partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

5,699 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   There is a lot to unpack there. I am sure that previous Governments have made mistakes on housing policy that have partially been corrected in this Bill, and funding has been attached where it should have existed before. However, I struggle to understand—and will always struggle to understand, despite the Minister’s eloquent speeches, superb oratory and rational arguments—how preventing old stock from leaving the system is somehow beneficial to the 1.3 million people who are languishing on the waiting list.

   Hansard source
2. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   Again, there is a lot to unpack there. My speech and this new clause are focused on delivering new houses. On the Minister’s point about the cost of one equalling the sale price of three, I recognise that economic imbalance—

   Hansard source
3. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I feel as though we are going around in circles. The purpose of new clauses 25 and 26 is to get new houses on the market and available to social tenants. I believe that the new clauses would secure adequate numbers of new council houses, and that is why I support them.

   Hansard source
4. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   Earlier today, the Institute for Fiscal Studies published a statement regarding the Budget yesterday that said that household disposable income will continue to decline over the coming years as a result of the dire economic situation that the country is in. At the same time, we are looking at change to the make-up of social housing in this country, which would further disadvantage taxpayers in this country. Would the shadow Minister like to comment?

   Hansard source
5. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I would challenge that. This is not an issue of penalising; it is not an attack. It is an issue of equity and of standing up for what is fair. When asking someone to subsidise something else we must take into account whether it is fair.

   Hansard source
6. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   The hon. Member is making a very good speech. She alluded to her constituents in Barking. Everyone in this Chamber, even the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, has constituents who are concerned about the social contract. Where would her constituents draw the line on what is fair for the welfare state to hand out to people who are not British citizens?

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I will not speak for long, but I thought it would be relevant to raise the fact that twice in my life I have been an immigrant in countries with astringent approaches to my access to public services. I did not think that was divisive; I thought it was logical. I remember specifically when I moved to America being told, “Don’t get yourself into any healthcare trouble or into a situation where you might need to call an ambulance because you will be charged thousands of dollars if you have to do so.”

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I will answer half the hon. Lady’s question by saying that my first name is Patrick, I have blood in the Republic of Ireland and my brother was at Trinity College Dublin. I adore that country. I will point out only two things: that the contribution of Irish people to our economy is astronomical and is something we must preserve; and that the housing policies of the Republic of Ireland perhaps reflect the fact that their economy has gone through the roof on the back of low taxes, low regulation and a pro-business approach to the economy. Where was I? I only raise this point because I think that accusations of being divisive, exclusive, pernicious or unpleasant are not fair accusations in this context. We are rapidly becoming a poor country, unable to afford the social services that we ideally would like to provide. That leads me on to my last point, which I made earlier in an intervention. In this place, we have to reflect—as do all those under threat from extremist populist parties—on the fact that we have not got immigration right. This Bill is about social housing, but its undertone is about welfare, the social contract and what that means to people who come here. If we continue to get this issue wrong, we will continue to see populist parties taking our votes, and we will be at risk of losing this country.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lewis Cocking

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the Minister on his birthday today. It is also a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, whom I wholeheartedly support on new clauses 28, 44, 46 and 56. I will speak to new clause 46 and make some general points. We need a strategy for improving the existing management of the social housing stock. As the Minister knows—I alluded to this point when he came before the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—overcrowding is an issue in social homes. I suspect we all speak to many constituents, as I do across Broxbourne, who are in a two-bedroom home and need a four-bedroom home. In a previous life, when I was a councillor on the planning committee, I always argued that, within section 106 negotiations or the affordable housing part of a development, we should get some larger social homes, because they are very hard to come by and people have to wait years for a four-bedroom home.

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lewis Cocking

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I go back to my earlier point: if we took all those homes back into social housing, the same people who are living in them now would still be living in them. They are not new social homes. They would not reduce the social housing waiting list. I speak to constituents who are overcrowded in a two-bedroom home and waiting on the list for a four-bedroom home. A three-bedroom home might alleviate some of their overcrowding. It would not be ideal— I completely agree that if they went into a three-bedroom home they would still be overcrowded—and it could be <span id="156" class="column-number" data-column-number="156"></span>seen only as a temporary fix, but under the current system they are forced to stay in a two-bedroom property while they wait and bid on four-bedroom properties, which do not come along often. We need to be better at securing larger social homes in developments. Sometimes developers do not want to build them because they are more expensive. Will the Minister look at changing the rules? If a family with a mum, dad and three kids in a two-bedroom property moved to a three-bedroom property, they would at least have the space of an extra bedroom. When I speak to my constituents, sometimes they say that that would be a good stepping stone, rather than having to wait to get a four-bedroom property. I say this in the nicest possible way: we need a strategy, because we can use the stock better to make people a bit less overcrowded. I am not saying that that will solve all the problems. Some constituents will prefer to move straight into a four-bedroom property, but they understand that they must wait a considerable time for that. Sometimes councils do not have the powers to force developers to build those larger social homes. Will the Minister reflect on the current rules on overcrowding? Changing those rules slightly might make our constituents’ lives easier.

    Hansard source
11. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lewis Cocking

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I rise to speak in support of the new clause. I will be brief, because I have some comments to make on the next group of clauses. I am very proud that in around 2010, my local council in Broxbourne, which is Conservative-run, brought in rules for local connection such that someone had to have a connection for five years to the borough to get on the housing waiting list. That is good, because it is local residents who have to put up with all the disruption that goes with development. Where we can, we should support local people first on council housing waiting lists.

    Hansard source
12. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lewis Cocking

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady; we were both council leaders and neighbours before entering this place. As I have said, I have been a local councillor in local government and seen at first hand how social housing works and how it is allocated to different people who have different needs. As I have already said, while I was leader of Broxbourne council, I was proud that our council rules were some of the <span id="168" class="column-number" data-column-number="168"></span>strictest, requiring people to have at least five years of connection to the borough to be able to get on our housing list. We recognised that social housing is not just something to be handed out to anyone and everyone, because the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere.

    Hansard source
13. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lewis Cocking

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I know that a number of Members want to speak to this new clause, and we are having a robust debate. It deeply concerns me that communities should not be expected to subsidise others from outside their area so they can live in cheaper housing. That is why I encourage all councils to follow Broxbourne council’s lead and introduce a residency requirement. This issue alone is bad enough, but taken with foreign nationals, it brings it to a whole new level. London is a city that many hard-working British people would love to make their home but they simply cannot afford to. How can the Government tell people such as those in my constituency of Broxbourne that they should pay more in tax so that people from abroad can come here and be put up in subsidised housing in one of the most expensive cities in the world?

    Hansard source
14. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lewis Cocking

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I am coming to the end of my remarks. It is even worse for young British people moving to our capital for work, having to pay a fortune for a tiny room in a shared house with complete strangers, while the priority rules set by left-wing councils mean that some foreign nationals who have never paid a penny into the system get placed into social housing with a whole flat to themselves. On the Conservative side of the House, we will never shy away from standing up for the British people and ensuring that foreign nationals who come to this country do not get a free ride on the benefit system and subsidised housing at our expense. That is why I wholeheartedly support the shadow Minister and new clause 32.

    Hansard source
15. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
16. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I join the rest of the Committee in wishing the Minister a very happy birthday. One of the most common accusations against right to buy is also one of the most mistaken. We have heard it many times in this Committee: it is the idea that right to buy is a contributor to the shortage of homes in this country. That defeatist attitude masks a lazy analysis. As I laid out on Second Reading, the Government’s own impact assessment shows that weakening right to buy will mean fewer new social homes. The impact assessment shows that if the pre-November 2024 baseline remained, there would be 8,050 right to buy sales and 5,450 replacement homes in 2026-27. The document goes on to show that if the Bill passes, as I am sure it will, and the legacy impacts wind down in the period from 2031 to 2035, annual right-to-buy sales will fall to about 1,100 a year, with about 1,450 replacement homes.

    Hansard source
17. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Not remotely. By the Government’s own analysis and admission, they would oversee a housing system in which 4,000 fewer new social homes would be funded every year. How does that help with the social housing waiting list, which all Committee members would like to be lower? How does building fewer new social homes remotely help? Of course it does not. As I showed on Second Reading, the Government’s data is not the only data available that disproves the justification for restricting the right to buy. The Government have argued that, under the Bill, around 3,000 additional homes will be retained each year, but research by the House of Lords Library shows that only a net 3% of social homes become available for new tenancies each year. That means that about 90 additional homes, instead of 5,000, will be available each year. That is the opposite <span id="147" class="column-number" data-column-number="147"></span>of the Government’s stated aim and is completely incongruent with the pressing need for more social homes. The idea that the right to buy is taking homes away is a fallacy for another reason. The only people who qualify for the right to buy are long-term tenants. Government data has shown that 78% of new lettings remain lifetime tenancies. That means that, in more than three quarters of cases, the social homes are unlikely ever to be available to prospective tenants who need them. All those points clearly demonstrate that right to buy is not the issue, but part of the solution. I therefore urge the Committee to support new clause 25. My new clause 26 would require the Secretary of State to publish annual data on the social housing replaced once sold.

    Hansard source
18. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    No. Our new clauses would require the Government to conduct a review 12 months after the Act is passed, so that we know the figures for certain, and would require the Secretary of State to determine on the basis of that review whether to compel local authorities to do like-for-like replacements. That is the whole point of the new clauses. Rather than just letting things take their course, the Government should take control and make a decision about what local government should do. The data is expected to make sorry reading if the figures in the Government’s impact statement prove correct. We will press new clause 25 and new clause 26 to a Division.

    Hansard source
19. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I have nothing to add. We respectfully decline the Minister’s invitation not to press our new clauses. <em>Question put,</em> That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
20. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Regenerating existing social housing is a vital pathway towards providing better, safer and more social homes. As I have mentioned before, nothing in this Bill goes anywhere towards delivering more social housing. That is why I tabled the new clause.<span id="152" class="column-number" data-column-number="152"></span> According to the London Councils estate regeneration report in November 2025, London’s boroughs have the potential to develop more than 10,000 new homes in a city that is starved of supply but overflowing with demand. That is true not just inside the M25, but across the country, as Members across the Committee have noted today. Estate regeneration on its own is not a silver bullet, but it can certainly make a significant contribution. Regeneration also plays an important role in taking pressure off our green belt by prioritising the regeneration of brownfield sites, towards which the Government have done little but pay lip service since 2024. Instead of the undesirable urban sprawl encouraged by the Government, the Opposition believe in building where homes are wanted and needed and where they can be supported by existing and necessary infrastructure, such as in our cities and urban areas. Estate regeneration fits that rationale perfectly, so I encourage colleagues to support the new clause.

    Hansard source
21. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Since the Minister has asked me so nicely, and as it is his birthday, I will agree to withdraw it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 28 Supported housing and stock management strategy “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a strategy for the provision of supported housing within the social housing system. (2) The strategy must consider— (a) barriers to the delivery of additional supported housing dwellings within the social housing system;<span id="153" class="column-number" data-column-number="153"></span> (b) integration of supported housing within social housing stock management; and (c) long-term demand projections.”—<em>(Gareth Bacon.)</em> <em>This new clause would require a strategy on supported housing as part of social housing stock management.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First </em><em>time</em><em>.</em>

    Hansard source
22. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
23. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The Bill claims to be about social housing, and yet it says almost nothing about the people who rely on it most. Supported housing services some of the most vulnerable residents in the sector: the elderly, people with disabilities and people who have faced incredible hardship. New clause 28 would ensure that there is a strategy to support those groups through effective stock management, rather than leaving them without representation in the Bill. The new clause would also require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy within 12 months and lay it before Parliament. It would examine the barriers to delivery, how supported housing fits within wider stock management, and long-term demand. That is not a monumental task, but it can produce effective outcomes. If the Minister believes in delivering for vulnerable residents, he should have no reason to refuse.

    Hansard source
24. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    We will press new clause 28 to a Division, but I will let the cat out of the bag now and say that we agree with the Minister on the other new clauses. When the time comes, we will not press them. <em>Question put,</em> That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
25. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Social housing exists to serve communities, yet too many families who have lived, worked and raised children in an area find themselves overlooked when homes are allocated. That is wrong and unjust, which is why my new clause 31 would require allocation schemes in England and Wales to give additional preference to people with a local connection. Local authorities would consider current residents’ employment and family ties. There is nothing exclusionary about supporting local people who contribute to, live in and work in their community. New clause 31 would also give armed forces personnel the respect and priority that they deserve. Through their service, our servicemen and servicewomen often find themselves posted far from home, sometimes in unsafe and unstable places, to protect Britain, British values and those in need internationally. We have a responsibility to protect them when they return home. I believe that service personnel should not lose their local connection because of their service, and that is why I tabled new clause 31.

    Hansard source
26. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I have heard the Minister. There was much in what he said, but I respectfully decline his offer. We will press new clause 31 to a vote.<span id="161" class="column-number" data-column-number="161"></span> <em>Question put,</em> That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
27. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
28. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Social housing is not abundant in this country, as we all know. It is a limited resource, and it is funded by the British taxpayer. The Opposition laid out in our alternative King’s Speech the stark and unfair reality of the British social housing system’s priorities. Too many struggling British families are far down the 1.34 million-strong waiting list for social housing. However, 72% of those who identify as Somalian in England and Wales live in social housing.

    Hansard source
29. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I come back to a point that I made earlier: if social housing were in abundant supply, there would be no need for this new clause, but it is not, nor will it be any time soon. The question is how British taxpayers’ money should be prioritised. I will come on to that in more detail in a moment. As I was saying, 72% of Somalis, 41% of Jamaicans and 34% of Bangladeshis live in social housing. Until recently, the First Lady of Sierra Leone was also living in a British-funded council house. We believe that those who are not British citizens should not be able to access social housing while British citizens sit on the waiting list. A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government response to a written parliamentary question revealed that every year around 33,000 new social tenancies go to households in which the lead tenant is not a UK national. At the same time, the Government are spending £4 billion a year on the affordable homes programme to build 30,000 new social homes—money that comes from British taxpayers. This means that the equivalent of the entire affordable homes programme budget is going to house non-nationals, and British taxpayers are footing the bill. New clause 32 is about creating a fairer system for British citizens and British taxpayers. It is not about exclusion, but about prioritisation, ensuring that British citizens are at the front of the queue for social housing in the country of which they are a citizen. It is not about race; it is about legal status.

    Hansard source
30. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I said a moment ago, the point of the new clauses is prioritisation: how we prioritise the use of British taxpayers’ funding. We believe that making Britain your home should be earned by working, paying tax and integrating. New clause 32 emphasises these points without making them exclusive to one race, religion or creed. That was quite deliberate. I urge colleagues to support the new clause. Turning to new clause 37, confidence in an already strained system is never helped when people with significant overseas wealth or status slip through the system unchecked. Current rules do not give sufficient support to local authorities to assist in dealing with applicants who hold senior public office abroad or who are closely related to those who do. The new clause is proportionate and practical. It would allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance on such applications, including on disclosure requirements, the verification of overseas assets and the position of anyone subject to UK sanctions. Local authorities would be required to have regard to it, and Parliament would see it laid before it takes effect. New clause 37 would give councils the vital tools to protect public trust, ensure that homes go to those in genuine need, and make the system fair. I turn to new clause 43. One of the greatest pressures on the social housing system is the waiting list, with 1.34 million vulnerable people and families facing a seemingly immovable backlog ahead of them. It is essential that all social, economic and physical pressures on the system are identified and addressed, and one of those is net migration. As I said a moment ago, every year about 33,000 new social tenancies go to households in which the lead tenant is not a British citizen—the source for that is a written answer from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. At the same time, the Government are spending £4 billion a year on the affordable homes programme to build 30,000 new social homes. That means that the equivalent of the entire affordable homes programme is going to house non-British nationals, and British taxpayers are paying for that. It is clearly necessary to look into exactly how that pressure is suppressing the efficiency of the social housing system, and inhibiting its ability to help British families in need. New clause 43 would require the publication of estimates of social housing demand arising from net migration, because with that data the Government and local authorities would be better informed when making decisions regarding the allocation of stock, and there would be better determined decisions around housing those in need. It is vital that we do not ignore an issue simply because some people find it uncomfortable to discuss. New clause 43 does not alienate anybody, nor does it take away anyone’s rights to a social home. It is a simple, <span id="164" class="column-number" data-column-number="164"></span>straightforward requirement that would leave decision makers better informed about the greatest pressures on an already strained system.

    Hansard source
31. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Will the hon. Member please point out where the new clause mentions where someone is born?

    Hansard source
32. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The new clause is clearly written. It is not about where somebody was born, and we are very precise in what we have said on that. There is no reference to where someone is born in the new clause, for a clear reason. It is about who is or is not a British citizen, and therefore who should or should not benefit from British taxpayers’ contributions. That is precisely what the new clause is about. I said in my speech that it has nothing to do with race, religion, place of birth or creed; it is about who is or is not a British citizen. That is the point of the new clause.

    Hansard source
33. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Will the hon. Gentleman please point to where in the new clause it says that it is retrospective?

    Hansard source
34. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    We had a bit of a spat about this on Second Reading. The first Duke of Wellington was a British citizen, so the new clause would not exclude him. The hon. Gentleman is making a completely nonsensical argument. Go back and read some history.

    Hansard source
35. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I will push new clause 32 to a vote. <em>Question put,</em> That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
36. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Antisocial behaviour blights lives. I am sure that we all find our inboxes filled with examples of it. Behind every statistic is a family afraid to use its own stairwell, an elderly resident who stops going out after dark or a child who cannot sleep because of the noise next door. <span id="173" class="column-number" data-column-number="173"></span>Conservative Members believe that when a community protection notice has been issued against a social tenant or someone living in or regularly visiting a social home, the landlord should be required to carry out a tenancy review. That is what new clause 33 would ensure. This is a measured proposal; it does not dictate an outcome. However, it would ensure that landlords looked at the problem and acted. Guidance would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Responsible tenants should not suffer because the system looks the other way. I encourage colleagues to support new clause 33.

    Hansard source
37. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I do feel somewhat reassured, but we are still going to press new clause 33 to a Division. <em>Question put, </em>That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
38. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. House building in this country is paralysed by the layering and complexity of a range of cumbersome regulations and taxes. According to the Home Builders Federation, at present house builders already face more than £7,000 in taxes and levies, including £2,000 in landfill tax, £2,320 from the forthcoming building safety levy, £2,055 in other taxes, and £985 from inflationary increases on existing charges such as section 106 agreements. Moreover, developers face over £23,000 in regulatory costs, including £7,780 from building regulations, £5,700 from biodiversity net gain, and £10,200 in costs linked to the future homes and buildings standards. That is not the end. Under this Government’s watch, house builders have seen material and labour costs reach heights of £37,000, alongside costs of up to £7,000 in additional potential site-specific elements such as nutrient mitigation requirements. We all heard what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement yesterday, but that was about no new building regulations, not looking at those that have exacerbated the problem. The cumulative impact of policy, taxation and regulatory pressures on home building means that it is so costly to build that, for many companies, it no longer makes economic sense to do so, not least when it comes to costlier and less profitable social housing. That is why I have tabled new clause 35, which would require a review of the regulatory requirements on social housing delivery. That would force the Government to confront the reality of these barriers, and work to identify the conditions preventing a renewed upspringing of social home sites.

    Hansard source
39. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The Minister is right that we have had extended debates on the issue. He is tempting me to reveal our manifesto pledges before the election, but we are not going to do that. He is right that we will be making some recommendations about which regulations we think need to be refined or thought about again. I will decline his invitation, and we will press new clause 35 to a vote. <em>Question put</em>, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
40. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    This group is about transparency, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon has just explained. New clause 14 would provide for regular statistics on asylum appeals, and new clause 22 for a report on decision making. If Committee members care—or dare—to cast their minds back a few weeks, we Conservatives pressed for appeals statistics under clause 3, so we have some sympathy for both new clauses. Amendment 62, however, would stop the new appeals body starting until the report is laid, which I fear is a delaying tactic. We cannot support it. New clause 57, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), asks for the figure that matters most: how many people have been removed every month after failed asylum claims, as well as when they arrived and why they were removed. Monthly figures linked to date of arrival would allow the House to see whether refusal leads to removal. If removals are rising, the Government can of course take credit for it. If not, Parliament can use that data to hold the Government to account. Will the Government publish monthly figures on removals of failed asylum seekers, with their date of arrival? How many people whose claims and appeals have been finally refused are living in the UK today? I commend new clause 57, which I intend to push to a vote, to the Committee.

    Hansard source