am sure that he will let me or the Minister for building safety know his thoughts on it. On remediation for buildings under 11 metres, it is important that we prioritise buildings based on safety risk, and that is what we are doing. We will of course keep that under review. There is a commitment to fund by exception those buildings under 11 metres where the risk is assessed to be high.

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

In 109 days, on 14 June, the community and many of us will come together to remember the 72 people who tragically lost their lives. Almost nine years on, the Government’s acceptance of the 58 recommendations is an acceptance that the tragedy at Grenfell should not have happened. That tragedy was born out of systemic failure. I stand here today wearing my green heart to recognise the fact that the community had to come together in the aftermath of that fire. That fire happened because no one listened to them—no one believed them. I commend them on their ongoing campaign to get full justice, including criminal justice.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. When the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee had the Grenfell community before us, we heard about the valid concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) highlighted about the national oversight mechanism. It cannot be right that the Government will mark their own work on that. The community wants full transparency.

I also thank the Secretary of State for outlining the fact that the Government will lay papers with regard to the spending authority for the memorial. If we are really to allow the community to have a lasting and fitting tribute, it is important that the memorial is built and designed with them, working with the memorial commission. Most importantly, can he confirm that the funding has been ringfenced and there will be no issues when the funding is discussed?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her questions and comments. She raises perhaps the most important point in all this, which is that no one listened to the voices of the people living in Grenfell Tower when they raised their concerns. That must never happen again. That is why the Government are seeking to strengthen the voice of tenants in social housing. Awaab’s law is one example of the way that has been achieved. It is gratifying that that, too, was done with cross-party consensus and support.

On the memorial, the Minister with responsibility for fire safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), will introduce the legislation to the House this afternoon. We expect it to proceed at speed through both Houses, so that it can support the commission and the community in funding and securing a lasting memorial that will remind us all for evermore of what when wrong and why it must never happen again.

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

It is very surprising to those of us who are not experts on this matter to hear the Secretary of State say that the police are undertaking such a vast and complex investigation, because the circumstances of this uniquely terrible tragedy do not seem terribly complicated at all. Why is the police inquiry taking so long? Will he at least assure the House, and the country at large, that there is a dedicated unit within the police that is determined to bring this matter before the courts?

[Steve Reed]

In fact, the police are investigating an incredibly complex set of circumstances. That is why one of the biggest teams in the Met’s history is focused on getting to the bottom of this and of whether there is a need to pursue any prosecutions. It is one of the biggest and most complex police investigations ever—rightly, because we need to follow culpability, find those responsible and bring them to justice. The victims deserve that justice, but so do the survivors and relatives, so that they can at long last have closure on this tragedy, which has affected their lives. The Government will ensure that we provide the Met with the resources they require to fund the team sizes necessary to deliver that justice.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I pass Grenfell on my way home every evening, and I see the green heart move lower and lower as the building is dismantled. I wonder what will happen when the building is gone. I think about the survivors, the families and the 72 lives lost. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, but after nine years, nobody has been arrested—somebody should have been. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and I are often told about people who should have been arrested. The police need to arrest somebody and begin the process so that the community can begin to heal. Will the Minister push the Met to move faster?

[Steve Reed]

It is emotional to see the tower coming down slowly, brick by brick, but it is important for the community, and for all concerned about what happened, to know that the memorial commission is working with the community to secure a design for the memorial, which will be a lasting testament to what happened on that fateful night, and will honour the memory of those who lost their lives and their loved ones. My hon. Friend is quite right: nine years is a painfully long time to wait for justice. It is important, in such a complex investigation, that the police are given the time and resources they need to investigate properly, but we will of course encourage them to do that work as quickly as they can reasonably be expected to. We all expect them to bring to justice those who bear culpability for the deaths that night.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I welcome the funding that the Secretary of State has announced to support the memorial commission. We have a shortage of skilled builders, plumbers, electricians and other construction workers in this country. Is he confident that we have a sufficiently trained workforce to carry out all the remedial works in the timescale that he has outlined? If not, what additional steps can the Government take to ensure that the works are completed on time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to that concern, which we all share. In the most recent Budget, the Chancellor announced £600 million to fund skills training in the construction sector, so that we have the skills available not just to carry out work on the Grenfell site and remedial work on other sites affected by unsafe cladding, but to ensure that we can build homes to the higher safety standards now required right across the country.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

The tragedy at Grenfell exposed the scale and devastating consequences of the building safety crisis in this country. We have heard today that survivors and families are still waiting for truth and justice. Sadly, that crisis is still unfolding: as we neared Christmas, over 350 households in the Stratford Halo in my constituency were forced to leave their homes because of serious structural safety concerns. They were told to leave immediately, and did not know when they could return—it was terrifying for them. What will the construction reform White Paper do to strengthen standards for safe and secure homes, so that residents like those in the Stratford Halo never again have to be evacuated from their homes because their buildings are too unsafe to live in, and to ensure that developers are held to account?

[Steve Reed]

I am aware of what happened in my hon. Friend’s constituency recently, and how worrying it has been not just for the people living there, but for people right across the country. Just as with what happened at Grenfell, it attests to the fact that the building safety regulations and system in this country were inadequate to meet the public’s expectation, which is rightly that their homes should be safe. We have today published the construction products reform White Paper, which I hope she will take the opportunity to look at. It outlines some of the changes that we will make to products themselves. We will also continue to work on other aspects of building. The independent panel on building control, chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt, is due to report shortly and will make further important proposals on how to improve the system.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Nothing can ever undo the harm caused at Grenfell. I was in Parliament on that day, swearing in, when we saw everything that had unfolded. Nobody in my city of Aberdeen can ever get over the Piper Alpha disaster of 1988, but the resulting safety case produced by the Cullen inquiry meant that we had a much safer North sea and such a tragedy could never happen again, which brought people some solace. Will the Minister join me in urging stakeholders in Scotland to respond to the Scottish Government’s consultation on fire safety guidance, as we update the Scottish building standards to ensure that that guidance is as good as possible and all those working in that area can comply with it?

[Steve Reed]

I am happy to support the hon. Lady’s call for all affected stakeholders to feed in their views to the inquiry, be they in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland. The legacy of Grenfell and other tragedies, such as the one she refers to, should be greater safety from fire for everybody.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Government are on target to implement the inquiry’s recommendations. Nearly nine years on from this awful tragedy, the families and survivors need truth and justice. Leaseholders in Battersea have been facing astronomical service charges, as well as costs for fire safety remediation works. In one case, leaseholders in a building below 11 metres in height are expected to pay approximately £8,000 a week for waking watches—that is shocking and unacceptable. What support and protections are in place for leaseholders? I believe that case is exceptional, so will he meet me and the leaseholders to find a resolution?

[Steve Reed]

I would be happy to arrange a meeting between my hon. Friend and the fire safety Minister so that they can discuss her concerns in detail, but she is quite right to point to the very severe concerns about leasehold charges. That is why the Government published a consultation last year on the costs for major works and other costs that fall on leaseholders, and we are due to publish our findings and our response to that consultation later this year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

22. What steps he is taking to support leaseholders.

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

On 27 January, we published the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, marking the beginning of the end for the feudal leasehold system and supporting millions of families with the cost of living. We are reinvigorating commonhold and capping ground rent. We are analysing the responses to our wide-ranging consultation to drive up transparency of service charges and make it easier for leaseholders to challenge unreasonable costs. We will implement these measures as soon as possible.

[Mohammad Yasin]

With service charge inflation rising by 50% and leaseholders, freeholders and tenants even facing 80% increases, this is a growing scandal. Too many of my constituents are trapped under charges they cannot afford, paying for defects caused by poor construction and stuck with properties they cannot sell. Will the Secretary of State strengthen the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill to require fully itemised transparency, to penalise landlords who refuse disclosure and to create a faster, cheaper way to challenge excessive charges without a tribunal?

[Steve Reed]

The Government recognise the considerable financial strain that rising service charges place on leaseholders and tenants. On 4 July last year, the Government published a consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services, which included proposals to increase transparency of service charges and to scrap the presumption that leaseholders pay their landlord’s legal costs, thereby removing a significant barrier to challenging poor practice. The consultation closed on 26 September; we are analysing the responses and will publish our response shortly.

[Mary Glindon]

Leaseholders in Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend contact me regularly about extortionate service charges, saying that tribunals are slow and stressful and that, ultimately, they feel powerless. The Minister for Housing and Planning has previously set out that retaining variable charges is important, so that necessary funds can be raised for legitimate purposes. Is the Secretary of State confident that, without directly limiting their rate of increase, the Government’s reforms will address the issue of unreasonable charges making properties unsellable?

[Steve Reed]

We are determined to take action to address unfair and unjustified charges, and we are committed to implementing the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 as quickly as possible.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

I commend the Government and my right hon. Friend’s reforms to the leasehold sector, particularly capping ground rents, which will make a real difference to leaseholders across North Somerset. I have been contacted by numerous constituents in Portishead and across my constituency living in leasehold properties managed by FirstPort. They report persistent failures, poor communication, and opaque and unjustified service charges. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government’s leasehold reforms will go further by introducing robust, enforceable regulation of service charges and professionalising property management companies such as FirstPort so that they can genuinely be held accountable for poor management practices?

[Steve Reed]

I recognise, of course, the situation my hon. Friend is describing and how unacceptable it is. The Government are committed to ensuring that those living in leasehold properties are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents. On 4 July last year, we consulted on the introduction of mandatory qualifications for managing agents, and we are analysing responses right now. We are clear that this consultation is not the final step in the regulation of agents, and we will set out our full position shortly.

[Apsana Begum]

I have been working with leasehold groups in my constituency such as the aptly named Friends in High Places group. They inform me that the combined costs of the Building Safety Regulator’s fees, the purchasing of reports and various surveys, and the remediation works needed are giving rise to potentially enormous bills, which could lead to leaseholders becoming bankrupt and homeless, as the bills are not picked up by developers or freeholders for older buildings, or resident management companies. Will the Minister outline how upcoming legislation will clarify what counts as proportionate and/or reasonable costs that fall on to leaseholders in relation to the BSR’s work?

[Steve Reed]

I commend the work of the Friends in High Places group, which my hon. Friend has been working with. We are now seeing improvements in the performance of the Building Safety Regulator, but she is right that unfair costs should not fall on leaseholders. If it would be helpful, I will happily arrange a meeting between her and the relevant Minister.

[Paul Waugh]

Far too many homeowners in Rochdale are subject to fleecehold, whereby they are fleeced for estate management company fees in return for little or no service or accountability. The Government are taking action to prevent future homeowners from falling into that trap, but will the Secretary of State set out how he plans to help current homeowners to avoid this rip-off charge?

[Steve Reed]

I know the Housing Minister is looking forward to meeting my hon. Friend and his constituents next week. HorNets have been strong and vocal campaigners for homeowners’ rights, and I welcome their engagement. The Government are committed to ending the injustice of fleecehold. Leaseholders should not be subject to the kind of legalised extortion that they have experienced in recent years, and the Government remain committed to bringing these practices to an end.

[Mr Dillon]

I thank the Secretary of State for his response and welcome the support being given to leaseholders; however, many of the problems they face could be addressed through stronger regulation of managing agents. Persistent failings by companies such as FirstPort continue to fill my inbox. In Newbury, we have a block of flats where a lift has been out of order for two years, and one constituent told me that, because it was broken, her son had to carry her husband down the stairs when he moved into a care home. No family should ever have to face that. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps the Government have taken to strengthen the regulation of managing agents and ensure that they are properly accountable to residents, who pay for their services?

[Steve Reed]

I recognise what the hon. Member says about FirstPort because Members across the whole House have been raising similar concerns for a very long time. He will be aware that we launched a consultation last summer that will include looking at how we can better and more tightly regulate managing agents so that leaseholders are not subject to the kind of abuses that he describes.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

Many of my constituents live on new build estates where the roads and open spaces have never been adopted. Years after moving in, they are still paying private management charges on top of their council tax for basic infrastructure that homeowners should expect the council to maintain. Does the Secretary of State recognise that this gap between planning approval and adoption is fuelling the fleecehold scandal, and will the Government act to ensure that developers complete roads to adoptable standards and local authorities are supported to adopt them promptly?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is right to point out the abuses of fleecehold and how disturbing and worrying this can be for the people living on these estates. The Government launched two consultations in December precisely so that we can properly understand and take action to prevent the kind of abuses that she describes.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Have the Government made an assessment of the potential merits of introducing a mandatory standard service charge statement for leaseholders to ensure a clearer breakdown of costs and improve transparency in the administration of service charges?

[Steve Reed]

I recognise the situation that the hon. Member describes. We have launched the consultations to cover the circumstances he describes, precisely so that we can end that kind of practice.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

These sharp practices are not down to just one management company—a lot of companies are at it. A leaseholder constituent wrote to me to say he feels “abandoned and angry”. His property is leaking, but the freeholder is not interested in helping, and his ground rent will double in 2030. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that my leaseholder constituent will be protected from these unreasonable charges in the future?

[Steve Reed]

I hope the hon. Lady’s constituent will be pleased to learn that the reforms we have announced as part of the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, launched recently by the Minister for Housing and Planning, will include capping ground rents so that that kind of abuse cannot happen in future.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I refer Members to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. An acute increase in service charges of 78% has knocked the residents of Phoenix House in my constituency. The council is the freeholder, and it has overseen a complex arrangement with a private head leaseholder and various commercial managing agents below it. Due to the complexities of these arrangements, the residents have no idea where this 78% increase has come from. Will the Minister commit to introducing a duty of candour so that leaseholders know exactly what they are paying for, and will he further consider a threshold for acute service charge increases?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman will have been able to make those points through the consultation, which we launched in order to get to a position where we can simplify the system so that leaseholders know what charges they are being asked to pay and what services they are receiving for them, and to give them greater powers to challenge unfair practices of the kind he has just described.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

According to the Government’s own statistics, 84% of respondents to their consultation said they felt that the system for challenging unfair charges for managing agents and other lease arrangements was not fit for purpose. The Conservatives agree—that is why we legislated to address this in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has had a few distractions recently, but he has told the House that he is committed to addressing this matter. Can he tell all our leaseholder constituents by when the Government will enact that legislation, which we passed with his party’s support?

[Steve Reed]

Of course, nothing is going to distract me from focusing on the needs of leaseholders, and we remain fully committed to ensuring that the provisions and powers outlined in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act are brought into force as soon as possible. It is important for us to go through the technical detail that is covered by the consultation, but we will bring forward those proposals in due course and as quickly as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Many of the 5 million leaseholders were looking forward to being freed from the feudal leasehold system until they read the draft Bill, which left many disappointed. There is no restriction on the development value that leaseholders are going to be charged and no broadening of the mixed-use blocks that will be eligible for enfranchisement, while leaseholders will continue to pay the legal fees of landlords, and service charges are still not being capped. Given the commitments in the Labour manifesto and the King’s Speech to enact these recommendations from the Law Commission, should the Government not be more courageous, take on the landlords and give leaseholders proper rights to enfranchise, as they promised?

[Steve Reed]

I agree with the sentiment of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but unfortunately he has a number of his facts wrong; if he would like to put those details in a letter, I would be happy to respond and bring him up to speed. We are, for instance, seeking to end the practice of leaseholders being required to pay their landlords’ legal fees. This is the biggest reform of leasehold in a thousand years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman writes to me and, after I respond, that he will be able to give the reforms his full support.

[Gideon Amos]

The Law Commission reforms are being enacted and there is no date yet for a Bill to be brought forward. I hope that the Secretary of State will provide one.

Moving on to leaseholders who are still living with unsafe cladding and building defects, hundreds of thousands of people in buildings under 11 metres tall are living with cladding that is recognised as highly flammable, but are not eligible for the building safety fund. Is it not time that they were given the peace of mind and the safety they thought their home was providing them?

[Steve Reed]

We are supporting these situations on a case-by-case basis, but I would be more than happy to arrange a meeting for the hon. Gentleman with the Minister for Building Safety, if that would be helpful to him.

[Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of recent trends in levels of antisemitism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

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

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

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister confirmed that 40 more places will join the Pride in Place programme. That means that nearly 300 communities—those most held back by the previous Government—will benefit from that transformational programme. They will receive up to £20 million each over 10 years—a transformational level of funding—and, importantly, local people will decide how that money is spent. This Government recognise that local people know best what needs to change to bring pride back to the heart of the place they call home.

[Anna Dixon]

Our politics are increasingly fragmented. There is a real threat that an extreme minority party could win a majority of seats with just a fraction of the popular vote at the next general election—the situation is urgent. Some 60% of the public now support proportional representation. Will the Minister meet me and other members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections to discuss the case for a national commission on electoral reform?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend will be disappointed to hear that the Government have no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary or council elections in England. Indeed, the last time a Government called a referendum on proportional representation, the public rejected it. The Government believe that although first past the post is not always perfect, it provides an important direct relationship between Members of this Chamber and their local constituents. I will of course ensure that she gets an appropriate meeting.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

An estimated 48,000 new entrants to the construction sector are needed every year to meet the Government’s target of 1.5 million new homes. Apprenticeship starts come to about half that figure, and apprenticeship completions come to less than a quarter. Does the Secretary of State now accept that his target will not be met, that there is a growing crisis in construction skills under Labour, and that the Government have no credible plan to deliver the workforce needed to build those homes?

[Steve Reed]

The Government remain fully committed to meeting the target of 1.5 million new homes, and we are working with the sector to ensure that that happens. Local authorities now have housing targets again—they were sadly scrapped under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government—and we are investing £600 million to increase vocational skills and training to ensure that we have the supply of workers that the sector needs. We are working closely with developers, which are themselves helping to fund the pipeline of talent to build the homes that the country needs.

[Sir James Cleverly]

As my hon. Friends have highlighted, under a Labour mayor and a Labour Government, house building in London has collapsed to less than 60% of the target. In October, the Secretary of State said:

“My job should be on the line if I fail to meet my target”.

As the 1.5 million homes will not be built, will he keep his promise and resign, or will he wait to be fired by whoever replaces the Prime Minister after the May elections?

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, since he was a member of the previous Government, that house building across the country collapsed in 2023-24, and they chose to do nothing. This month the social and affordable homes programme opens for bids. London will get 30% of that, worth more than £11 billion, and that will help to provide the biggest increase in social and affordable homes in London and across the country that this country has seen.

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

T5. I support the Government’s plans to build 1.5 million homes, and families and first-time buyers in Stoke-on-Trent and Kidsgrove really need them. Residents from Packmoor, Ball Green, Norton Green and Talke understand that too, but does the Minister agree that development should be brownfield first, protecting green space wherever possible, and backed by the investment in infrastructure that our communities need and deserve?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I have another request from Walsall borough residents. Earlier today, the Secretary of State said that local people know best. I have sent him an invitation to a peaceful protest in Aldridge on Saturday; residents from right across the constituency are coming together to protect their precious green belt. Will he come and meet with them?

[Steve Reed]

I apologise, but my diary is already full up—I will be in another part of the country on Saturday. I am sure that the right hon. Lady’s constituents will also want to see the homes built that they and their children will need now and in the future.

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

We need to improve the infrastructure surrounding new developments and existing developments while ensuring that highways in local government, which felt the full impact of austerity, have the resources to deliver. What conversations has the Minister had about expanding capacity in local government to ensure that highways have the appropriate resources to deliver the infrastructure that we need?

Local Government Reorganisation

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on local government reorganisation.

This Government are taking action to repair local government, through a new fairer funding settlement based on need, through more powers being taken out of Whitehall and put in the hands of local leaders, and through our plans to reorganise councils to provide better services by eliminating wasteful duplication. Last month, as part of that process, I told the House that we would postpone local elections in councils undergoing reorganisation, where local leaders sought it and where they provided compelling, evidence-based justification. I was guided by two principles: first, that postponement should only ever happen in exceptional circumstances, and secondly, as a firm believer in local decision making, that we should be guided by local leaders themselves.

Following extensive consultation with the affected councils, many of whom shared their anxiety that a lack of capacity could lead to elections for councils that are due to be abolished delaying the reorganisation process, I concluded that those tests had been met in 30 cases. Councils across the political divide were engaged in the original assessment, and across party lines many called for postponement. Delay was granted in those cases, using a statutory power granted by Parliament—the same power that has been exercised by previous Governments. We were satisfied that the use of this statutory power in such circumstances was lawful and justified.

As is normal practice, lawyers kept the legal position under review and I received further legal advice. After considering that further advice, I took the decision to withdraw the proposal. We then rapidly reviewed the matter, recognising the urgency created by the electoral timetable. To confirm to the House, the decision made is that the elections in the affected areas will now go ahead in May 2026 in full, and we have laid a further order to bring this into effect.

We have already written to the relevant councils and we will continue working closely with returning officers, suppliers, the Electoral Commission and other sector bodies to ensure they are fully supported. I recognise that this is a significant change for affected councils. That is why, when further legal advice was received, we acted as quickly as possible to provide clarity for councils. We know that this change will mean additional pressure for councils and councillors across the country. That is why I announced last week up to £63 million in new capacity funding, on top of the £7.6 million provided last year for developing reorganisation proposals.

Our priority is now ensuring that local councils have the support they need for reorganisation. This extra money will help councils to complete reorganisation effectively and sustainably. We will continue working with councils across the 21 reorganisation areas to move to single-tier unitary councils. The people of Surrey specifically will just have elections to the new unitary councils.

Given the views expressed by Members from across the House following my decision, I recognise the importance Members attach to the framework governing ministerial powers over the timing of local elections. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill provides an opportunity to look again at that framework, and the Government are reflecting carefully on the amendments that have been tabled and the concerns raised.

Reforming local government is not optional. Councils are the front line of the state, responsible for the visible signs of whether a place is succeeding or failing. The public expect better local services and they are right to do so. It was important that we acted swiftly on these elections where further advice was received. I recognise that has been difficult for affected councils and I want to assure colleagues that we did not take this difficult decision lightly. I have spoken to many councillors and Members of Parliament in recent days and understand the scale of disappointment acutely, but ultimately the Government must act when legal advice says that we need to do so. We will continue to rebuild local government after a decade of neglect, so residents get the services that they deserve. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

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

The Secretary of State has caused chaos, confusion and a significant cost to the taxpayer by cancelling local elections, only to reinstate them weeks later and then seek to avoid responsibility for the fallout. This is not an isolated incident: it is yet another Government U-turn. The unavoidable conclusion is that this Labour Government are running scared of voters.

The original decision to cancel elections was taken by the Secretary of State. He repeatedly defended that position at the Dispatch Box. He said in The Times that these elections were “pointless”, yet when his decision fell apart, he recused himself from the process and left a junior Minister to pick up the pieces. My first question is simple: why was the retaking of this decision delegated? Was the Secretary of State so compromised by his own actions that he could not lawfully retake the decision himself? Will the Secretary of State now place in the House of Commons Library the full correspondence that he would have disclosed had this gone to court? And if not, why not? What new factors were considered that led to a completely different conclusion ultimately being drawn?

There are also questions of motive. Is it really a coincidence that the elections first marked for cancellation were overwhelmingly in Labour-run areas? I have been in contact with council leaders who describe being placed under intense pressure, repeatedly asked to restate capacity concerns, warned through multiple channels not to criticise the Secretary of State’s decision, and being left with the clear impression that future devolution, future reorganisation and future funding decisions depended on their compliance—a shocking state of affairs under his leadership. I believe that he acted inappropriately. If the Secretary of State is so confident that decisions were taken without political self-interest and without undue pressure being exerted behind the scenes, he should place all correspondence between his Department and local authorities in the public domain. If he does so, I will be more than happy to withdraw my accusation of inappropriate behaviour.

Does the Secretary of State now accept that there are strict limits on the power to delegate or delay elections outside exceptional circumstances, such as war or public emergency? If so, will he ask his colleagues to accept the amendment tabled by Conservatives in the other place to limit the Secretary of State’s power to cancel elections using secondary legislation, given that Labour MPs voted down the same safeguards on Report in the Commons?

The Secretary of State must tell the House what this shambolic episode has cost the taxpayer in legal fees, wasted preparation and the emergency expenditure now required to organise these elections at short notice. There is also a question about election pilots. What is their current status and why have the Government still not published the prospectus or provided it for parliamentary scrutiny? Specifically, how many councils that originally said that they had the capacity to bid to take part in these pilots later told his Department that they lacked the capacity to hold local elections? How many of the councils with restored elections are now expected to proceed with the pilots?

Ultimately, where does this leave the Government’s flagship reorganisation process? Elections are the foundation stone of democracy. They are not a convenience to be switched on and off at the whim of the Secretary of State, which is why the Conservatives opposed these cancellations. The Secretary of State’s judgment has once again been shown to be fundamentally flawed. If he cannot or refuses to answer these questions, and to be open and honest about his behaviour, he should resign.

[Steve Reed]

I have received a letter from the shadow Secretary of State, and he will receive a response to that in due course.

The decision was updated following legal advice. We acted as promptly as possible after receiving that further legal advice, and that was the right thing to do. When decisions are revisited following legal advice, fresh ministerial consideration is perfectly normal and has happened before, and that was why that was done in that way. The right hon. Gentleman will know that there is a long-standing principle that Government do not publish or comment on legal advice. I know he knows that, because his words—spoken in November 2023—in this Chamber, were as follows:

“In accordance with a long-standing convention in this House, we do not discuss the content or nature of legal advice to Government.” —[Official Report, 9 June 2022; Vol. 715, c. 947.]

He was right about that.

The motivation of council leaders, who wrote to me to share their views, and indeed my motivation, was based on concerns raised across the political spectrum about the capacity to complete local government reorganisation on time, because of the benefits that that represents to voters in eliminating wasteful duplication and ensuring that the savings can be ploughed back into the frontline services that matter the most to local people.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about amendments tabled in the other place, the Government will consider amendments to these powers in the usual parliamentary way.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

If the shadow Secretary of State is going to call for the Secretary of State to resign, he should make sure that he has more than four people sat behind him; that would make him seem more credible.

I appreciate what the Secretary of State is saying about the importance of elections and how rarely these things should be cancelled. We in Derbyshire have a proposal and expectation to move to unitary authorities in 2027. Does he agree that it is not illogical not to have elections to authorities that very soon will not exist? Can he tell us what lessons have been learned and what this will mean for authorities that are likely to be moving down this path in 2027?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of reorganisation and eliminating duplication so that we can spend the savings instead on the frontline services that I know matter the most to his residents and all our residents. Election delays have happened before—there is precedent for them—but it is important to show full respect to legal advice when it is received. The decision was therefore revisited in the way that he is aware of.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Liberal Democrats believe that all authorities in England should be enabled to have the devolution deal and local government arrangement that is right for them.

The shadow Secretary of State asked whether this was an isolated incident; in the context of top-down reorganisation, this definitely is not an isolated incident. Under the last Conservative Government, top-down reorganisation was forced on to areas such as Cumbria and Somerset; it was bitterly opposed by local areas, yet it was forced on to those local communities against local opposition. Cumbria county council took the Conservative Government to court, and Somerset councils opposed the forced reorganisation. When opinion polls were taken across Somerset and the wide conclusion was that two authorities would be better than one, the Government forced those decisions on to Somerset. My first question is therefore this: if polls are taken in areas subject to top-down reorganisation, will the results from the public be supported by the Government?

Secondly, the Liberal Democrats opposed the postponement of these elections. We put down a fatal motion in the House of Lords that could have stopped the postponement in the first place, which the Conservatives failed to support. Given that nine authorities had their elections postponed in 2025, does the advice and rationale that apply in 2026 apply to the postponement that happened in 2025? If not, why not?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am unable to discuss the detail of the legal advice, although he will know the decision that we took after considering that legal advice. His earlier point is absolutely right; we should all be motivated by the interests of local people. It is in the interests of local people that we should get rid of the confusion of having two councils in the same area, so that people know which council to contact, and that we should eliminate the wasteful duplication of jobs such as chief executives, finance directors and so on, so that we can spend the savings on improving the local services that make a difference to local people and the communities that they care about so much.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

The reorganisation of local government is very welcome in Exeter, as we are being held back by our county council on numerous fronts. Can the Secretary of State confirm that reorganisation and devolution will enable cities such as Exeter to pull away with our economic development, housing and strategic planning, and will benefit local residents across the city?

[Steve Reed]

I completely agree with what my hon. Friend says. It is very important that we move ahead with local government reorganisation, not just because of the savings it generates, which can be ploughed into frontline services, but because of the boost it can give to local economies. That puts more money into people’s pockets, provides more jobs in the locality and helps those communities to thrive.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Having decided that elections should go ahead after all, will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Conservative-run Broxbourne council on defending democracy from day one and never once considering delaying its elections? Will he confirm that this Labour Government will not use the same tactics to delay the next general election?

[Steve Reed]

I think that last point is a step beyond where anybody has gone previously. I am sure that there are many reasons to congratulate Broxbourne council.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Local government reorganisation in Derbyshire might see Amber Valley borough council split in half, along with the cost and difficulty of working out how to disaggregate the authority and the services and private finance initiative contracts it still manages, but an outcome is needed that will work for the next 100 years and that is based on the time it takes people to travel to work and the services they access. May I ask the Secretary of State to take a special interest in the circumstances of Amber Valley borough council and ensure that it gets the support that it needs so that it can be part of a new authority that can serve people’s needs effectively in the county?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend always ensures that I take a special interest in Amber Valley and the impact of decisions on the people who live in that beautiful part of the world. We have announced additional capacity funding to help councils to deal with the kind of challenges that he just described, recognising that reorganisation has a capacity impact on local authorities.

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

I realise now that it was simply fresh legal advice that led to this change of policy, rather than anything to do with the court case brought by the Secretary of State’s least favourite political party. Does he agree that the Government, in handling local government reform, should give at least an appearance of being impartial? Despite the Government’s consistent advice that the existing district and borough council areas should be seen as the building blocks for the new unitary authorities, Labour-controlled Southampton city council is still insisting on trying to dismember the New Forest East constituency by going for boundary changes that would strip off the Waterside, near Southampton, from the New Forest, to which it has always looked. Will the Secretary of State assure me that when he and his colleagues take decisions on this and similar issues, the fact that it is a Labour-led council asking for the guidelines not to be followed will not weigh on them in an appropriate way?

[Steve Reed]

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman on his latter point. I also reassure him that concerns have been raised across the political spectrum, including by council leaders from his own party, about the capacity to complete local government reorganisation. That is why we have announced additional capacity funding to support those councils to be able to complete this important reform. The consultations are still under way on the exact form of the reorganisation that will take place, and it would be wrong for me to comment on that today.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

I have great respect for the Secretary of State; I believe that he is one of the finest Ministers on this Government’s Front Bench, and I have great sympathy for him. The reality is that at times, we have all been presented with advice that has proven to be poor. Frankly, the reality that a lot of us are aware of is that he inherited a mess when he moved away from the very fine job he was doing in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to his current Department.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will not publish figures to indicate the savings that this work will allegedly generate. The only figures we have available are those produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which have been quoted by Ministers previously. When we look through the figures at the geographical sites that we are talking about, we see that there are no savings through local government reorganisation, particularly when the wider public sector reform agenda is being taken apart by larger police areas and changes to the size of integrated care boards. On that basis, we are undertaking a situation in which there will be significant financial costs to the local authorities but none of the savings that are currently projected. If the Government have contrary figures, I welcome the publication of them and of the advice. The sizes that we are talking about are 14 times larger than the next largest authorities in Europe, with a greater diameter than Greater London and without any community of interest, so given that this will leave Labour communities at the mercy of right-wing councils—

[Peter Lamb]

Immediately, yes. Given that poor advice has previously been given by the Department to the Secretary of State, is it not time to pause and reconsider the evidence base for local government reform?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and of course recognise that he is one of the finest constituency MPs in the House—it was a delight to campaign for him, and it is a pleasure to see him in his seat now. We have had this conversation before, and it is quite right that we continue to have it, but I do not agree with his analysis; there are savings that will derive from local government reorganisation, and it will also make the system simpler for local people to understand. However, I know that the debate will continue.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Building on the point made by the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), the £63 million of new capacity funding is a drop in the ocean compared with the real cost of LGR across the country. We are talking about councils having to merge workforces, IT contracts and outsourced contracts, none of which has been properly funded by central Government. These are authorities that are highly leveraged and do not have the reserves to pay for it. What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the true cost of local government reorganisation?

[Steve Reed]

I have announced additional funding. It is very unfair to describe it as a drop in the ocean, because it goes a long way towards supporting councils that need to go through local government reorganisation to remove anomalies, such as that people in two-tier areas have one council that is responsible for leaves above a drain and another that is responsible for leaves below a drain. If residents do not know which council to contact, it is very difficult for them to seek improvements in the services they are using, which is why it is so important that we continue with this process.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He mentioned Surrey, and he will know that my constituency is going to be in a unitary authority called West Surrey. I have received a huge number of representations from constituents who would like the Secretary of State to consider calling that unitary authority West Surrey and South Middlesex, to take account of the fact that Spelthorne has been in Middlesex for 1,000 years and has never really thought of itself as being in Surrey. Will the Secretary of State meet me, so that I can make further representations on my constituents’ behalf?

[Steve Reed]

I am always happy to consider proposals made by the hon. Gentleman, and I will ensure that he gets an appropriate meeting on the point that he has raised, either with me or one of my fellow Ministers.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I welcome the news that the people of East Sussex and Eastbourne will at last have the chance to vote to boot out a Conservative-run county council that has attempted to close a learning disability centre for local people, Linden Court; that has attempted to strip back services at Milton Grange for people with dementia; and that has the worst pothole compensation rate of any Conservative-run council in the country. However, will the Secretary of State pledge to not just me or the people of Eastbourne, but the people of East Sussex, that he will not disrespect their right to democracy next year when they are meant to have the right to vote for unitary councillors in our patch?

[Steve Reed]

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks. During recess, I had the pleasure of visiting East Sussex, and from my own experience, I agree with what he has said about the potholes in many parts of that beautiful county.

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

The Secretary of State conveniently forgot to mention that he has been caught red-handed trying to cancel elections, and that he has restored them only because of the legal action of Reform UK. I do not expect him to thank us, but could he at least do the decent and honourable thing and apologise for the confusion and chaos caused to hundreds of council officers across the country, apologise to some 5 million voters, and then resign?

[Steve Reed]

I will not make any apologies for listening to local leaders or for respecting legal advice. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for things that people should resign over, how about the decision to appoint as the leader of Reform UK in Wales a man who was a traitor to his country, and who is now serving 10 years in jail?

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

What about the cancelled mayoral elections, such as those in Sussex and Hampshire? Do not the same arguments that the Secretary of State has made apply to those elections, or is he just afraid of our candidates, Katy Bourne and Donna Jones?

[Steve Reed]

That decision was taken under different legislation and in different circumstances. It is very important that local government reorganisation is completed before going ahead with the mayoral elections, to which we remain committed, so that this happens in an ordered way.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

West Sussex county council should never have been offered the opportunity to postpone for a second year running, effectively gifting the Conservative-controlled administration a seven-year term. Now, with democracy restored, there are just 74 days until the polls, so will West Sussex still be expected to work to the original timescale for the creation of unitary authorities and a combined authority that will sit with the mayoralty, or will that also be delayed? How much additional support will be provided to the council, and specifically to the staff at West Sussex, who are now working to a very tight schedule to deliver elections for their residents?

[Steve Reed]

We are proceeding to local government reorganisation on the agreed timetable, with no changes envisaged. We have made additional funding available to support capacity needs, to ensure that reorganisation can go ahead as expected, and I am not aware of any concerns from councils about their ability to deliver these elections. Indeed, councils have delivered snap general elections across the whole country in less time than remains between now and the date of the local elections in May.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

This has been a shamefully incompetent episode, and perhaps the most shameful part of it is that the Government have been forced to use taxpayers’ money to pay the claimant’s costs. Could the Secretary of State tell us exactly how much taxpayers’ money has been given to the claimant? Perhaps if he cannot do so, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) could let us know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

That is certainly not an unusual circumstance in cases that end up in the courts in this way. The costs are still being assessed, so I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer to that question at the moment.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

As recently as 22 January, this Government formally committed to delaying local elections again, but facing defeat in the judicial review, they suddenly realised that the delay was unlawful. This U-turn has cost £63 million at a time when my own local authority in Cornwall faces a massive funding shortfall. Legal advice does not usually suddenly change without a material change in facts, so did the Secretary of State ignore the Attorney General’s legal advice on this matter until it became obvious that the Government would lose, or did the Attorney General provide incorrect legal advice to the Secretary of State? Which is it?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am unable to discuss the detail of legal advice that was given to the Government, but there is nothing unusual at all about giving fresh ministerial consideration when decisions are revisited after legal advice is received. That is what happened.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Given that the Government have now reversed their decision to postpone the 2026 local elections following legal advice, can the Secretary of State confirm whether the same legal considerations also applied to the elections to Surrey county council—which covers my constituency—that were postponed last year? If he states that the Government do not comment on legal advice, do you not agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my Woking constituents have been unlawfully robbed of voting out an incompetent Surrey county council last year?

[Steve Reed]

As I said in my statement, the unitary council elections will be going ahead in Surrey this year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his endeavours. I note that this reorganisation is set to streamline services and save an estimated £2.9 billion over five years. However, from my experience—I am not better than anybody else, but I always try to be helpful—I issue a note of caution. With Northern Ireland 10 years on from our reform of councils, a 2024 Department for Communities report concluded that it is too early to determine whether those reforms have been cost-effective, with the new, larger councils actually spending more than their 26 predecessors. Has the Secretary of State taken into account that report and that uncertainty, and has he ensured that the Government are not promising billions of pounds in savings while actually taking more from taxpayers and ratepayers?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his observations, but I remain confident that eliminating duplication where residents are paying for two sets of councillors, two sets of chief executives and two sets of finance directors will save residents money, which can then be invested in the frontline services that matter most to people; for example, it can be used to fix the potholes that we heard about earlier.