What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,987 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
<Question HRSContentId="{FCDE00F6-444C-4784-B597-43585AFFC35E}">5. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{23499511-BBF3-4261-8F32-44C5CA99A133}">What assessment she has made of trends in the level of new housing in Chesterfield.</QuestionText> </Question>
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that good news. Chesterfield borough council is keen to assist the Government by achieving those housing targets, but in areas such as Chesterfield where there has been historical industrial blight and coalmining, it is more expensive to complete certain projects than it is in areas without those challenges. Our ability to achieve the housing targets in the east of our town was dependent on the creation of the Staveley bypass, and we were disappointed to hear recently that it would not go ahead at this stage. How is my hon. Friend working with other Departments to ensure that the industrial blight of the past does not make such projects too expensive to proceed with in future?
<Question HRSContentId="{C27E3406-2F9F-4548-BE1F-A74FF75772CB}">T2. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{3B237899-6AF6-4081-BB4E-7E76F663F769}"></QuestionText>In Chesterfield, we have already made good progress on building council homes; we have plans for 89 new homes over the next three years. However, the council tells me that it needs access to lower-cost, longer-term borrowing. Can my right hon. Friend tell me any ways that the Government can help the council to access lower-cost, longer-term borrowing?</Question>
Those who come to our country and genuinely work in our care sector, looking after our elderly and vulnerable, do our country a great service. However, some are unfortunately working in poor conditions. They are exploited and underpaid partly due to the current sponsorship system. Will the Home Secretary seriously consider looking at an umbrella sponsor system, working with the Department of Health and Social Care?
I thank the Minister for the intervention that his Department has made with the rapid best-value assessment at Ashfield district council, in response to my representations over the past two months. These are extremely serious allegations, and my constituents in Hucknall have been let down badly by the council. Will the Minister confirm that urgent action is being taken? Can he say what more can be done to prevent further inappropriate decisions, especially on planning? Does he agree that the severity of the allegations warrants a referral to the police for an independent investigation?
The Minister will be aware of my campaign, which has the support of over 60 MPs, to shut down dodgy shops. I am aware that the Government have taken steps to extend the powers available to local authorities, which have finally seen my local authority take steps to shut down one shop. There are many more that it can come for in the coming days. Interestingly, when the Conservatives were in power, they changed the rules to require trading standards to give 48 hours’ notice before visiting some premises. Are the Government looking at changing that rule, so that more activity can be taken by trading standards when shops have not prepared?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Housing (Tenancy Deposit Schemes) Order 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. The draft order was laid before the House on 8 September 2026. This Government promised in our manifesto to transform the experience of private renting. In addition to the greater security, rights and protections that we have given private tenants through our transformative Renters’ Rights Act 2025, improving how tenancy deposit schemes work is a way that we can further deliver on that promise. As things stand, when tenants provide a deposit as a security for any breach of tenancy terms, the landlord is required to protect it through a Government-approved tenancy deposit scheme. That means that renters can feel confident that their deposit is safe and secure, and that at the end of the tenancy, it is returned to the tenant and/or landlord in accordance with the appropriate outcome under the scheme. When tenants and landlords disagree over the amount due to each party, the schemes also offer free and independent dispute resolution. Custodial tenancy deposit schemes are delivered via concessionary contracts, whereby administrators fund the service from interest earned on deposits, rather than receiving payment from Government. Custodial schemes hold more than £2.5 billion-worth of tenants’ money on which they accrue interest. The interest is retained by the scheme administrators as revenue, unless arrangements are in place for part of it to be paid to the tenant. As part of improving the tenancy deposit system, the Government want to unlock the value generated by the schemes and expand the ways in which it can benefit tenants in the private rented sector. Ultimately, that will mean better value for both tenants and the taxpayer. The draft order will enable the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to receive part of the interest accrued on tenancy deposits protected under a custodial tenancy deposit scheme. Currently, the legislation allows interest to be retained by the scheme administrator, subject to scheme arrangements, providing for part of it to be paid to tenants and/or landlords. I want to be clear that the order does not remove those options. It adds flexibility by introducing a new power that may be used in combination with one or both of the existing options, for example where high interest rates mean that the interest generated by the scheme as a whole considerably exceeds the costs of running the scheme, after allowing reasonable returns to scheme administrators.<span id="4" class="column-number" data-column-number="4"></span> The draft order does not itself require any payment to be made to the Secretary of State, nor does it prescribe how such amounts must be determined. Those matters will be determined through future scheme arrangements established via procurement and contractual processes. What the measures do is to allow the Secretary of State to take account of market conditions, scheme performance, operating costs, value for money and the need to maintain an effective, free service for tenants and landlords, while avoiding disproportionately high profits being made by scheme administrators. The draft statutory instrument is intended to provide flexibility for future arrangements with administrators of custodial schemes. The Secretary of State’s intention is that, if the new power is exercised, the Secretary of State would use any funds received towards programmes or activities that benefit tenants in the private rented sector. The Secretary of State will be transparent in publishing the amount received from the scheme, the programme or programmes funded, and any metrics demonstrating the value delivered. Any arrangement for interest to be paid directly to the Secretary of State will be subject to agreement from His Majesty’s Treasury. Future arrangements will continue to allow scheme administrators to keep part of the accrued interest to cover the cost of the free service that they provide to tenants and landlords. That amount should be sufficient to enable the scheme to provide a safe and effective service that safeguards tenants’ deposits, to meet its key performance indicators and to make a reasonable profit if it is a private sector entity. Future arrangements may also provide for part of the accrued interest to be paid directly to tenants, where it is decided that that is appropriate. To conclude, the draft order will give the Government additional flexibility to determine how the interest accrued by custodial tenancy deposit schemes is distributed, so as to ensure a fit-for-purpose scheme that will ultimately benefit tenants in the private rented sector and the taxpayer.
I thank the shadow Minister, the Liberal Democrat spokesman and my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth for their contributions. I will clear up a few misconceptions on a couple of points, and then I will respond to the other discrete points that have been put to me. First, it is worth pointing out that the Government have already improved the value that tenancy deposit schemes deliver for tenants and landlords. The current administrators of custodial schemes are already expected to pay part of the interests accrued, in addition to the original value of the deposits, to tenants. The allocation mechanism is different for each of the three current schemes, but requiring administrators to pay interest to tenants and landlords will continue to be an option for future arrangements. As I tried to make clear in my opening speech, the order is not intended to enable Government to profit from tenants’ deposits. It enables future scheme arrangements to provide for part of the interests accrued on protected deposits to be paid to the Secretary of State. That additional flexibility, as I said, will be particularly relevant where high interest rates mean that scheme returns on the deposits held considerably exceed the administrators’ costs of providing the scheme and wider ancillary services. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member <span id="8" class="column-number" data-column-number="8"></span>for Orpington, is perfectly at liberty to take issue with the principle of that and to take the view that administrators should benefit from the entirety of the interest accrued on the deposits. We take a different view. We think we should have the flexibility to provide for other uses. I hope I can provide the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, with some assurances on that point. Our intention is that the funds received would be used towards programmes or activities that benefit tenants in the private rented sector. They would not be, as he asserted, siphoned off into some Treasury fund that does not deliver on that purpose.
Simply because—I was coming on to make this point—this order is enabling in nature. It does not require any payment to be made to the Secretary of State, nor does it prescribe how any payment amounts would be determined. Those matters would be determined through future scheme arrangements established via procurement and contractual processes. I have said it before, and I will say it again for reassurance: the Department will publish information about any amounts received, the programmes funded and any metrics demonstrating the value delivered, so there will be full transparency on the use of funds.
Forgive me, I think I did give an example in my opening remarks, but I do not want to stand here and speculate on the precise programmes that might be funded through those interest payments, if we make a decision to take a portion of them in future. I am being very clear that they would be directed to support private rented sector tenants; they could not be siphoned off for other Government activities. Any payments made to MHCLG would be subject to future agreement via contractual and procurement processes.
My hon. Friend helpfully brings me on to the two further points I wanted to respond to, which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, rightly probed: essentially, how will the amounts due to the Secretary of State be determined, and what specifically do we intend to spend them on? I cannot confirm to my hon. Friend today what the amounts due to the Secretary of State will be. As I have said, the order allows for the distribution mechanism to vary, taking into account market conditions such as interest rates. Specific arrangements would depend on commercial negotiations with prospective scheme administrators. I can commit that, first and foremost, the distribution mechanism will prioritise ensuring that the deposit protection and dispute resolution services offered to tenants and landlords continue to be free and effective. I assume we would all agree that that is particularly important. My Department will set key performance indicators and cost-efficiency metrics to monitor the scheme administrators’ delivery. If the interest accrued exceeds the minimum cost of meeting the key performance indicators, the additional amount of interest will be distributed between the administrator of the scheme, tenants and/or landlords, and the Secretary of State. When setting the distribution mechanism, the Secretary of State intends to allow the scheme administrator to keep a reasonable amount of profit as a reward for the service delivered. It is not the Secretary of State’s intention to exploit the tenancy deposit system and agree to arrangements that leave tenants and landlords worse off. As for what we intend to spend any money received on, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to improve conditions for tenants in the private rented sector. Although a specific programme or programmes cannot be confirmed at this stage, it is our intention to use any receipts to fund Government programmes to benefit tenants in the sector. It is important to say that it will take time for interest to accumulate and be paid to the Secretary of State under future arrangements, if we decide to make use of the power. Those arrangements will depend on market conditions and priorities for the private rented sector, and will be subject to agreement from the Treasury.
I commend the hon. Gentleman for the attempt, but I am not going to stand here and give him a general ballpark estimate of what interest rates might be. As I said, any payments to MHCLG will be subject to future agreement via contractual and procurement processes. I want to clear up one specific point that the shadow Minister made about insured schemes. No final decision has been made in that regard. The Department is assessing the benefits and risks of both insured and custodial models. To conclude, the Government continue to deliver improvements for tenants in the private rented sector. This order will provide additional flexibility in how interest accrued on deposits held under custodial tenancy deposit schemes may be distributed, so that excess returns that may be generated by the schemes are used effectively. It will enable my Department to deliver an improved tenancy deposit scheme that is fit for purpose and that will, as I have said, deliver better value for money for tenants in the private rented sector and the general taxpayer. Notwithstanding the shadow Minister’s very clear intention to push for a Division, I hope the rest of the Committee will welcome this amendment to the Housing Act 2004. <em>Question put.</em>
This Government are determined to achieve high and sustainable rates of house building, which is precisely why we have undertaken the most rapid, holistic and radical overhaul of the housing and planning system in decades. The headwinds are without question severe, but there are encouraging signs of progress, not least the 15% increase in housing starts that we saw over the last 12 months, ending in June this year.
This Government are building, and that 15% increase in starts is a testament to that. I have lost count of the number of times that I have made it clear in this Chamber that our 1.5 million new homes target is an incredibly stretching one, but we remain committed to it. We will not take lectures from a party that fell short of its own distinctly unambitious target of 1 million homes in the last Parliament.
My hon. Friend will not have to wait long for a package of build-out transparency measures, which will include the right for local authorities to refuse permission in instances where particular developers repeatedly get planning consent but do not build out the sites.
There is no record of failure: there has been a 15% increase in housing starts over the 12 months up to June. We will remain committed to that target. What is the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues’ answer to this problem? It is worth noting that in its recent assessment, the Office for Budget Responsibility made it clear that the changes we have made to the national planning policy framework will, on their own, “boost housebuilding significantly”, yet the Conservatives opposed them. Are they going to change their position in light of the macroeconomic challenges facing house builders across the country?
There is no doubt that viability pressures are acute across the country, but I draw the shadow Minister’s attention—I know he agrees with me on this—to the fact that many of the regulations highlighted by the OBR in its recent assessment were introduced by the Conservatives during the last Parliament, and they included measures on building safety and biodiversity net gain. We know that the Conservatives would now scrap the future homes standard, ensuring that customers pay higher bills and that we have to retrofit even more homes in the future. Perhaps the shadow Minister could tell us what other safety, decency or environmental requirements the they now plan to slash.
I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about the national scheme of delegation. Those powers were only commenced on Saturday, so he is a bit premature in saying that they have had no impact.
I will leave my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to answer on the warm homes plan specifically. However, I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that when it comes to decency, safety and quality, this Government have taken a number of steps, including Awaab’s law, a new decent homes standard, new minimum energy efficiency standards and a new future homes standard. I know he agrees that that future homes standard should be kept in place, not abolished as the Conservative party would have us do.
The housing delivery test is an annual measurement of housing delivery in local planning authority areas over a rolling historical three-year period. Chesterfield borough council achieved a housing delivery test result of 168% last year, indicating very strong delivery against the number of homes that the area requires.
I know that my hon. Friend’s council wants to play its full part in our house building ambitions. As he will know, the Government provide financial support for essential infrastructure in areas with the greatest housing demand. While I cannot express an opinion on specific plans or schemes, for reasons that I know he will appreciate, my understanding is that Chesterfield borough council foresaw the site in question coming forward later in the plan period, and in the light of the Department for Transport’s decision in respect of that particular transport upgrade, the authority may need to look again at the allocation when developing its next local plan. However, I would be happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend.
The Government are committed to improving protections for renters and owners of park homes. On 5 March, my Department published a call for evidence with a view to establishing the rationale for the required payment of a commission of up to 10% of the sale price when a park home is sold. We continue to analyse the feedback received. I hope to be able to publish a detailed summary of the responses in the near future, and, as per the commitments that I have previously given, we will set out the Government’s final position on this matter by the end of the year.
I am very sorry to hear about the experience of the park home owners and renters at Tudor Rose Park in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We are acting, not least in respect of the commission, and, as I have said, we will confirm the Government’s final position on that by the end of the year. Park home residents who believe that they have been bullied or intimidated should contact the Government-funded Leasehold Advisory Service for free, independent advice on their rights and the most appropriate course of action. I would like to meet my hon. Friend to hear a bit more about why, by the sound of it, some of the powers that local authorities have in this regard are not working in this instance.
I will take that submission. We are outside the consultation period, but I am sure we can gratefully accept it. There are a range of very strongly held views on this issue. The previous Government looked at it; they concluded that they did not have the necessary evidence and that we needed to go out again. We have done that, but as I say, we will make a decision by the end of the year.
The new national planning policy framework, published on 17 August, includes a more flexible and proportionate policy design to provide greater clarity on the circumstances in which article 4 directions may be appropriate, including where there is an overconcentration of small HMOs. We want to ensure that councils can act properly to regulate HMOs where it is necessary to protect the amenity or wellbeing of an area, and we will continue to keep the powers to regulate HMOs under review.
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for all her campaigning to ensure that an article 4 direction is finally being introduced in Sandwell. On supported exempt accommodation, we published guidance for local authorities earlier this year on developing supported housing strategies. On 15 October, we launched a consultation on draft regulations for a supported housing licensing regime. That consultation closes on 10 December. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Homelessness, who is responsible for this policy area, will have heard the calls to expedite the laying of those regulations.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. All HMOs are obviously subject to management regulations, and local authorities must license HMOs in certain cases. An article 4 direction is often the way for local planning authorities to get control, but by the sound of it, that should have come a lot earlier in his local area.
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that question. We do keep the powers to regulate HMOs under review, and I do want to know from any Member of the House where local authorities do not think those powers are adequate. The key to ensuring that HMOs are properly regulated, particularly where that is necessary to protect the amenity or wellbeing of an area, is having strong policies in an up-to-date local plan. I know that our local authority is putting in place strong policies in our area.
I will congratulate the hon. Member’s local authority. As I say, it is through up-to-date local plans and strong policies on HMOs that local authorities can ensure that they are properly regulated. After all, development plans are the basis on which decision makers, irrespective of whether they are officers or committees, will make their decisions. There is good practice out there in the country—including in my own local authority area, as I have said—and I encourage any local planning authority with concerns to familiarise itself with that good practice.
I feel for the shadow Minister in the sense that that question was clearly drafted before the set of answers I have just given. We have acted to strengthen national planning policy in this area. I have made it clear how important it is to have up-to-date local plans in place and to get strong policies. If he has any particular instances of where the existing powers do not go far enough, I am more than happy to hear from him.
The Government remain determined to revive the dream of home ownership. In the Budget, the Chancellor confirmed £4.7 billion for the Your First Home scheme, providing equity loans to help those who cannot rely on the bank of mum and dad to buy their first home. The Chancellor also announced a new first-time buyer ISA and reduced the lifetime ISA withdrawal charge to 20%.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Chancellor committed an additional £1.5 billion for the social and affordable homes programme at the Budget, taking its total allocation to over £40 billion. In August, we announced initial funding allocations for the programme, with £9.58 billion being awarded to 33 strategic partners outside of London. Over £16 billion remains available outside of London across the lifetime of the programme. Homes England will confirm scheme-by-scheme allocations via the continuous market engagement route in the usual way.
I am not sure that I quite understand what the hon. Lady means by homes being manipulated out of the system, but I am happy to sit down with her and have a conversation about it.
Our transformative Renters’ Rights Act 2026 is changing the experience of private renting for millions of tenants across England, not least by empowering them to challenge unfair or above-market rent increases.
At the Budget last year, the OBR assessed that there would be only a small impact on rental prices of 0.2% as a result of the 2 percentage point increase to property rates from April 2027, and we expect the further increase of 2 percentage points announced in the Budget last week to have a comparably small effect. Households who need additional support can apply to their local authority for help via the crisis and resilience fund. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government do not support the introduction of rent controls.
I am really sorry to learn that my hon. Friend’s constituents have been so badly treated by their landlord. Through our Renters’ Right Act 2025, we have strengthened the enforcement powers of local authorities in respect of relevant breaches and offences, and we are extending Awaab’s law and the decent homes standard to that sector. As the Secretary of State has just mentioned, we also intend to legislate to regulate property agents, including by requiring agents to obtain a licence to do the job and appropriate qualifications to operate.
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my opening remarks. At the Budget last year, the OBR assessed that there would be a small impact of 0.2% on rental prices as a result of that increase, and we expect a similarly small impact from this increase. The obvious answer to affordability challenges in the private rented sector, as well as everywhere else, is to build more housing supply. That is why it is so disappointing that Opposition Members, despite what those on their Front Bench say, consistently complain about new housing developments coming forward in their constituencies.
As I said to the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), affordability is dependent on a number of factors. Ultimately, the only way we can bring greater affordability is by increasing the supply of new homes. I look forward to the full-throated support of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for new housing developments in his constituency.
In the Budget, the Chancellor extended the preferential Public Works Loan Board rates for a further year until 2027-28. We will continue to keep under review what more we can do to help councils once again build at scale.
Local authorities have powers to take action where a designated heritage asset has deteriorated to the extent that its preservation may be at risk. These powers include carrying out urgent works to preserve a listed building, requiring an owner to carry out work and, if appropriate, compulsory purchase. I will be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those powers further.