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
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.
I am really sorry to hear about the situation that Mr Welch and his sister find themselves in following the death of their mother last year. Our reforms to the leasehold system will make service charges more transparent and easier to challenge. I assure my hon. Friend that work is under way in the Department to better understand the market around poor resale values. I would be happy to meet her to discuss that.
I know that the mayor is consulting on that mayoral development corporation, so I will not prejudice that consultation by giving my view on it. In general, however, the Government absolutely support the use of mayoral development corporations and locally led development corporations as a means to masterplan, assemble land and regenerate areas.
The hon. Gentleman has been campaigning on this issue for a long time. I recognise his concerns and am more than happy to meet him. He should have had that confirmation already, but I give it to him now on the Floor of the House.
Due to my quasi-judicial role in the planning system, I cannot comment on the detail of the emerging plan, and I am afraid I cannot meet my hon. Friend to discuss it. The plan, the sites included in it and the proposed main modifications have been subject to several rounds of consultations throughout the examination process. It is for the independent inspectors to consider the responses to the consultations and set out next steps.
What I will do for the right hon. Gentleman is go away and review whether further guidance for the Planning Inspectorate in this particular area would be helpful.
My hon. Friend may have heard my answer to a previous question in which I set out how we have strengthened the national planning policy framework in this area. I am more than happy to discuss with her particular policy areas where her council may think more powers are required.
As the hon. Member may be aware, we are looking through that legislation to introduce caps on administration and permission fees. That may help some of her affected residents, but I would be grateful if she could write to me and set out in more detail how this issue is affecting her constituents.
That particular reform was commenced only on Saturday. We have already committed to review it after a two-year period, and that is what we will do.
Would the hon. Lady write to me with some further details, to illustrate the precise problem she is trying to get at?
I welcome the positives in the Chancellor’s Budget, some of which include the freeze on fuel duty, increases in the minimum and national living wage and the small business rate relief threshold for retail, hospitality and leisure properties. There is also the fact that almost 56,000 households in my constituency will benefit from the £100 payment for properties in council tax bands A to D. However, I must advise the Chancellor that there will not be good growth in NE6 and NE28 postcodes unless Ministers pull every lever at their disposal to support industry on the Tyne. The overhead electric cables are a constraint on investment, as they prevent the movement of large structures used in the offshore energy sector. News that the project to underground the cables is now effectively paused will push the 2034 completion date even further into the future. International yards are already capitalising on our offshore wind leasing rounds. Fixed-bottom assets are increasing in size and investment in floating offshore wind, which will see integrated units towed to sea, is set to overtake fixed-bottom by the early 2030s. My constituency has the skills and infrastructure to sit at the forefront of the UK’s green future. It is home to a cluster of offshore supply chain firms and an expanding energy skills academy, and it is less than 100 nautical miles from the world’s largest offshore wind farm. Ofgem, National Grid and Ministers must act decisively, so that Tyneside can seize the opportunities that the green transition offers.
In rural Cumbria, those without a car struggle to access education and jobs, which is why families on the lowest incomes prioritise car ownership. However, our councils lost out on significant financial support because funding formulas used car ownership as a determinant of income. Will the Secretary of State carry out a review of this approach, and perhaps ask whether civil servants who are privileged enough to travel to work on one of the world’s finest public transport systems are giving us duff advice?
I thank the Home Secretary for her leadership on this issue. In the Lake district, due to housing shortages, there is a long-established policy of social housing being subject to local occupancy restrictions; only those with a local link—for example, local employment—are eligible for housing. Looking beyond the Home Office, does she agree that her Cabinet colleagues—not least those responsible for the fairness of housing policy—also have the power and a responsibility to reduce immigration pull factors?
When I ask people in my constituency how they feel about the economy, they tell me that their bills are too high and their rent or mortgage take too much of their pay. I am glad that the Budget takes some first steps to address those issues.<span id="638" class="column-number" data-column-number="638"></span> Four years ago, the Conservatives, led by Liz, crashed the economy and sent mortgages and bills soaring. Before that, they spent more than a decade cutting our armed forces and public services—they left us poorly defended in every sense. The Chancellor’s Budget makes a good start in addressing those problems. The immediate help for 20 million households towards their energy bills this winter is a welcome relief. The changes to business rates will have a huge impact on businesses in my constituency. On devolution, I can only hope that Lancashire will have a mayor by 2028 to share in the proposals that were announced. I urge Reform-led Lancashire county council to grab this amazing opportunity for Lancashire. We have been left behind for too long. The council needs to stop infighting and start fighting for Lancashire instead. I want to come back to how much further we need to go to rebuild Britain. The Prime Minister rightly identified the deindustrialisation of Britain as one of the reasons places such as Blackpool North and Fleetwood have not shared in the proceeds of growth as much as they should have done. He is right that a change of policy is required, but right now Britain is deindustrialising faster than any of our neighbours. Domestic manufacturing capacity is an essential source of our national security. British manufacturers face the highest electricity prices in Europe. I know many Labour colleagues have asked the Chancellor to look at the merits of extending the British industrial competitiveness scheme to all manufacturing firms. I hope the Front-Bench team look carefully again at the proposals and sit down with the TUC and others to discuss how that could be implemented. This Budget offers practical help with people’s bills this winter. The 10-year plan and the spending review must do the same for their jobs.
<Question HRSContentId="{57BDEB4C-D06D-497C-89C2-14E80FA64BF5}">T6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{5E16B557-DFE8-4852-BE4B-76F7D1F9602D}"></QuestionText>The Riveira hotel is an iconic building overlooking Weymouth, but its current Saudi Arabia-based owners have let it fall into woeful disrepair. What was once a thriving hotel is now turning into an eyesore. While Dorset council is doing its utmost to convene a reasonable sale, we can and must do more. Will the Minister meet with us to explore every option, including compulsory purchase as a backstop, to bring this hotel back into local hands?</Question>
This Budget contains a series of practical measures that will make a real difference to families across Amber Valley. While some may dismiss individual announcements as small measures, it is their combined effect that matters. Taken together, they provide genuine breathing space for thousands of people across Amber Valley. They include: expanded childcare and free breakfast clubs for families; support for households worried about energy bills; and measures to help people with transport costs for work and leisure.
I do agree with my hon. Friend. It is very important that there is breathing space right across the country, just like growth in every postcode. The Budget is only one part of a much wider programme of reform. The high streets strategy, the modern service framework for dementia and frailty, reforming social care, bringing decision making closer to our communities through devolution, and of course our 10-year plan, will all be transformative for my constituents. I want to turn to another matter addressed by the Budget, which echoes the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett). It is a big issue in our local community. It is extremely personal to me and to hundreds of people in my constituency. I am proud to be a former coalminer’s daughter, and I am proud to be a Labour MP with a Government committed to finally delivering justice for mineworkers, because—let us face it—only a Labour Government will do so. Since Labour came into office in 2024, we have seen real progress on this topic. The MPS investment reserve has been transferred to scheme members, increasing annual pensions by around £29 per week. Last week the <span id="665" class="column-number" data-column-number="665"></span>Chancellor announced that every penny of the surplus from the MPS will remain with the members rather than being split with the Government and the standstill rule has been abolished. Those are important improvements, but as the Chancellor himself said last week, the job is not done. My dad suffers from emphysema, white fingers and damaged knees from years of working at the coalface, and now also late-stage dementia. When I learned that a final settlement for MPS members would not be reached in this Budget, I made it clear to Ministers what that means. It means there is a very real possibility that my dad will not live to see the justice he deserves. That is not unique to our family. Around 19 former miners die every single day. That means that since the Budget, 85 miners will already have passed away without seeing this issue resolved. Let us be clear: this is not Government money, and this is not taxpayers’ money; this is the miners’ money. The Chancellor committed to ensuring the full transfer of the guarantor’s fund and I welcome that completely, but we cannot wait any longer. We cannot wait until a new fiscal event. We must finish the job and we must do it now.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I would like to declare an interest: a family member of mine is employed by Smartphone Free Childhood. I speak today not just as a politician, but as a parent. My children are not yet old enough to be on social media, but my wake-up call came when my then seven-year-old daughter put a smartphone at the top of her Christmas list. I am fearful about what is to come for my kids, and I want the Government to be fully on my side as my family navigates the teenage years. I support the Government’s decision to ban social media for under-16s, and I urge them to move quickly to clarify the details and implement the ban, starting by bringing forward the regulations. The reality is that for years we have been allowing social media companies to access and influence our children unchecked. If we were talking about anything other than social media companies, whether that is toy manufacturers or pharmaceuticals, we would have put <span id="273WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="273WH"></span>the precautions and protections in place already. We have not, and while the causality can be hard to prove, it cannot be pure coincidence that this period of growing screen and social media use has coincided with the rapid decline in young people’s mental health and wellbeing, poor sleeping patterns, poor school attendance, increasing rates of self-harm and eating disorders, as other hon. Members have mentioned. We have been putting children into an online environment that overwhelms their still-developing brain functions—as Jonathan Haidt has set out very powerfully—and the harms are clear. I fully respect the views of those petitioners who say that there are benefits to young people being able to access social media, including the 430 people in my constituency who have signed this petition. However, I think that the view of these petitioners does not contradict a ban of the kind that the Government are taking forward. It is a ban on platforms built to encourage addiction, such as through infinite scrolling or streaks. It is also a ban on strangers being able to access our children and cause harm. It is not the end of children being able to communicate with family and friends or seek out community or help if they need it. It is the start of them being able to do that safely. Why is this the right way forward? I will briefly share three thoughts. First, I think this sets a new norm, and that is so important. Parents feel trapped in a no-win situation, where they either allow social media and risk harming their child, or refuse it and risk their child feeling socially excluded. Many young people reach early adulthood and wish that they had never had the excess or pressure of social media, but by then it is too late. Young people will say that to me, and they say, “Please do not stop us communicating with our friends, but please help me manage this addiction that I have to live with.” The age limit of 16 removes those pressures and creates a new shared norm that childhood does not need to be lived on and through social media. Secondly, a ban is inclusive and equalising, because the reality is that not all parents have the knowledge, time or capacity to manage all the parental controls. I notice a pattern whereby it is often the parents with a bit more time, income or freedom who make active decisions to keep their children off social media. But that is tough for parents, and a ban for under-16s removes that burden from individual families—from the parents and the young people. It ensures that all children have the same protections, regardless of their background or family situation. Thirdly, this ban is so important because it gives us the clarity to start thinking about alternatives. We have been stuck in this debate for a long time. If children are simply not allowed social media and that is decided, what might their childhoods look like? The science shows that executive brain function develops through practice in the real world—through play, face-to-face interaction, sustained attention and unstructured time. What policy interventions will encourage children to spend more time outside? How do we create environments where they can play without structure and without the performance that social media requires? What do the best practice online learning tools look like if some of those addictive design features are removed? There are <span id="274WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="274WH"></span>so many vital policy questions that we are freed up to address, once the rules on social media access for our children are clear. I will make a final point on one aspect of the ban that is particularly important to me. Last year, I had a serious and harrowing case in my constituency where a 12-year-old boy was groomed by an AI chatbot. It encouraged him to leave school, turn against his parents, run away from home, engage in a highly sexualised dialogue, and even suggested that the boy and the chatbot might meet in the afterlife. This should never, ever have happened, and no other 12-year-old should be exposed to harm in this way. I pushed hard on this at the time, and I was very grateful to the then Secretary of State for taking note and for including AI romantic companion bots in the ban. However, I continue to urge ambition and clarity as that aspect of the ban is taken forward. We may find that just regulating romantic companion bots is not enough, as others have said, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan). The social media ban is not about some sort of rose-tinted return to childhoods of the past; it is about giving children the right protections in our digital age. It is about allowing them to benefit from the very best of the online world, educating them about it for adulthood but doing so in an age-appropriate way, and setting them up to be safe, happy and successful, both online and offline.
We continue to have acute workforce pressures in social care in Scotland, which often leaves people stranded in hospital when they are fit to go home. What conversations has the Home Secretary had with the Scottish Government about the need for robust workforce planning, which has been absent for so long, to ensure that existing skills gaps are not exacerbated by these changes?
The real tests of this Budget are the families who notice every extra penny at the petrol station, every increase in the energy bill, and the pounds adding to the price of the weekly shop. The war in Iran carries a price tag for the globe, and that is clear at the petrol pump and in our energy bills. For motorists, and for more than 3,500 workers in transport and logistics in my constituency, the price at the pump matters. I therefore welcome the continued freeze in the fuel duty cut until July 2027, a measure that I have called for throughout the year. I also welcome the end to standing charges for gas, and the £100 payment to those in council tax bands A to D. That will make the thought of bills during the upcoming winter that bit less stressful. If the Scottish Government do the same, more than 119,000 households in the West Lothian and Falkirk council areas will benefit. That money must be passed on. Our constituents cannot afford for it to disappear into the black hole created by the Scottish National party’s mismanagement of Scotland’s finances. These measures mean real reductions in bills, shifting the brunt of levies and standing charges away from the consumer just as the worst hits.