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 11,997 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I will read the detail in the consultation, but I am concerned about retrospective changes because our word should be our bond to people coming here. Also, in an economy where skills and contribution do not correlate with wages, I find the Home Secretary’s proposals prejudicial on that basis. Will she look at that again in the light of the consultation, so that we can put fairness at the heart of this?
I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning the APPG that I chair and the work that we are doing. Does she agree that the Government cannot simply enforce their way out of the problem of illicit activity on the high street and in the sector? When the National Crime Agency conducted its Operation Machinize in November 2025, it visited 2,734 premises up and down the length of the country, but it only closed down 10 of them. Of course, not all of those were hairdressers or barbering salons. Does she agree that a proportionate licensing regime is therefore the right step forward, akin to what the Dutch have done with their Bibob Act, and that that is the right way to seize control of who operates in these sectors and to give the public confidence about who is cutting their hair and who is operating on the high street?
Will the Minister heed my earlier comment that, although that is all good, the scale of the issue is such that the Government cannot enforce their way out of it? There has to be another way that prevents enforcement agencies from playing whack-a-mole when trying to close down premises that are operating illicitly?
The motto of my constituency —the old Bootle county borough—was “Respice, Aspice, Prospice”. In English, that means reflecting on the past, considering the present and looking to the future. I want to look a little to the past. In 2010 David Cameron said, “I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS.” Well, that did not age well, did it? In 2010 the national debt was 64.7% of GDP; by 2024 it was 96.5% of GDP. What about the NHS? Waiting lists in 2010 stood at 2.4 million; in 2024 they stood at 7.6 million. Satisfaction ratings were down. Rough sleeping was up. Wage growth was down and did not recover for many years under the Tories. On food bank use, there were 100,000 food parcels in 2010, and more than 3 million by 2024. Some 3.6 million children were in poverty in 2010, and 4.3 million by 2024. There were 168,000 zero-hours contracts in 2010; by 2024 there were more than 1 million of them. Let us look to the present. We have more than 4,500 more secondary, further education and special school teachers. More than 1,300 schools have joined the free breakfast club programme. That impacts on my constituency in a very practical and positive way. Waiting lists are down. The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 protects 11 million renters. We have created Great British Energy—cutting bills for schools and hospitals, and planning clean power for 10 million homes. We have raised the national minimum wage to £13.21, which is a 3.9% increase. We have a £100 discount on energy bills for homes in council tax bands A to D, which impacts 20 million households, and 99.8% of homes in my constituency will be affected by that. Standing charges on household gas have been scrapped. The list goes on. What about the future? We are decreasing annual borrowing, with borrowing forecast to drop from £134 billion to £67 billion by 2031. On the share of GDP, annual net borrowing is expected to decline from 4.2%. We are on track with the fiscal rules. We have real wage <span id="648" class="column-number" data-column-number="648"></span>growth—and so on, and so on. Child poverty is down. That is what we get from a Labour Budget. That is in addition to the impact of devolution in all our communities, which will be of great benefit to my constituency.
<Question HRSContentId="{AC48E706-D94D-440D-B4F8-9768E6C73E4E}">14. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{21BA4970-BC5F-486F-8809-C97A11D69620}">What steps her Department is taking to help reduce the cost of renting during this Parliament.</QuestionText> </Question>
In Liverpool Wavertree, research by Crisis and Zoopla shows just 3% of homes for private rent are affordable for people who claim local housing allowance. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that the increase in tax on property income announced in the Budget could feed through into rents, making an increase in LHA more necessary than ever. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in other Departments on that issue, as well as on rent regulation linked to inflation and wages, to relieve the pressure on private renters and reduce the cost of increasing LHA?
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Could she consider the disparity that sometimes arises across the UK in salaries? I point her to information published by the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland just last month, which indicated that those in Scotland were likely to be earning up to 9% less than their counterparts in the rest of the UK. We clearly would not want people in the immigration system to be caught out by that anomaly, too.
If I may, I will speak on behalf of the Scottish Affairs Committee, but I wish to make one point from the perspective of my constituency. Glasgow West, which I am proud to represent, has a relatively high level of youth unemployment, a lower than average level of educational qualifications, and a fairly high number of unemployment-related benefit claimants. We also do not have access to a youth hub. There are three in the city of Glasgow, but none anywhere near my constituency. My plea to the Government is this: can we please have a youth hub? Today’s debate is about good growth in every postcode, and I want to consider an issue that the Scottish Affairs Committee spent some time on, namely Scotland’s space launch sector. Last year we visited the SaxaVord spaceport on the island of Unst in Shetland, and saw for ourselves the potential of the UK’s first fully licensed vertical spaceport. What we heard reinforced our view that Scotland is uniquely placed to further the UK’s <span id="642" class="column-number" data-column-number="642"></span>space ambitions, while delivering economic growth. Unst’s northerly location allows for launch routes over the north Atlantic ocean, making it particularly well suited to putting satellites into polar orbits. That is combined with our expertise in satellite manufacturing—hon. Members might be surprised to hear that the city of Glasgow produces more satellites than anywhere else in Europe, and Edinburgh’s expertise in data in space makes us uniquely placed to benefit from that. SaxaVord also provides a strong foundation for end-to-end space services. For Shetland, the economic opportunity is hugely significant. The Budget talks about the importance of creating jobs across every nation and region of the UK. SaxaVord could help to sustain an island community by creating skilled jobs and giving young people more opportunities to establish careers locally. In a remote community where unreliable connectivity makes economic development, and life in general, more difficult, that new industry could deliver growth in Shetland’s postcodes. However, the economic growth potential of a space launch capability in Shetland would extend beyond Scotland. A successful spaceport could attract international investment and create opportunities for suppliers across the whole UK. There is also a national security interest here. Developing a sovereign launch capability would reduce our reliance on overseas providers. However, we cannot afford to be complacent, and SaxaVord has yet to achieve a successful orbital launch. In September this year, Norway’s spaceport at Andøya successfully launched satellites into orbit. We should welcome that because it is progress for the European sector, but it raises important questions about whether Scotland has lost its first-mover advantage, and what more the Government can do to support innovative businesses such as SaxaVord to realise their economic potential. During our inquiry, we heard that there is sufficient demand to sustain more than one European spaceport. A successful launch from Scotland will be important, but the real test will be whether it can be scaled up into a commercial launch service. That is why I welcome the Government’s space strategy and their £30 million investment in SaxaVord. It is a significant public investment, but it must be spent wisely. The Committee also looked at fixed links. Despite the island having such great ambitions, there are two ferry journeys before anyone gets to SaxaVord. Given that those ferries are not always reliable and the weather is often against us, the islands in Shetland have been looking at whether fixed links would work for them. Working in conjunction with the Scottish Government and the Shetland Islands council, we think that that is absolutely the kind of thing the Government should be looking at to meet their ambition.
The Home Secretary will be well aware that the need for migrant workers varies throughout the country. What assessment has the Home Office made of the impact that these rule changes will make on areas such as mine in Lanarkshire, where the gap between the numbers of healthy working-age people and retirees is widening exponentially?
I thank the Home Secretary for the changes she has announced today, but questions remain about the impact of these changes on children in particular. Children are not responsible for the choices of their parents, and we must ensure that they do not face greater poverty or instability as a consequence of any changes. The Home Secretary did not say much about children in her statement today. I have had a brief look through the consultation response, but I have a few specific questions. First, will she publish a child rights impact assessment ahead of implementation? Secondly, will she provide greater clarity on the situation for children, including whether the existing private—
I welcome the Home Secretary’s recognition of the crucial work done by overseas care workers. Does she agree not only that this approach is needed not just practically, but that it is the right thing to do in principle to ensure that those who contribute the most in the most under-served professions in our country are rewarded?
In coastal communities like mine, the issue is not the rate of house building, but the rate of affordable house building. In 2024-25, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council <span id="557" class="column-number" data-column-number="557"></span>built just 89 affordable homes. What plans do the Government have to take back land that developers are banking and to start building the council houses we need?
Given that those earning more than £50,000 will have a five-year route to settled status, while those earning less than £50,000 will have a 10-year route, how will we assess whether a lawyer offers more value to our society than a teaching assistant, setting aside how much they earn?
A large number of people from Hong Kong have chosen to make Stockport and Greater Manchester their home, and they make an invaluable contribution to our town and city region. Many of them have been worried over the last couple years about potential upcoming changes to indefinite leave to remain. I have met many of them over the last few months. What more can the Secretary of State say to reassure the people from the Hong Kong community who have used the British national overseas visa scheme that they are welcome in this country and that they will have a fair shot in terms of ILR?
Hundreds of people are being placed in my constituency by London councils. They are being moved away from their support networks through out-of-borough placements and without proper notification. Often these are vulnerable families with high needs, which then have to be met by overstretched services at Medway council. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can improve this system and support the authorities that are dealing with the bulk of out-of-borough placements?
It is heartening to hear the Home Secretary dispel the lump of labour fallacy that people who come to this country simply take jobs. She is talking about the benefits of people coming to this country through immigration, and that is welcome, but if we are to help our constituents understand the new scheme that she is proposing, we do need some clarity. If I understand rightly, around 200,000 people who are working but do not earn more than £50,000, do not have a British spousal connection and are not working in the care sector or public sector—scientists, researchers or skilled technicians, for example—will now face a 10-year wait to get settlement in this country. She says that there is going to be an economic impact assessment. Does she expect these proposals to have a positive or negative impact on our economy?
My hon. Friend makes a legitimate point about the issues that were raised with restrictions on pornography. However, does he accept that the difference there was that we were trying to age-verify someone who was over 18 so that they could access pornography, and there was ID available? I grappled with the challenges of age verification some 20 years ago in the mobile sector. Does he agree that we need to have confidence in this? I do not think we are quite there yet when it comes to age-verifying 16-year-olds, who do not have ID.
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. The previous Conservative Government’s approach to net migration can at best be described as marrying in haste and repenting at leisure, so will the Home Secretary please assure my Carlisle constituents that the new settlement rules will ensure that future immigration is built on a long-term commitment and not on impulsive short-term fixes?
It is extraordinary that the Opposition see migration issues as some kind of political football. We are talking about people’s lives, and whatever idea one has about policy and programmes, I think people’s lives deserve more seriousness. It is right that care workers are exempted from the new arrangements for ILR, but for the rest of the workforce, the retrospective nature of those new arrangements still seems unfair. People can come in legally and work legally, and then have their residency rights turned upside down. How can that be fair? May I ask the Home Secretary whether she has read the 276-page “lessons learned review” on the Windrush scandal, published by the Home Office in 2018? If she had read it, she would realise that she is in danger of finding herself in the same position as Home Secretaries who were in office at the time of that scandal. I have heard Members of this House talk about people coming here just to claim welfare. I have heard Members of this House say that people are not making a contribution. I have heard Members of this House say that we have to look at the rights of British nationals as opposed to migrants, as if many British nationals were not themselves immigrants. My parents were immigrants. My mother was a nurse. She was one of that generation who came to this country to build the NHS after the war, and it remains the case that immigrants play a very important role in our NHS. I say to the Home Secretary, and I say to the House, that we should always remember the contribution that immigrants made and continue to make to our society.
Many communities, including those in my constituency, are concerned about the concentration of HMOs. There is a perception that local authorities do not have the powers to be able to tackle this. I want to be very clear that I am not against HMOs in principle; this is about how they are abused. I know the Government have carried out a consultation, but do they feel that local authorities are able to strike the right balance between meeting housing needs and maintaining community cohesion?
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As she knows, I have written to her about this matter, and I have met migrant workers in my constituency. She has mentioned that the Health Secretary will be carrying out a review looking particularly at fraudulent and exploitative companies, and I urge the Home Secretary to ensure that strong, robust action is taken against these companies to deter their behaviour. I would also like reassurance that the Home Secretary will meet migrant workers as part of this consultation and this review to ensure that their concerns are addressed.
<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.