English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress, if I may.

Lords amendments 26 and 89 seek to specify that mayors, combined authorities and combined county authorities may designate greenfield land for development only when they are satisfied that no suitable brownfield land exists. The Government are strongly committed to a brownfield-first approach, and we have been clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call. To further support this ambition, the national planning policy framework was revised in December 2024 to set out that proposals for brownfield development should normally be approved.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make a little more progress first.

We also expanded the definition of previously developed land in the framework to include large areas of hardstanding, better reflecting land that is already developed. We are looking to go further still in our support for brownfield development as part of our most recent consultation on changes to the national planning policy framework, which closed in March.

The Government strongly promote this policy, so there is no disagreement on policy here. However, brownfield sites vary greatly and need to be both available and in the right place to support sustainable development and meet the needs of the community. These amendments seek to impose this sort of requirement in legislation rather than in policy, which is what we do across all aspects of the planning system; this would be unduly rigid, likely to delay land coming forward for development and support unsustainable development in some cases.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I am conscious that we do not have a huge amount of time this evening. If this Labour Government were really serious about a brownfield-first approach, they would accept these amendments from the House of Lords, because they are exactly about ensuring that developers develop on that sort of land first. These amendments would protect communities and the environment in places like mine, which are coming under attack from her Government, who want to impose 20,000 homes on Walsall.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am not going to resile from the fact that we want to build more homes, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have a housing crisis, and we absolutely need to build more homes across the country. However, we are agreed on the principle of brownfield first. Our argument is simply that that should be done through policy, as we do across all aspects of the planning system from local authorities—it is far too rigid to be put on the face of the Bill. We have strengthened the national policy framework to deliver that policy intent, which we hope will reassure and satisfy Members of both this House and the other place.

Briefly, Lords amendments 36, 155 and 90 seek to remove provisions from the Bill relating to local authority governance and executives. The Government continue to hold a strong preference for executive models of governance, and in particular the leader and cabinet model, which is already operated successfully by 80% of councils.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I will begin by recognising the work that has taken place in both Houses to try to improve this legislation, which is in many ways such a curate’s egg. It has faults and flaws that their lordships in the other place have worked towards improving, and I thank them for that work.

The Conservatives have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that this is a centralising Bill. It takes decisions away from local communities and places them into the hands of Ministers, often without consent. We have already seen the consequences of this centralising of power and “Government know best” attitude. We have seen elections cancelled and then reinstated. We have seen the restructuring of local government imposed from the centre, driven by political considerations rather than the voice of the independent boundary commissions.

Local leaders are being presented with plans and told to comply. It is called a devolution Bill, but it is not devolution. We welcome the improvements to this Bill put forward by the Lords. The question before the House, however, remains simple: does this Bill empower local areas, or does it continue a pattern of centralised control? I will go through the Lords amendments in turn.

Lords amendment 36, which we support, would be an important and practical improvement to the Bill. It establishes the clear principle that brownfield land should be used first. That is just common sense. We want to get more houses built—of course we do—but we should start with land that has already been used rather than virgin land. The amendment protects communities while still enabling homes to be built with local approval and local consent.

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. In the west midlands under the leadership of Andy Street, it was proven that we can regenerate brownfield sites—we have done it in the Walsall borough. The Government must be prepared, as we were when we were in government, to put in some funding to unlock those sites. It can be a win-win as we develop brownfield sites, regenerate our towns and cities, create the housing wanted by young people and old people, and protect the green belt and our green spaces for as long as we possibly can, allowing communities such as those I represent—600 people came out last weekend to protest against the Government’s measures—to enjoy the amenities of life that they currently do.

[Sir James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this fundamentally betrays a lack of ambition from the Government. The Minister for Housing and Planning will know Kidbrooke in south-east London, which is a fantastic example of redeveloping previously developed land. Poor-quality post-second world war tower blocks have been redeveloped, with increased beauty and increased density, which is good for the local economy and good for the local society. The Bill does nothing to encourage more developments like that; it encourages developers to build cheap and awful in green fields around urban areas, which is the opposite of what should happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I would like to start by thanking colleagues across the House in the other place who have worked tirelessly to improve this Bill, in particular the Liberal Democrat peers Baroness Pidgeon, Lord Foster of Bath, Baroness Bakewell and Lord Shipley. As we on these Liberal Democrat Benches have said throughout the passage of the Bill, it has potential but it does not amount to true devolution, and I sincerely hope that after the next King’s Speech we will see more real devolution and more on neighbourhood governance.

What this Bill offers is power handed down with strings attached—shaped and constrained by central Government rather than genuinely entrusted to local communities. The Government’s response to the Lords amendments before us only reinforces that fact. The Government say that the Bill rebalances power away from Whitehall, but their response to the amendments tells a different story, resisting even the most modest steps that would give local areas more clarity, flexibility and control. I believe that those are the real hallmarks of devolution.

Let me start with where I feel power is being withheld. Our Lords amendment 2 would ensure that rural affairs were properly recognised within the competencies of strategic authorities. The Government say that that is unnecessary and that non-statutory guidance will suffice. I appreciate that the Minister has moved forward on this issue, but I take the view that without a clear legal requirement, rural areas risk being overlooked, as they too often are at the moment. There must be a duty, either in the Bill or through statutory guidance, to ensure that rural communities are properly considered. Non-statutory guidance can, sadly, be ignored because it creates no obligation. This really matters. Rural areas are already under pressure, facing higher delivery costs and feeling the strain of the recent funding review. Without a clear duty, they risk once again becoming an afterthought.

We see the same pattern when we look at how power is exercised. Lords amendment 4 would ensure transparency in the appointment of mayoral commissioners. The Government again say that the guidance is enough, but these are unelected positions with real influence. Transparency should never be optional in any layer of government. The guidance speaks of visibility and accountability, yet says nothing about merit-based selection. Concerns about patronage are quietly acknowledged but not addressed structurally. If the Government believe that appointments should be fair and open—that is what I firmly believe, and we can clearly see that that is what the public expect—they should have no hesitation in putting that principle into law.

Lords amendment 13 moved by my colleague in the Lords, Baroness Pidgeon, would strengthen democratic oversight of the Mayor of London’s budget. Put simply, a two-thirds threshold is not a safeguard; it is a barrier to effective scrutiny. A simple majority is not radical; it is democratic. Londoners deserve an Assembly that can genuinely hold the mayor to account.

We also see the Government’s lack of true devolution in how planning decisions are shaped on the ground. Lords amendment 26 would embed a genuine brownfield-first approach. The Government say that the policy already achieves that, but the reality is different. Developers are often incentivised to build on greenfield or grey belt land because it is quicker and cheaper. The reality in my own constituency is that the majority of large planning applications are coming forward on green belt and grey belt. That is undermining public trust in development altogether. People recognise that we need more homes and they want more homes, but the way they see it happening undermines their trust in the process. Brownfield sites may be more complex, but they come with infrastructure, connectivity and the opportunity for real regeneration. Once again, if the Government are serious about that priority, it should be reflected in law, not left to policy alone.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, with which she knows I have a lot of sympathy. In my area, it is estimated that 5,000 homes could be unlocked if we had a proper brownfield-first approach to planning. Does she agree that the whole issue around housing is about not a lack of land but a lack of funding to regenerate some of the sites, a lack of political will from this Government and a lack of ambition? The Government should look at the brownfield sites and the empty buildings, and then look again at the housing targets that have been arbitrarily put on areas which will do nothing to protect us from urban sprawl.

[Zöe Franklin]

When it comes to brownfield-first development in my constituency, there is an area in the town centre where we could deliver homes, but that is prevented by the fact that we do not have the money to progress at pace with the necessary flood alleviation scheme. We will be voting to support Lords amendment 26 —we need to keep the provision in the Bill.

Local government structures are perhaps the clearest example of how democracy itself is not being devolved by the Government. Our Lords amendment 36 would allow local authorities to determine their own governance structures. Instead, the Government insist on imposing a single model from the centre.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

In the interests of time, I will keep my remarks brief. First, I would like to speak in favour of Lords amendment 26, which would ensure a brownfield-first approach. If this were well and truly a brownfield-first Labour Government, they would support this amendment. Broxbourne has had its fair share of development, but targets are going up and up. This Labour Government have increased Broxbourne’s housing targets by 22%, while decreasing them in London by 11%. That is not fair, and it is creating loads of urban sprawl on the green belt in the village of Goffs Oak, which is under attack. This Government should be trying to protect those green spaces.

[Wendy Morton]

Urban sprawl is exactly why the green belt was put in place. Its purpose was to protect areas such as mine, my hon. Friend’s and many others that are on the periphery of some of the biggest conurbations and urban areas from urban sprawl. Does he agree that this Labour Government do not care about our communities? All they care about is an arbitrary housing target.

[Lewis Cocking]

My right hon. Friend makes a fantastic point, and she is an excellent campaigner for protecting the green belt in her constituency. The green belt around London was set up after the second world war to protect the periphery from urban sprawl. Just as her constituency is next to a big city, mine is next to London.

The Government are now proposing a new town right in the heart of this green space that was meant to be protected, with 21,000 new homes at Crews Hill, effectively joining my constituency to the urban sprawl of London. My constituency is completely different from London, and that green belt needs to be protected. It is a crucial buffer zone between the urban sprawl coming out of London and the ruralness of Hertfordshire.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

We obviously keep the local housing allowance under review along with the DWP. If we want to prevent homelessness, we need to build homes and ensure that people can afford them. That is why the Chancellor’s investment of £39 billion to build the social housing that we need is a crucial part of ensuring that families can get housed properly in this country in the future.

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

14. What steps he is taking to protect the green belt.

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

The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades. We have not changed the five purposes of the green belt set out in paragraph 143 of the national planning policy framework. That framework still contains strong protections for the green belt, making it clear that inappropriate development should not be approved unless justified by very special circumstances.

[Wendy Morton]

The approach to the green belt taken by Labour Members is the clearest example yet of their saying one thing and doing another. The Secretary of State campaigns against building on green spaces in his own constituency, but he is more than happy to see green spaces in my constituency concreted over by developers. Can the Minister tell me why constituents’ green space in my area is apparently less important than the green space in the Secretary of State’s area?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the right hon. Lady well understands—we have had this exchange many times—it is for individual local planning authorities to determine whether green-belt land should be released and the exceptional circumstances test has been met. All the clever questions that she comes up with—I admire her ingenuity in doing so—disguise her true position, which is that she does not want any houses built on any green-belt land in any part of her constituency or anywhere near it, even if that means preventing families from buying or even longer waits for people on housing waiting registers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I will.

[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.

Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for waste collection in Birmingham and the West Midlands.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to open this debate. Waste collections and waste services are at the heart of what local authorities do, and underpin an essential part of the daily service that they provide to their taxpayers. However, over the last 12 months there has been a breakdown in waste collection services in Birmingham, which has impacted the wider west midlands area, including my own constituency in the borough of Walsall, because of the year-long industrial action in the Labour-run city.

The industrial action has led to rubbish being piled high on the streets, fly tipping across the city and, in neighbouring boroughs such as mine, rats—or as they have become known, “squeaky blinders”—running rampant through the streets. The Army has even been called in to manage a logistical operation to prevent a public health disaster. The region is being reported right across the globe for all the wrong reasons. I spoke with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), who is sadly unable to be with us today; he reported that the situation in his town is, in some areas, getting worse.

I want to start by focusing on some positives from my own Conservative borough of Walsall. Like all boroughs, Walsall faces challenges with waste collection, waste management and, importantly, waste crime. Just before Christmas, our council cabinet approved a new waste strategy for 2025 to 2035: “Waste Not, Want Not: Walsall’s Journey to Sustainability”. At its heart, it recognises that waste management is fundamental to public health.

Central to the ambition will be the opening of a new state-of-the-art household waste recycling centre and waste transfer station in my own Aldridge-Brownhills constituency. That £32 million investment is designed to reduce the volume of waste going to landfill by improving recycling rates and sorting capacity. It has the capacity to manage up to 40,000 tonnes of waste a year. A reuse shop and workshop area will also operate on site, refurbishing items for resale and keeping usable goods out of the waste stream.

Last September our council invested a further £4.4 million in key areas of environmental enforcement, which was seen as a priority by members of the public. That additional support includes a fly-tipping crackdown, an expansion of fixed-penalty notices, bulky-waste enforcement and an expansion of CCTV—things that, as I know from my own inbox and social media, matter to people. That series of initiatives will have a significant impact on ensuring better environment management. I congratulate the council on it.

Good environmental management and waste collection is also massively underpinned by networks of volunteers who, week in and week out, go about their communities to clear rubbish or pick up litter. In my own constituency, we are greatly supported by volunteers such as Mike Hawes in Aldridge, Bev Cooper in Pheasey Park Farm and Martin Collins in Pelsall—to name but a few. They give their time freely to maintain civic pride in our communities. I also commend the work of Keep Britain Tidy, an organisation that helps foster thousands of people taking action to reduce litter, protect nature and create a cleaner, greener future for everyone.

Improving the environment on our doorsteps is so important. Positive action by local councils such as my own in Walsall, along with a strong network of community volunteers assisted by organisations such as Keep Britain Tidy, are helping us promote environmental management and responsibility, to reduce waste crime and improve our ability to focus on improved rates of waste management and recycling.

The same cannot be said of our nearest neighbours in Birmingham. When there is a major industrial waste dispute on the doorstep, that impacts on neighbouring communities and the wider region—as the strike in Birmingham has most definitely demonstrated. The ongoing saga that is the Birmingham bin strike has now entered its second year. The whole strike is causing massive reputational damage to the United Kingdom’s second city and to the wider west midlands region. Indeed, the battering that the city has taken stretches across the globe, with news outlets such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, under the headline “Rats on the loose”, and the international press openly debating the mayhem in the midlands as those squeaky blinders ran riot.

The sheer cost to the taxpayer is also simply eye-watering. Between January and August last year, the council spent £8.4 million on agency staff and a further £5 million on outsourced contractors—a staggering total of £1.65 million per month. That is three times the monthly spend on waste collection services in 2024, which were costing £533,000 per month—all this from a council that is effectively bankrupt. At the same time, it is estimated that the council has lost £4.4 million in revenue as it was forced to suspend garden waste services to prioritise waste collections.

If the strike continues until the end of March, the one-off costs, including additional street cleaning and security as well as lost income, are anticipated to rise to £14.6 million. On 28 January 2025, almost a year ago, Birmingham city council acknowledged its extremely poor recycling rates, which are the second lowest of any unitary authority in the country at only 22.9%. That is a far cry from the 65% target expected by local authorities in 2035. Of course, such was the impact of the strikes across the city that one of the first services to be cancelled was recycling.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I am sorry to have missed the start of the right hon. Lady’s speech. I am listening carefully to what she says. I am curious to know whether she raised concerns about the cancellation of services in Birmingham in the days when the authority was suffering the sharpest cuts in funding of any metropolitan council, amounting to 40p in the pound for every Brummie.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my Birmingham neighbour, for his intervention. In relation to the issue of waste, my focus is the impact on my constituency. It is just over 10 years since I was first elected, and this is the worst situation that I have ever seen on my doorstep. I have staff members living in the Labour-run Birmingham city council area who still have wrapping paper from Christmas 2024 in their recycling bins.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I apologise for missing the first moments of the debate. This situation is having a profound impact, and what is going on is a travesty. There is a complete failure of leadership. This is bleeding out into the wider area. My constituency borders Birmingham, and we have streets of two halves—one half is in the Birmingham city council area, where the bins are piling up, and the other half is in Bromsgrove, where the bins are collected. We are seeing an acute rise in fly-tipping. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a failure of leadership, and that there is no excuse for a global city in a developed G7 country to be facing a leadership failure this acute?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. We are talking about the UK’s second largest city. I really worry about its reputation and about the distinct lack of political leadership. Our mayor seems to want to wash his hands of the issue. I try and try to raise the matter in this House, much to the annoyance of Mr Speaker, but I know that there are residents across Birmingham, and friends of mine, who find this deeply frustrating. They pay their council tax, and do not get this most basic of services.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Member agree that it was under the previous Government that unelected commissioners were imposed on Birmingham city council by a previous Conservative Secretary of State, Michael Gove? Since that day, it has been run by unelected commissioners. She is trying to blame the political leadership, which in effect is held to ransom by the commissioners. Is she saying that it was the wrong decision to impose unelected commissioners on Birmingham?

[Wendy Morton]

No, I am not. The reason why the commissioners were put in place was that Labour-run Birmingham city council was failing. That is why the commissioners came in. I am saying that we are facing a lack of political leadership.

I try to raise this issue in various fora, but nobody seems to want to get it resolved. What bothers me most is that there are residents who pay their council tax and who need a voice. They need somebody to stand up alongside other Birmingham MPs and councillors and say, “It is time to get this fixed.” The other reason why I am standing up on this issue is that I have constituents who work in the sector. They are being impacted, as are the peripheral parts of my constituency, as in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). It is my constituents who have to pay the extra cost for the extra fly-tipping. That cannot be fair.

The net result of cancelling recycling is that the already poor figure of 22% has plummeted to just 15%. There are major fly-tipping hotspots right across the city; when bins go uncollected for months on end, fly-tipping respects no borders. In Pheasey Park Farm ward, which borders the Birmingham city council area, we have seen a constant uptick in people crossing the border to fly-tip.

In all of this, the point about the consistent lack of political leadership keeps cropping up. Where has the Labour Mayor of the West Midlands been through all of this? Nowhere. As recently as 18 December, he said on Radio West Midlands:

“I don’t employ the workforce”.

He also said:

“I have done all I can.”

To be honest, to the outside world that does not appear to have been an awful lot—that is my reply, Mr Mayor.

The mayor may not employ the workforce—I get that—but he knows the reputational damage that is being done not just to Birmingham but to the wider west midlands. As the most senior elected politician in the region, he should have been far more proactive and visible in ensuring that a resolution was found, or in encouraging people to get round the table to sort the situation out. Does anyone believe that had Andy Street still been the Mayor of the West Midlands, he would not have moved heaven and earth to ensure that the escalation of the strike was stopped, and the dispute resolved, at the earliest opportunity? I am pretty damn certain that he would have done so.

Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, some of whom were appointed as far back as September of last year, have responded to me and others in the House, but it appears that they have not even held meetings with the leaders of Birmingham city council so that a resolution can be moved towards.

[Laurence Turner]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Wendy Morton]

Of course; I am nothing if not generous.

[Laurence Turner]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way; she is indeed being generous with her time. I listened to her comments about the former Mayor of the West Midlands with half a smile on my face; in my constituency I find that I have to chase up on endless promises made to my constituents about things that would be delivered—promises that were as real as fairy dust. However, that is a topic for another day. Does the right hon. Lady accept, and I say this as a former trade union official, that there are only ever two parties to a dispute? In this case, they are the union and the council. Those are the two parties who need to sort out this dispute. To suggest otherwise gives an impression to our constituents that is not accurate.

[Wendy Morton]

No—with all due respect, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Ultimately, there may be only two parties who can find a resolution, and I would be the first to admit that I am not a trade union specialist nor a trade union member, but I am saying there needs to be leadership on behalf of the residents, with someone saying that we need to get this resolved once and for all. That is what is absolutely lacking.

If the Mayor of the West Midlands will not show any political leadership, Ministers should surely show some. Where are the leaders of Labour Birmingham city council? Councillor John Cotton walked away from negotiations on 9 July; that is 196 days ago today. To me, that is not political leadership; it is letting down the communities that he serves and that elected him.

We constantly hear the refrain that the hands of the political leadership at Birmingham city council are tied, because, of course, of the intervention of the commissioners, which was highlighted earlier. If we accept that, then we also have to accept that the commissioners are the appointees of the Government, and are now—under this Government—responsible to Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. That is surely where we should be getting the political leadership, or even common sense, that is badly needed to resolve this dispute once and for all.

This strike is harming residents, it is harming local communities and it is harming our reputation. As recently as last week, civic leaders were calling for urgent action to end this dispute, and they quite rightly commented:

“Waste collection is not an optional extra, it is a fundamental public service”.

The Government must take heed, because waste collection is a fundamental service. When people cannot manage waste collections, they cannot manage their local authority, because they have fundamentally let down their residents at the most basic level.

To conclude, now is the time for action on the part of this Government to get to grips with waste management in Birmingham, to ensure that this ongoing industrial action stops impacting not just Birmingham residents but those in the wider west midlands, including the borough of Walsall.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate. I also remind them that the latest that this debate can go to is 6.8 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. She is an absolute champion for her local area, and I know how hard she has worked to secure this debate on Government support for waste collections in Birmingham and the west midlands—a debate that could have been completely avoided, had the Government done due diligence on ensuring that local authorities deliver for local communities.

A person is in a topsy-turvy world when they find themselves in utter agreement with the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), but that is the situation I find myself in this afternoon. In response to the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), I say that despite his passionate speech, he does not have a monopoly on representing working-class people. I happen to represent lots of working-class people and am working class myself. It was because I am working class that I joined the Conservative party. The hon. Member talks about the electoral oblivion of the Labour party. I suggest that it is socialist speeches of the 1980s that will destine the Labour party to electoral oblivion, not the current policies that they are putting out today.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is absolutely right to bring forward this issue today. Quite frankly, it is a national embarrassment that one of our nation’s greatest cities—indeed, the second largest in the country—is facing a situation like this. As my hon. Friend said, the “squeaky blinders” are running freely down the streets and into piles of rubbish found outside hard-working people’s homes. I certainly would not want to see rats in my street, and I am sure that all Members taking part in this debate can absolutely agree with that. What is just as embarrassing is that, on a local and national level, the Government and Labour-run Birmingham city council have failed to address the situation soon enough.

As has already been mentioned here today, the waste management dispute began in March 2025, with some residents having had no collections since Christmas 2024. At the risk of stating the obvious, it is now January 2026 and the Government have stood idly by. This Government shamefully still fail to recognise the importance of this issue. On 13 January they referred to the waste dispute as a “local issue” and left it to their failing colleagues at Birmingham city council. The industrial action taking place in Birmingham has left residents without their rubbish collected for well over a year. That is simply not good enough; it is chaotic and shambolic.

The issue is much more than bins not being collected; as colleagues have highlighted, there are serious implications for public health. As the hon. Member for Leeds East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, there are commissioners in Birmingham city council, and the Government put those commissioners into the local authority. The Government have legislative cover to commission and start talks for negotiations to end the strike. So far, the political leadership of this Government have determined not to do that. That is a stain on the character of this Government, and it has caused a reduction in services for the people of the great city of Birmingham.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills outlined, the fiscal ineptitude of Birmingham city council is deeply concerning. It has allowed taxes to soar and effectively bankrupted itself through extra spending and the using up of its reserves. In other words, it has deeply let down residents in Birmingham and the west midlands. There is a clear need for Government intervention. Instead, Birmingham is set to receive one of the most generous payouts from the Government’s unfair funding review—a review designed to benefit poorly run, Labour-run urban councils. That narrative explains itself.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something fundamentally wrong when a council like Birmingham city council has been almost rewarded in its funding settlement for failure?

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend has made that point expertly. That is also on the back of a 7.5% increase in council tax after a previous 10% increase.

Finally, after that intervention, I would like to piggyback on my right hon. Friend and thank local Conservative councils, particularly Walsall, and recognise the work of Keep Britian Tidy and the individual volunteers who my right hon. Friend mentioned, who go to their communities to clear rubbish. It is great to hear that there are still individuals who take pride in what their local area looks like and who want to protect nature and work together towards a greener future. I am delighted that Aldridge-Brownhills will have a new household waste recycling centre and a waste transfer station opening next month, and that it will actively help reduce landfill waste and increase recycling.

To conclude, I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend and, it turns out this afternoon, also Members from across the House, who say that waste collections are a fundamental service. That is fact. It is paramount that the Government take decisive action to resolve the ongoing waste management saga in Birmingham and the west midlands. That has been clearly called for from all quarters—the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and independent Members, and us as the official Opposition. They all want to see leadership from the Government to control the people that they put in to control that local authority, to bring them to the table. I encourage the Minister to do that, because this problem has simply gone on for too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

My right hon. Friend spells out the situation: clearly the Government are not the employer but, given that we have commissioners, we will want to hear regularly about what is happening in Birmingham. I will come to that point later.

The Government are not a party to the ongoing dispute. It is an issue for the parties involved to work towards a sustainable solution, notwithstanding the question I have just been asked and my response—given the arrangements with commissioners, I will want to hear from them directly. The Government have that responsibility because of the decision that was taken.

I call on all involved to end the disruption. Last spring, the Government took action to avert a public health crisis, as a number of Members have mentioned, and supported the council in clearing the streets. As a result, the council was able to remove thousands of tonnes of waste from the street and restart regular kerbside collections. As a result, thankfully, we have not seen a return to the crisis that the city faced last spring, and the waste has not piled up to dangerous levels. The council and my Department will continue to monitor the situation closely and ensure that waste does not build up again. It is important to note that although residual waste is now being collected regularly, recycling remains suspended, as Members have said. That situation must change.

[Wendy Morton]

To be absolutely clear, if the Minister thinks that waste is not piling up, does she think that the situation in Birmingham is acceptable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

I thank all Members, across Westminster Hall, for their contributions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) says, it feels like a topsy-turvy world of politics when we agree on a certain topic, but it shows that occasionally it can be done. That said, the message is very clear: the people of Birmingham and the wider west midlands deserve better. Our collective message to the Government is also very clear: “Get a grip, Minister. Get everyone around the table. Bring an end to this strike, once and for all. For the sake of the city, the wider west midlands, the residents and our constituents, please take responsibility.”

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for waste collection in Birmingham and the West Midlands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

My hon. Friend is completely right. We are clear that communities must be in the driving seat. That is why we have asked for neighbourhood boards to be set up, to determine the priorities that the investment goes into. The one requirement we have of local areas is that there is a bigger conversation in the community so that everyone is involved in shaping what is invested in and reviving their area.

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

When the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness said that residents of Birmingham do matter when it comes to the bin strikes, I agree with her—but so do neighbouring constituencies, where we often get the blight of additional fly-tipping as well as having constituents who work at the council. Will she personally undertake not just to get people round the table, but to get this sorted out once and for all?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the right hon. Lady for raising that on behalf of her constituents. The impact of fly-tipping is clearly a worry to us all. She raises the seriousness of the issue, which I and the Secretary of State also recognise.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am delighted to bring the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill back to the House on Report. Before I go any further, I would like to place on the record my gratitude to Members from across the House for their continued engagement on this Bill, and in particular to the Chairs and members of the Public Bill Committee for their diligent and thoughtful contributions to line-by-line scrutiny.

This Bill will secure the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and communities in a generation. At its heart is the principle that if we take power out of Westminster and Whitehall and place it in the hands of local leaders and communities who know their patch, we can unlock the economic potential of places, revive communities that have been held back for too long, and deliver for people in the places where they live, raise a family and work.

We will provide mayors and their strategic authorities with new powers over planning, housing, transport and regeneration so that they can get Britain building and unleash the economic potential of their areas. We will reform and rebuild local government so that it can once again deliver good local services that people can rely on, and we will empower local communities to shape their places so that they can drive the change they want to see on their doorstep.

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

Can the Minister assure me that the devolution of powers to our mayors—the west midlands is a really good example, because we have had a mayor for a number of years—will be accompanied by a devolution of accountability and scrutiny to local councillors and, importantly, to local communities? I fear that that is exactly what is missing and continues to be missing in this piece of legislation.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Absolutely. We are very clear that with powers come responsibility and accountability. We are strengthening scrutiny powers for local government, and we will continue to look at ways in which we can strengthen scrutiny and accountability powers for mayors. We are absolutely clear that we have got to devolve power, but alongside that it is really important that local people can hold to account the institutions we are creating and building.

Since the Bill left this Chamber after Second Reading, the Government have made a modest number of amendments to ensure that it will operate as intended. To be clear, we have not introduced significant new policy; rather, we have responded to concerns raised by Members in the best traditions of parliamentary scrutiny. I am therefore confident that we are bringing a better Bill back on Report.

Today’s debate is concerned with parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, on strategic authorities and their powers, duties and functions. Many of our amendments are minor and technical, and I will therefore focus on explaining the more substantive changes we made in Committee and the further amendments we have brought forward on Report that relate to these parts of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make a little more progress, and then I will give way. The Bill provides mayors of strategic authorities with the ability to intervene in planning applications of potential strategic importance and to make mayoral development orders to better support growth in their area. Those powers are currently only available to the Mayor of London. When a mayor decides that they will become a local planning authority for an application of potential strategic importance, our amendment will enable them to choose between either a written representation procedure or an oral hearing, so that applicants, local planning authorities and other parties can make representations before a final decision is made.

To be clear, we want oral hearings to continue to be an important part of mayoral decision making. Applications of potential strategic importance that a mayor is dealing with will often be significant developments with wider ramifications for the area, so it is crucial that there is an opportunity to make direct representation to the mayor. However, an oral hearing may not be necessary for certain applications where planning matters may be less substantial, such as where an application deals with a variation to an earlier permission and the planning matter has already been established. We believe that this provision, which creates options and gives flexibility to the mayor, could save up to several months, such as by avoiding an unnecessary repeated oral hearing period.

[Wendy Morton]

I am concerned that this measure will result in a railroading of planning applications, which will impact on constituencies such as mine, on the periphery of the west midlands. What specific safeguards will the Minister be putting in place to ensure that ward councillors, local planning committees and local Members of Parliament continue to have a voice? At the moment, the Mayor of the West Midlands does not even reply to my letters.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are clear that where a mayoral development order is being put in place, there will be processes and procedures that the mayor will have to set out so that people can make direct representation. Ultimately, I come back to the fact that mayors will be democratically elected. Therefore, the need to consult will be critical, whether that is with their constituent authorities in order to deliver or, importantly, with their community, who can vote them in or out. We have set out and designed this measure to allow that representation and that consultation. Ultimately, there is a democratic lock if a mayor does not abide with that engagement.

Amendments to schedule 12 remove the need for the mayor to secure the local planning authority’s approval before making, revising or revoking a mayoral development order. I reiterate, however—this is important—that this change is not an attempt to bypass local planning authorities. Mayors will still have to bring those authorities along, as they will be crucial for delivering these orders. If mayors cannot build the consent and support of the local planning authority, it will be much more difficult to deliver the development and ensure that consents and approvals go through. The Bill is about empowering mayors, because we believe that they have a democratic mandate to provide that strategic leadership. Critically, they must and will do that in lockstep with their constituent authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and, indeed, in the Bill, there are plenty of other examples—which we discussed in Committee—of the Government not genuinely devolving to mayors, local authorities and combined authorities powers that they would actually quite like, but giving them the powers that they want them to have, while taking other powers away. That is not true devolution, and the Government should look again at delivering true devolution throughout the United Kingdom.

[Wendy Morton]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Holmes]

Very briefly, but I must then make some progress.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is more of an English centralisation and community disempowerment Bill?

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend tempts me; I agree with her wholeheartedly. It is crazy that the Government are embarked on one of the largest sets of planning reforms in the country at this time. Fair funding formulas are being announced, and many planning reforms have been announced over the past few months, but the authorities concerned are being abolished and, essentially, reorganised. The way that the Government have approached their reforming agenda is topsy-turvy, and they need to go back to the drawing board.

Far from creating clarity, the Bill piles new combined authorities, new mayoralties and new boards on top of already overlapping local councils. The Government are introducing complexity at a moment when the public want simplicity—clear lines of responsibility, not an ever-changing maze of institutions—and they are doing all this while fundamentally changing planning laws. Residents should be able to know, without needing a flowchart, who is responsible for transport, planning, regeneration or housing, but the Bill fails that basic test of good governance. As I have said, there is a plethora of reforms at different stages and in different bits of legislation.

Many—I would argue—very good amendments and new clauses have been tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, including new clause 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and new clause 48, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), which I moved in Committee, and which would allow a mayor to benefit from the true devolution that the Government have spoken about by being allowed regulatory responsibility for ferries. Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) have signed that new clause. I brought the matter up in Committee, and, to her credit, the Minister committed to ensuring that the Department for Transport would have another look at establishing the body that my hon. Friend was promised; that, I believe, has not happened yet. New clause 48 would allow mayors to ensure that they were acting, in respect of transport connectivity, on behalf of the people who elected them. I do not see why the Government are resisting the new clause, because they have allowed mayors regulatory responsibility for many areas across the United Kingdom, and not only geographically.

The Isle of Wight, which is just to the side of my Hamble Valley constituency, is a special case because of the desperate access needs of those living there. They have relied on a service that is basically being run into the ground. It charges extortionately high fares, it often has cancellations, its equipment has not been updated for a very long time, and the company has just been sold. I ask the Minister to look at giving true powers of devolution to mayors once again. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East will speak to his excellent new clause; I hope that the Minister will look at giving mayors true powers, on my hon. Friend’s behalf and on behalf of her hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West. I hope that the Minister will also consider new clause 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, which would allow water taxi services to be regulated by a mayor.

The official Opposition tabled amendments 8, 16 and related amendments. They speak to a principle that should be absolutely fundamental to our system: changes to local governance should not be imposed from Whitehall without the consent of the councils and communities they affect. The amendments would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create a combined authority or alter its composition without the agreement of the local authorities involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The clear thing for authorities across the country is that they recognise the status quo is not working. Conservative Members are criticising, yet they have no alternative. The status quo is not sustainable, because we had 14 years in which the Conservatives stripped local authorities of investment and denuded their capacity, so local authorities across the piece recognise that reform is necessary. I come back to the fact that we are reforming for a purpose; we are reforming to deliver stronger services at the appropriate level so that local authorities can deliver the outcomes that their people want.

Let me take the point around devolution and resources, which the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Guildford raised. We recognise that if devolution is going to be successful, our mayors and strategic authorities absolutely need the resources to do it well. That is why a new burdens assessment will always come in place where new responsibilities are placed on devolved authorities.

Critically, where we are devolving power—for example, to our priority areas—we are providing capacity funding. The principle that we will always ensure that places have the resources they need to do the job is absolutely right, because we care as much as our mayors and the Opposition parties care that we get devolution right and that it is delivering for people across the piece.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress.

The hon. Member for Guildford pushed back on commissioners, and I disagree with her amendments. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) that mayors need to be able to bring in additional expertise to do the very hard job that we and their voters ask them to do. Commissioners will be appointed by and accountable to mayors, and they will be subject to scrutiny. They are there to bolster the capacity and expertise of the mayor. All we are doing through the Bill is allowing the flexibility for the mayor to build the right team with the right skills and expertise in order to deliver the priorities for local people.

Let me turn to the strong advocacy by my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for the tourism levy. Our mayors are advocating strongly for this measure. They have made an impassioned and effective case, but as I said in my opening remarks, I will not pre-empt the Chancellor. Tax decisions are for the Chancellor, and we will have a Budget in 48 hours.

Let me pick up on the issue of CIL, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green and other Members spoke very powerfully about. We recognise that there is an issue here, one that needs to be addressed. We are committed to finding a solution; we will move quickly to do so, and we will set it out in due course. A number of Members also raised the question of the GLA powers, and I reassure my hon. Friend that the GLA already has an explicit power to acquire land for housing and regeneration. Existing safeguards remain in place, and the Bill does not change the current framework.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

For the final question, Wendy Morton.

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

What is grey belt, and can the Minister tell us what assessment he has made of the risk it poses to the integrity of the green belt in areas such as mine?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Lady continues to ask me what grey belt is; Google is her friend in this instance. I continue to refer her to the planning practice guidance that covers exactly what it means.

House Building: London

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for housebuilding in London.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank all hon. Members who enabled me to secure this important debate. It could not be more timely, as house building in London has collapsed. In the first nine months of 2025, construction began on only 3,248 homes. Molior London predicts that just 9,100 homes will be built across 2027 and 2028—that is under 5% of the Government’s target for London. London is supposed to deliver more than a quarter of the Government’s 1.5 million homes target, but given the construction slowdown, that target appears to be dead in the water. That is the inevitable consequence of the Mayor of London’s disastrous London plan and the Labour Government’s anti-growth policies.

Three things have gone wrong. First, Sadiq Khan’s London plan has comprehensively failed to get London building. With more than 500 pages and 123 planning policies, the London plan makes it more complex and expensive to build in London. A 2024 review found that it takes seven weeks longer to determine major planning applications in London than in the next four largest cities. Sadiq Khan’s planning requirements also add to the cost of building in London. For example, the London plan goes beyond the national energy requirements, imposes carbon targets, and has policies on overheating and energy statements. Whatever the merits of those policies, they all add to the cost of building homes. In places, Sadiq Khan’s planning policies actively restrict house building. For example, the London plan effectively bans house building on large swathes of industrial land, often within walking distance of public transport.

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

My hon. Friend is painting a really bleak picture for London. Does he agree that to build the homes that we need in this country, we should focus not only on increased density in our city centres, but crucially on brownfield sites? We are not seeing from the Government a determined brownfield-first approach to housing that would protect the green belts surrounding our towns and cities.

[Mr French]

I agree that we should have a brownfield-first approach, seeking to protect our green belt and countryside wherever possible. I understand my right hon. Friend’s concern and her representations on behalf of her constituents.

The Home Builders Federation warns that the London plan’s net zero requirements are imposing carbon offset payments of £3,000 a home. Even when building on brownfield land is allowed, it is fraught with problems. The mayor requires 50% of homes to be affordable, which, given the remediation costs on those sites, makes development unviable. Altogether, the London plan review in 2024 found that Sadiq Khan’s policies frustrated, rather than facilitated, development on brownfield land. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government stopped the mandated partial review of the London plan a year ago, saving their mayor’s blushes.

Secondly, Sadiq Khan’s affordable homes target has made many housing projects unviable in London. By demanding that 35% of homes built privately are affordable, he has made house building unviable in London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I absolutely agree, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman making one of his well-respected interventions in this important debate. We have to make sure that across the country, we are building the homes that people want to live in and that people can afford, including people in older age.

Demanding that 35% of homes built privately are affordable has made house building in London unviable. The higher 50% target for industrial land also applies to public land, which, again, has effectively blocked development in the capital. This policy may seem like a good way to get London building more social housing, but it has hugely backfired. The policy is effectively a tax on house building. It makes some development unviable and deters investment. It ultimately means fewer homes and higher costs. If a developer cannot afford the target, they face six burdensome checks on the project’s viability before, during and after construction.

[Wendy Morton]

The key thing is that until the Government recognise that they need to put some support into brownfield regeneration, our green belt and our green spaces will always be under threat.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Of course I will, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for securing this debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his excellent speech, much of which I agreed with, especially about using the TfL space.

The TfL chairman is Sadiq Khan and, as Mayor of London, he is responsible not only for TfL but for house building in London. If we look at some of his promises in 2016, he said his first priority would be tackling the housing crisis. His first manifesto promised a step change in new housing supply, and that 50% of new homes would be affordable. Here we are nearly a decade later, and he certainly has not delivered that step change. House building has in fact ground to a halt—it is down 73% in London over the past year. The Government have had to step in to water down City Hall’s anti-growth affordability targets, because there is no way of avoiding it: despite Sadiq Khan’s boasts, he has comprehensively failed to build. After nine years at the helm, Sadiq Khan has nothing to show for it. Four fifths of homes built last year, as previously mentioned, were approved under Boris Johnson’s mayoralty. The average home in London cost £483,000 in 2016. Today, it is about £560,000. The average rent cost £1,292 per month in 2016. Today, it is £2,252.

As has been discussed, it is not a question of money: Sadiq Khan has been given nearly £9 billion to deliver on housing in London. It is not a question of powers; he has strategic planning powers in London. Instead, it has been about bad policy. His London plan is onerous and expensive to adhere to, and his affordability targets have acted as a tax on house building. The Government know this. Instead of addressing the problem, they are dancing around the issue. They scrapped a mandated review of the London plan after independent experts found it to “frustrate rather than facilitate” building on the brownfield sites that my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup discussed.

The Government have cut the community infrastructure levy but kept the more expensive mayoral levy. Instead of taking powers away from the failing mayor they are rewarding him, giving him power to call in developments of 50 homes on green-belt sites. Instead of removing the obstacles to building on brownfield sites they are weakening green-belt protections.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend speaks passionately about this, but does he not agree that this absolutely shows the problem with centralising not just targets but powers in the hands of one person—the mayor or a combined authority? We need much more involvement of local communities, and we need councils to have a greater say on planning matters.

[Peter Fortune]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is worth re-emphasising that the mayor has had responsibility for delivering housing in London for nine years and has fundamentally failed to deliver on his promises.

On weakening green-belt protections, which matters so much to those of us representing outer London boroughs, it is a bizarre decision to effectively block building on vacant former industrial sites in inner London near tube stations, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, and instead force thousands of homes on to poorly served farmers’ fields in Bromley. If the Government want to meet their housing targets, they need to realise that Sadiq Khan is not a builder—he is a blocker, and the record proves it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) on securing this debate on such a vital issue. I echo many of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). Her neighbouring constituency now includes a ward that used to be in my constituency—a ward where house prices are reaching £2.5 million to £3 million in some cases. That is one end of the scale.

At the other end of the scale we have a homelessness situation that is intolerable, with thousands of people on the waiting list. Exactly as my right hon. Friend said, every week I visit people in their homes, which is something that MPs do. We see people where they live, with the problems they have: triple bunk beds with little space for the third child to get into bed; five people in a room; and toddlers with no space to run around. I could give a different example every week, but a real one. This is what we need to resolve, so I welcome the Government’s plan to build more homes.

There are a lot of challenges. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned the “brownfield first” approach as a priority. There are plenty of brownfield sites in my constituency. I say “plenty” but, like the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury, my constituency is very small in relative terms but expensive to build on.

House prices in Hackney are 18.5 times average income, so all the young professionals who might want to get on the housing ladder are stuck in shared accommodation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury said, and families are stuck in social housing, crowded and unable to go anywhere else because they cannot afford private rent, which gives no security anyway. Homeless families are increasingly in hostels for years. Only six years or so ago it would have been about six months before people had a chance of getting some sort of property, and now people are being moved out of the borough, wrecking their lives and opportunities.

We have 3,400 homeless households in temporary accommodation, which is a big issue for us all and costs the taxpayer a lot of money. It does damage to the families and the children’s opportunities. It breaks our communities, and all taxpayers have to fund that, so we need to resolve it. We have a total of 8,500 households on the council’s housing register, and the notional wait for a three-bedroom property is over a decade—it is a nonsense wait, because by that time the children have grown up. Around 44% of Hackney residents live in social housing. We have more private renters than homeowners and that level of social housing residents. Even though house prices are going up for some, the housing situation is worsening for many others.

Hackney council has been great at delivering properly affordable social housing. Affordable homes, which include both social rented and intermediate, make up 57% of council housing-led delivery. In crude terms, if Hackney council wants to build a home because of the land value, which I will touch on, it has to build one for private sale to pay for the one that is for intermediate or social rent. When I say to people, “We are working hard to get you a house,” they look at the houses I am pointing to on the neighbouring bit of land and say, “Will I get one of those?”, and I cannot, hand on heart, say that they will within any reasonable period of time. The devastation this is having is surely feeding into our special educational needs and health crises. It is just not long-term sustainable.

Since 2022, the current council period since the last council elections and between now and next April, 956 council homes for social rent have been in design, planning or acquisition or under construction. It is cheaper to buy back a leasehold property on a council estate than it is to build new, because it costs £450,000 in Hackney to build a new social rented home. It is no wonder we are having challenges delivering and no wonder that the Government and the Mayor of London are trying to work out a way to get more homes built. If they are all for private rent, we are going to exacerbate the problem, so we need to work that out. Construction costs are now around £5,000 per square metre compared with £1,000 to £1,500 a decade ago. That is being led by a number of issues globally, including Brexit, but this is the reality we are dealing with. When I looked at this in my previous role on the Public Accounts Committee, the Government’s own figures showed—I am sure the Minister is aware—that bricks and mortar subsidies offered the best value for money for the taxpayer to try to resolve the problem.

We need things not just on brownfield but on grey belt. I do think that the green belt has some grey belt —we need to be realistic about this. Bits of old car park that no one is using could be turned into homes. We need to be creative when looking at this.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Member makes a really important point about grey belt. I completely understand her example of a car park, but grey belt needs much clearer definition, because we are seeing cases of development that inspectors are now saying is grey belt when it is actually greenfield, and that is really damaging to our communities.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

That is a fair challenge, and I am sure that the Minister will pick that up. It is important that we all know where the goal posts are.

I would like to ask the Minister about the release of public land. This is something that I have looked at over the years. Whether it is the Ministry of Defence, Transport for London or the Department of Health and Social Care, the Treasury has, over many Governments, insisted that that money goes back to the Department. On one level, that is completely logical, but looking at hospitals or schools, if that land could be used for housing, it would help teachers, nurses or doctors to live locally.

Supporting High Streets

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a Government who simply do not understand business? They seem to think that they can just squeeze and squeeze small businesses because they make unlimited profits. If they do that, there will be no businesses left on our high streets.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. One only has to look at the wording of the motion we are debating and that of the Government amendment. We Conservatives talk about lifting burdens, removing business rates, cutting red tape, and taking more action to address crime on our high streets. The Labour party talks about compulsory purchase, more grants and more subsidies—it is not interested in lifting the burden on business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that what we are doing is not peripheral—I was so incensed by that that I forgot to mention it. It is fundamental that we respond to the challenges in our high streets.

The key point that I want people to take away is that we are acting, whether it is through the pride in place strategy and programme or through the action that we are taking on business rates. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned business rates. From April 2026, eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 will benefit from permanently lower business rate multipliers. That will, critically, level the playing field between online retailers and high streets.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady talks a lot about footfall on high streets, and I think we all agree that more footfall benefits businesses. With that in mind, what consideration has she given to regenerating our towns and city centres by building on brownfield sites and setting proper housing targets in our city centres, rather than on the peripheries of cities?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right, and we are densifying. I return, however, to the 14 years for which the Conservatives failed on housing. Do they remember removing housing targets completely? Their carping on at us for making progress on our commitment to deliver 1.5 million homes is for the birds. We are clear that we need thriving high streets, and that requires mixed use and a range of things in our strategy.

Houses in Multiple Occupation: Planning Consent

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

We are seeing more and more HMOs across Walsall borough and in my constituency, and it is leaving my local residents feeling that they have very little say on what is happening in their streets. Walsall council has worked on this. I welcome its new article 4 direction, which came into effect in October 2025 and is a much-needed step in restoring local accountability. However, the issue does concern me. The conversion of family homes into HMOs reduces the availability of affordable family homes and risks changing the nature of settled communities. There is also a growing fear and concern about the use of HMOs to accommodate illegal migrants or newly arrived asylum seekers, so once again I seek reassurance from the Government that, as those people are decanted from hotels, we will not see an automatic rise in the number of HMOs. The Government need to get a grip on this issue; a starting point would be a national assessment of the impact that HMO concentrations are having on community cohesion.

Underpinning all this is the fact that our communities need to feel that they are being listened to. I urge the Government to take note and take action.