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
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Labour Party
Nothing ingested yet
Liberal Democrats
Nothing ingested yet
Plaid Cymru
Nothing ingested yet
Reform UK
Nothing ingested yet
Scottish National Party
Nothing ingested yet
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,699 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The Minister says that solving crimes and immigration are linked, but the way they are linked in the logic of the new clause and in the logic of current data sharing means—I think the police would agree—that immigration threats hamper crime investigation. Does the Minister not see that?
Another key part of the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy is that it offers protection only to victims. Will the Government look again at considering the inclusion of witnesses as well?
I thank the Minister for her answers. I do not think she has really dealt with the issues at hand, particularly in respect of witnesses and the idea that the provision would be a one-way firewall and therefore not open to any kind of abuse. However, I am happy to withdraw the new clause and continue the discussion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 24 Right to work for asylum applicants where decisions not made within six months “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make such changes to the Immigration Rules as may be necessary for the purposes of granting a person making an application for asylum, and any adult dependants of that person, the right to work in the United Kingdom where— (a) a period of six months has elapsed from the day on which the person made an application for asylum, and (b) the Secretary of State has not made a decision on the person’s application. (2) A grant of the right to work under subsection (1) must— (a) be granted without the need for an application by the person making the application for asylum or an adult dependant of that person; (b) permit the person to take up employment or self-employment without restriction on occupation, skill level or salary; (c) be on terms no less favourable than those that would apply to a person granted refugee status in the United Kingdom; (d) persist until— (i) the person’s claim has been finally determined, or until any right of appeal has been exhausted, or (ii) the person otherwise ceases to be an applicant for asylum or an adult dependant of such a person; and<span id="527" class="column-number" data-column-number="527"></span> (e) be capable of being evidenced by documentation or a digital status which can be relied upon by an employer for the purposes of a right to work check. (3) For the purposes of this section, ‘the Immigration Rules’ mean rules laid before Parliament under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.”—<em>(Siân Berry.)</em> <em>This new clause would require the Secretary of State to grant applicants for asylum, and their adult dependants, the right to work where a decision has not been made on their application within six months.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em> <em>Question put,</em> That the clause be read a Second time.
Can the Minister clarify whether those are 18,000 vacant new homes, or 18,000 homes that currently have social tenants?
New clauses 25 and 26 are really an effort by the Opposition to force the Government to use the Bill to secure new homes. I wish the Minister a very happy birthday; I will expedite my speech so that we can pop down to the Two Chairmen and pick up where the Chancellor left off last night.<span id="149" class="column-number" data-column-number="149"></span> On Second Reading, I was intrigued to hear the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) say: “Our right to buy reforms will mean a net gain of 18,000 social homes over the next 10 years”.<span id="vol790_col1300" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="1300" data-volume-number="790" data-external-id="096C88D8-FD38-4822-B126-89586D2170EC">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 10 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 1300.]</span> That is the same claim that the Minister has made today. I have studied the impact assessment produced by the Government, and, sure enough, on page 25 there is this line: “Following implementation of the Bill, the model instead estimates a net gain of around 18,000 homes over the same period.” Dig into that figure, however, and it is not quite what it seems. It is not that 18,000 new homes will be available to new tenants who are languishing on the housing register. The 18,000 net increase in homes is made up entirely of retained stock and, importantly, retained tenants. That is not 18,000 new homes; that is 18,000 homes with someone already living there, who has probably been living there for some time. In fact, the impact assessment shows—I assure the Committee that I am not repeating the shadow Minister’s points—that whereas more than 50,000 new houses were due to be built under the old regime, the Bill will now deliver only half that, approximately 28,000 new homes. The impact assessment says that there will be a reduction in the new homes built as a consequence of the Bill, because fewer homes are being sold and there is less funding available for new builds. The real irony is that the Bill effectively tackled the economic problems of right to buy through the admirable inclusion of clauses 6 and 10, which rebalance the economic viability of right to buy in the LA’s favour. Those measures make right to buy economically viable, allowing councils to retain funds from the sale of units at a more appropriate price. I can understand and accept the fundamental problem that right to buy posed to councils by making the deal too favourable to prospective buyers and tenants. Even if we take into account higher prices and higher rates of retention, councils will still be substantially short-changed under the Bill. That point leads me on to the shadow Minister’s new clauses 25 and 26, because of what a one-for-one replacement policy means within the Bill. I return to the impact assessment: on the pre-November baseline, there is a deficit to the tune of 26,000 from housing being lost. As I understand it, each council would be bound to replace the lost house with a new house. If we follow the new clauses to their conclusion, there could be 26,000 additional new homes, which, funnily enough, would chime with the point that the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green made in the Chamber.
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.
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—
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.
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?
Good!
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.
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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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>
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
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.
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.
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.
Will the hon. Member please point out where the new clause mentions where someone is born?
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.
Will the hon. Gentleman please point to where in the new clause it says that it is retrospective?
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.