partytracker.uk

11,997 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
I am always open to evidence that it does not have sufficient powers. My judgment is that it does, and that the consumer ratings it hands out—we are getting a steady stream of them now—really do have an impact in driving improvements in landlord behaviour. Central to the regime is the regulator’s independent and risk-based approach. That allows the regulator to target its engagement and interventions to areas where there is the greatest risk of harm to tenants. It is worth clarifying that tenants and other members of the public can refer matters to the regulator where they believe that a registered provider may not be meeting the outcomes of the standards, and the regulator may take those concerns into account as part of its wider regulatory activity, including inspections. However, in our view, introducing tenant-triggered inspections risks cutting across that approach by potentially diverting regulatory resource away from higher-risk providers or issues, while undermining the regulator’s ability to act independently. Our view is that the existing framework already ensures that tenants’ concerns can inform regulatory action, by allowing the regulator to determine where intervention is most needed. On new clause 53, which the shadow Minister made clear is a probing amendment, I would have particular concerns about introducing a mechanism whereby the regulator would inspect individual tenant’s dwellings. Although individual tenants can escalate issues to the regulator, as I have made clear, it considers performance against the regulatory standards at a landlord level and seeks assurance that the landlord is delivering the outcomes set out in the regulatory standards. The regulator directly inspecting individual homes would move away from its co-regulatory approach and would require significant additional resource. In addition, tenant views already play an important role in the existing regime, and the regulator draws on a range of sources as part of its inspections, including through the landlords complaints process, the Housing Ombudsman and direct referrals. The existing framework ensures that tenants already play an important role in the system, without the need for a statutory mechanism to trigger inspections. For those reasons, I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
As the hon. Member set out, new clauses 5 and 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish reports on access to social housing for former members of the armed forces and for former offenders, respectively. We want to ensure that the social housing allocation system works fairly and effectively. Current and former members of the armed forces community benefit from strong protections within the allocations framework, including receiving the highest preference where they have a housing need. Where local connection or residency tests apply to determine who qualifies for an allocation of social housing, legislation exempts the armed forces community, regardless of when they last served. That ensures that they are not disadvantaged when applying for social housing due to the mobility required by service life. New clause 23, which we debated on Tuesday, will also ensure that veterans do not face local-connection barriers when seeking homelessness assistance. Statutory guidance is in place on improving access to social housing for members of the armed forces. There are not specific protections in the system for former offenders, who will have their housing need considered in the same way as other groups. They may fall within other existing statutory reasonable preference categories—for example, where they are homeless, need to move on welfare grounds or need to move because of medical or other relevant needs. Work is already under way to update statutory guidance on social housing allocation to ensure that allocations reflect local need and effectively support vulnerable households. Our call for evidence on this issue recently closed, and we are now working with partners to prepare updated guidance. We plan to consult on that updated guidance next year. With that comprehensive review already under way, we do not consider that there is a need to conduct separate reviews for specific groups such as former members of the armed forces or former offenders. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is sufficiently reassured to consider withdrawing the new clause.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, seeks to ensure that at least 10% of new social housing dwellings meet the M4(3) wheelchair-accessible standard in the building regulations. I very much commend where he is coming from with the new clause. The Government recognise the importance of increasing the supply of housing for older people and those with disabilities. The hon. Gentleman is right that for many years it has been something of a postcode lottery. That is why the new national planning policy framework recognised the need to drive up, through planning policy, rates of M4(2) requirements, and we have set a minimum floor of 40%. It is also why, when it comes to M4(3), the NPPF requires plans to set out the proportion that should be delivered to that standard to meet or exceed identified need. In our view, that is a significant step forward in ensuring that more wheelchair-accessible housing is delivered. However, we recognise that M4(3) is a specialised product for wheelchair users, with levels of need differing considerably between local areas. Our approach acknowledges that local authorities are best placed to assess accessible housing needs in their areas and to set out appropriate exemptions. A blanket 10% M4(3) requirement would risk undermining policies set at a local level. To support the locally led approach, we have committed to producing guidance to assist local authorities in assessing the housing needs of disabled people, to ensure that assessments of need are robust and consistent. Social and affordable homes programme funding can also be used to support the delivery of much-needed new supported housing, including new accessible homes. In our view, national policy remains the most effective route through which planning reform should be pursued. Imposing such a requirement in legislation rather than in policy, as this new clause seeks to do, would be unduly rigid, could limit an authority’s ability to respond to local circumstances and could constrain growth. We therefore think it is right to continue addressing these matters through planning policy and guidance. For those reasons, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to withdraw the new clause.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling new clause 7, which I will start with. He is absolutely right to draw attention to overheating, and I assure him that the Government recognise the scale of the challenge it presents. Overheating in homes is already a severe public health issue, and one that will grow only more acute in the years ahead, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has rightly stated. We know there are health risks and implications for excess deaths for particularly vulnerable populations. We take it extremely seriously, and we agree that new homes should protect everyone from the risks of overheating. That is why part O of schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 requires that new residential buildings in England are built to mitigate the risk of overheating. The Government continue to keep these requirements under review, and a full technical review of part O is currently under way to ensure that the framework remains effective and proportionate. These requirements already apply to newly built social housing, ensuring that residents benefit from the same standards of overheating mitigation regardless of their tenure type. The accompanying statutory guidance, approved document O, sets out how these requirements can be met. The new clause would require active cooling, such as air conditioning, to be installed wherever an indoor temperature of 21°C cannot be maintained. Conversely, part O assesses the risk to health posed by overheating through an evidence-based methodology and does not rely on a single prescribed temperature threshold. Part O also prioritises passive measures, such as shading and natural ventilation, which help to prevent homes from becoming too hot in the first place. In many cases, overheating can be effectively mitigated through passive measures alone, so part O helps to create homes that are resilient to hot weather while limiting energy use, carbon emissions and energy bills for residents.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
I welcome that clarification. I was going to say that part O does not prohibit any form of active cooling where designers can demonstrate that it is appropriate. As I say, part O encourages passive design measures before relying on mechanical systems. In many cases, as I have said, overheating can be effectively mitigated through passive measures. Mechanical cooling, such as air conditioning, can be used to mitigate overheating where all reasonably practicable steps have been taken to minimise it through passive means. For those reasons, we think that the new clause would likely increase the unnecessary use of mechanical cooling, with associated costs for both developers and residents. I therefore ask the hon. Member kindly to withdraw the new clause. New clause 9 concerns zero-carbon standards for new social housing. The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that new homes, including social housing, support our legally binding net zero target. We share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition to deliver homes that are energy efficient, low carbon and fit for the future. That is exactly what the future homes standard will achieve. The reassurance that I was going to give him in my intervention was that that is not affected by the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday of an effective moratorium on major new regulations, setting aside the qualifications that he set out at Dispatch Box with regard to building safety issues. The Government legislated for the future homes standard in March, and it will come into force for non-higher-risk buildings from 24 March 2027, and for higher-risk buildings from 24 September 2027. It will apply to all new homes, including social housing. Homes built to this standard will have high levels of energy efficiency, use low-carbon heating and, in most cases, generate renewable electricity on site. These homes will also be zero-carbon ready, meaning that they will produce very little carbon and will become zero carbon once the national grid is fully decarbonised, without requiring further retrofit. That is the really important point: we are retrofitting homes that have been built over recent years—at great cost—because of a previous Government’s decision to remove the required standards that were in place. We could go into that and the costs that that entails, but they are outside the scope of the Bill. We are ensuring that the new homes that come forward, once the standard is in place, are zero-carbon ready, so they will not require further retrofit. The Government have also worked carefully to set a standard that delivers substantial carbon savings while remaining proportionate, technically feasible and deliverable at scale. In our view, introducing further new standards would risk creating a separate and potentially inconsistent regulatory regime for social housing, as well as additional cost and delivery pressures for the sector. Although I agree with the objective behind the new clause, I consider that the future homes standard already provides the appropriate means of achieving its aims. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 9 to a vote.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
New clause 10 seeks to prevent local planning authorities from agreeing to any reduction in the number or proportion of social homes required through a planning obligation or condition. The Government are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure, and we have already taken a number of steps to that end. The new NPPF, published on 17 August, seeks to promote greater clarity on expected contributions at the plan-making stage, and to reduce cases of unnecessary site-specific viability assessment by clarifying when it may be appropriate at the decision-making stage. That certainty will help to minimise lengthy negotiations over developer contributions, including affordable housing, on specific sites. At the same time, the framework will retain flexibility for cases where negotiation is genuinely needed to enable sites to come forward. We are also acting to minimise friction and reduce the complexity involved in the negotiation of section 106 agreements, which are, and will remain, an essential mechanism for delivering social and affordable housing, but which in recent years have become synonymous with inefficiency and delay. The new NPPF formally introduces the category of “medium development”—sites of up to 2.5 hectares with between 10 and 49 units. It also provides the basis for the use of model obligations, as policy DM6(4) states: “Where national model planning obligations are relevant to the development, they should be used unless there are strong reasons for using a different planning obligation.” Following that, we launched a consultation on four standardised planning agreements for medium-sized sites, which will be expected to become the default for relevant applications in future. The consultation closed on 20 October 2026, and we are considering the responses received. The proper process for modifying or discharging planning obligations is set out in section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I know that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington knows this; he has great experience in this area from before he came to the House. As set out in my letter to the Planning Inspectorate earlier this year, attempts to revisit fundamental issues of viability or planning obligations through section 73 applications should be carefully scrutinised and supported by robust justification, with due weight given to the impact of any reduction in affordable housing delivery and to the wider merits of the scheme.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
I am going to be careful, because—as the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware—given the role of Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in the planning system, I obviously cannot comment on particular local plans or applications, and I do not know the specific circumstances of the case he cites. I make the general point—picking up on something that I think the hon. Member for Orpington mentioned earlier—that when we arrived in office, house builders across the country were telling us that the planning system was, in the main, probably the biggest barrier to house building they faced. Following the reforms we have made to national planning policy, they no longer say that; as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly highlights, viability is the chief concern at the moment. Viability pressures are acute across the country, and in certain parts they are particularly severe—London is a good example—so they are bearing on schemes and what they can bring forward. If I am honest, I struggle to see the direct link between the standard method, the five-year housing land supply and the housing delivery test concerns that I know the hon. Gentleman has raised in the past, but he and I could have a wider discussion on that outside the Committee. I am trying to remain focused on the intent behind the new clause, which concerns planning obligations and conditions. Let me just set out the Government’s position on section 73. Alongside ongoing work relating to the implementation of section 73B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, the Government intend to undertake a wider review of the statutory framework for modifying or discharging existing planning obligations, and we will provide further details about this in due course. I hope that will reassure the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on section 73B, but I am clear that our intention in reviewing this matter is not to allow developers to more easily reduce planning obligations already entered into, including for affordable housing. The Government have also acted to deal with the detrimental consequences of a declining market for section 106 affordable homes. We have already taken a number of steps to support demand for section 106 units, not least spending review measures designed to rebuild the capacity of registered providers. As a result, we are seeing tentative signs of improvement in appetite for acquiring section 106 homes. However, despite that positive shift in sentiment post spending review, we know there are still housing schemes where developers remain unable to secure an RP buyer for the affordable homes set out in an original section 106 agreement, and where local planning authorities and developers have not discussed or reached agreement on variations to planning obligations, with the result that many of these sites are stalling. It is for that reason that we made it clear in a written ministerial statement on 28 January that we expect all local planning authorities to take advantage of existing planning flexibilities to renegotiate section 106 agreements, and to allow the tenure of homes to be varied to secure a buyer where affordable homes secured in section 106 agreements remain uncontracted or unsolved. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will know, this can be effected by a deed of variation that makes amendments or revisions to existing section 106 agreements, either by agreement of the parties to the section 106 agreement, or by formal application under section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. To pick up directly on new clause 10, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, our concern is that it could create unintended consequences that may be contrary to our shared objective to boost the supply of social and affordable housing. Notwithstanding his concerns, which I recognise, it is important that the system retains sufficient flexibility for local planning authorities to respond to significant changes in site or economic circumstances after planning permission has been granted, such as a recession or a similarly significant economic change. We are concerned that new clause 10 could unduly restrict that flexibility, which could—this is the ultimate point—cause sites to stall and subsequently reduce overall housing delivery, including overall social and affordable housing delivery. I suspect that I will not have convinced the hon. Gentleman entirely, but I hope he agrees that, as it stands, the system carefully balances the need for that flexibility with trying to ensure that we maximise the amount of social and affordable housing supply that can be secured. We should avoid legislation that imposes, in our view, an unreasonable degree of rigidity, while obviously continuing our efforts to increase affordable housing delivery overall. On that basis, I hope he might be persuaded to withdraw the new clause on this occasion.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
I am not responding to the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I want to make an offer to him, because he will know that I am genuinely interested. He will know that we have tried to strengthen national policy on rural exception sites through the NPPF, so I am very interested in whether he thinks there are particular reasons why that strengthening will not have the desired effect, or whether there are other barriers to bringingforward those sites. We want more of those sites to be brought forward, precisely for the reasons that he has set out.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mr Western. I thank you and the hon. Gentleman for the birthday wishes. What better way to spend a birthday than with the fine body of hon. Members on this Committee? We understand the intention behind new clause 11: to improve transparency about right-to-buy sales and changes in social housing stock. Robust and accessible information about sales and housing delivery is, of course, important. However, in our view, a new statutory reporting framework is not necessary. Incidentally, a similar amendment was proposed in the other place and resisted because the Department already publishes statistics on right-to-buy sales and replacements, alongside wider information on social housing delivery. A separate register for every local housing authority would duplicate information already collected and published, while creating additional administrative requirements. We will continue to monitor right-to-buy sales and council housing delivery via our existing published statistics to ensure that we are consistently delivering more social rent homes than we are losing. The numbers are considerable; I refer the Committee to the Government estimates in the impact assessment of the net gain in social rented homes as a result of the Bill. For those reasons, I kindly ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
New clause 15 and new clause 68, which has not been spoken to, explore the merits of additional funding and support for councils and other registered providers when it comes to acquiring homes. New clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, focuses on keeping as social housing homes that would otherwise be disposed of outside the regulated sector. Although the Government continue to promote new build land-led development as a way to increase overall housing supply, we are supportive of acquisitions because they increase housing stock more quickly than new build and therefore represent an efficient way to rapidly meet local housing need. As a result, we have taken numerous steps to provide councils with investment opportunities to acquire additional homes. For example, we have lifted the acquisitions cap on the use of right-to-buy receipts. That removes previous restrictions on the number of homes that could be acquired using that source of capital funding and offers councils greater flexibility to meet local housing need. We have also made grant funding for acquisitions available through the social and affordable homes programme. We have confirmed that we will look to raise its existing cap, so that councils can purchase more homes from the private sector while they increase their capacity and capability to deliver homes directly. In addition, the local authority housing fund can be used by local authorities to purchase from private registered providers homes that would otherwise be lost from the social housing sector. All homes acquired through the fund become part of the local authority’s stock of housing, providing a lasting asset for local communities. I reassure Committee members that receipts from the sale of social homes are not lost but retained in the sector. Receipts from disposals will also often contain an element of recycled grant. In those circumstances, Homes England already sets a series of conditions on how recycled capital grant may be used. Those include the expectation that providers deploy recycled grant in support of identified priorities and housing need, in line with investment priorities set out in local plans. There is a strong incentive for timely reinvestment: if recycled grant is not used within three years, it must be returned to Homes England or the GLA, along with the interest it has accumulated. We need to recognise, however, that registered providers sometimes have tough decisions to make. We also need to ensure that we use Government money as effectively as possible. I am therefore not able to commit to further funding that would ensure that homes that are uneconomic or unsuitable to invest in remain in the social housing sector. However, I hope that the Committee is reassured by the funds available, which I have already outlined. On new clause 68, we record and publish statistics on acquisitions. That enables us to assess what role they are playing in social and affordable housing supply. It is not clear what an additional report would add to that assessment.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for speaking to the new clause, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for St Ives. As Committee members know, there are already several routes for social housing tenants to access home ownership, including the recently announced Your First Home scheme. But those routes must be balanced with the need to protect social housing stock and to stop homes from being sold at an unsustainable rate. Although the new clause includes provisions intended to ensure that homes remain within an affordable housing system, it would nevertheless, in our view, create a new route for social housing to move from rented tenure into owner occupation. The Government’s priority, as I have stated numerous times throughout our proceedings, is to protect and increase the supply of social and affordable rented homes for those in housing need. That is why the Bill is reforming the right-to-buy and right-to-acquire schemes—both to retain a route to home ownership and, as I have said, to avoid unsustainable rates of sale and outflow from the system. We do not believe that it would be right to introduce an additional route for social housing tenants to purchase their homes. As I have said, such a route would risk reducing the supply of rented social housing available to future tenants and duplicate existing routes to home ownership. For that reason, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will not push the new clause to a vote.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for speaking to the new clause, which was tabled by the hon. Member for St Ives, and for highlighting the housing pressures experienced in a number of tourist areas. It is worth saying that those pressures affect not only coastal and rural areas, but urban areas in London, York and other places around the country. The Government recognise that high concentrations of holiday lets can affect the availability and affordability of housing for local people and can contribute to wider pressures on local communities. However, we do not believe that the new clause is necessary. The Government already support the delivery of social and affordable housing through established funding programmes, many of which we have discussed throughout the Committee’s proceedings. The new clause is premised on the idea that revenues associated with holiday lets should be earmarked for social housing projects and related purposes. That is not the Government’s approach. Business rates revenues are not ringfenced for specific spending programmes; they are available to support local priorities. Likewise, the overnight visitor levy is intended to support local economic growth and strengthen local areas by giving strategic authorities greater control over how locally raised revenues are invested across a range of local priorities. Ringfencing those revenues for a particular purpose would cut across the Government’s approach to fiscal devolution and local decision making. The Government are already taking action in this area. Parliament legislated for a national registration scheme for short-term lets in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, and we remain committed to implementing that scheme as soon as is practicable. The Government have also abolished the furnished holiday lettings tax regime and are continuing to consider whether further measures may be needed to help local authorities to respond to local housing pressures related to excessive concentrations of short-term lets. In the light of that ongoing work, and given the Government’s established approach to fiscal devolution and local decision making, we cannot support the new clause. I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will consider withdrawing it.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I thank the shadow Minister for his well wishes and for speaking to new clauses 25 and 26. As he says, new clause 25 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the replacement of social housing stock and to consider the merits of introducing a statutory one-for-one replacement requirement. The core aim of the right-to-buy measures in the Bill is to prevent social homes being sold off without being replaced. Reforming the right to buy is central to that objective. If the shadow Minister reads the impact assessment, he will see clearly that it sets out the move from the existing baseline, before the changes the Government are making both in this Bill and outside it, to where we want to get to, which is a net gain of 18,000 social rented homes, over the 10-year period from 2026 to 2036.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I am struggling to understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. It will vary in each instance, will it not? There is a well-understood measurement for the loss of social homes from the sector; the shadow Minister cited statistics on that. The Government and the impact assessment are clear that, as a result of the Bill and the other measures we are taking over a 10-year period, we will go from a net loss of 26,000 social homes to a net gain of 18,000. That is the difference that the Bill will make. We have also taken significant steps to support local authorities to replace homes sold, such as by allowing them to keep 100% of their right-to-buy receipts and giving them greater flexibility as to how to spend them. Our changes to discounts further ensure that councils keep a larger share of the receipts. Our priority is therefore to implement these reforms rather than commission a further statutory review.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
It is worth saying that previous Conservative Governments advocated for one-for-one replacement and did not achieve it, precisely because the finances do not add up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster says, on average it takes the sale of three homes to replace one; it certainly does in my own London borough. Our proposition is very simple: we do not want these homes leaving the sector at the current rate. Yes, they may be secure tenancies in many cases, but they will be made available for future tenants in due course, and we will build more at the same time.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
As the shadow Minister has outlined, new clause 27 would require the Government to produce proposals within 12 months of the passing of the Act to support the regeneration of existing social housing estates. Let me make it very clear that we recognise the role that regeneration can play in the development of new or improved social homes that best fit the needs of their communities. I can think of many estate regeneration projects across London that are both very effective and hugely well supported, having been taken forward to resident ballots; the Brookhill estate regeneration in Woolwich, in my constituency, is a good example. That is why the social and affordable homes programme will continue to support regeneration schemes that provide a net increase in social housing, and why the programme will last for 10 years, allowing for the longer timeline that regeneration typically requires. We are also committed to improving existing social homes. As members of the Committee will be aware, we have published an updated decent homes standard, which providers must meet by 2035, and new minimum energy efficiency standards, which they must meet by 2030. For those reasons, we do not think this new clause is required, and I ask the shadow Minister kindly to withdraw it.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
Briefly—because this point is worth picking up—the reason so many larger social homes are not available is that they are precisely the homes that have been sold off, in most cases in the first instance, under the right to buy.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
The new clauses in this group all focus on the important issue of the effective management of existing social housing. New clauses 46 and 56 would require the Secretary of State, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to publish and lay before Parliament a national strategy for improving the management and use of social housing stock. New clause 56 would also require every local housing authority and registered provider to publish prescribed stock management information each year, with the Secretary of State reporting annually on performance. On the point of principle—I say this partly in response to the hon. Member for Broxbourne—we absolutely believe that more can be done to optimise the efficient use of social housing stock. The Government are already reviewing how effectively existing homes are managed and how tenant mobility and stock use could be improved. That work is under way and is considering many of the issues raised in new clauses 46 and 56, including voids, under-occupation, right-sizing, mutual exchange and tenancy fraud. We expect the review to report shortly. We do not believe that it would be right to legislate for a strategy and permanent reporting framework before the evidence from the review has been fully considered. I can guarantee the hon. Member for Broxbourne that, in considering the research findings carefully and deciding what further action might be proportionate in this area, I will reflect on the points that he made. I will not go into detail; he knows that local authorities are responsible for the local allocations framework within the national structure. New clause 44 seeks to understand how social housing is being used by requiring the publication of a national audit of social housing stock. Again, although I recognise the intent of the new clause, the Government do not believe that it is necessary. Substantial data is already published on the condition and use of social housing, including through the English housing survey and local authority housing statistics, which cover many of the issues raised in the new clause. The new clause would also duplicate the ongoing stock management review. New clause 28 would introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a strategy on supported housing. We recognise the crucial role of supported housing in enabling vulnerable people to live independently. I note and commend the efforts of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) in introducing the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which introduced a duty on local housing authorities to produce local supported housing strategies, including setting out their approach to the issues raised in new clause 28, based on a detailed understanding of local supply and demand. In 2024, we published research on supported housing supply and demand nationally. Earlier this year, we published guidance for local authorities on developing their supported housing strategies. Earlier this month, we published a consultation on draft regulations to implement the licensing regime set out in the 2023 Act. Finally, just last week we published the first piece of advice from the supported housing advisory panel, which was established under that Act. This is a really important area of policy. On the pressures around supported housing and the misuse of exempt supported accommodation—the west midlands is a particular hotspot for some poor practice in the sector, for example, and I know hon. Members want to see it addressed—we have already taken action in a number of ways. I hope that that reassures hon. Members that this Government are taking the necessary steps to address the issues around supported housing. On that basis, I kindly ask the shadow Minister not to press the new clauses to a Division.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
The Government recognise the importance of enabling people to remain close to their families, their employment and the communities in which they have built their lives. Local connection can have a legitimate role in deciding how social housing is allocated, but local housing authorities in England already have powers to take local connection into account when determining priorities between applicants within the statutory reasonable preference categories. It is worth pointing out that 89% of councils have a local connection or residency test in place to determine who qualifies for social housing in their area. The existing framework is therefore already working to allow local authorities to set local connection tests, in consideration of housing need and the relevant circumstances in their local area. New clause 31 would go further, requiring additional preference for applicants with a local connection, without making that preference dependent on the urgency of their housing need. We do not believe that would strike the right balance. It could disadvantage households with higher needs who must move to another area—for example, to reach a place of safety or obtain essential support. A connection to an area should not, in itself, be treated as evidence of greater housing need.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As ever, we benefit from his considerable experience in local government. That is the point: local housing authorities should retain flexibility to balance priority and local connection within the statutory framework. I recognise the intention, as set out by the shadow Minister, to ensure that members of the armed forces are not disadvantaged because their service has interrupted their local connection. There are already important protections in place in England. Serving members and all former members of the regular armed forces are exempt from local connection tests when councils determine who qualifies for social housing, regardless of when they last served. We are extending that protection through the Bill so that it also applies when veterans seek homelessness assistance. Our approach is to maintain a framework that recognises local connection while protecting people in housing need and allowing local housing authorities to respond fairly to individual circumstances. Our review of statutory allocations guidance provides an opportunity to reinforce those expectations, rather than introduce the blanket requirement proposed in the new clause. The new clause would also change the social housing allocations framework in Wales. Housing is a devolved matter, so consultation with the Welsh Government would be required before taking forward changes of this kind. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
New clause 32, as we have heard, aims to restrict access to social housing to UK citizens. It is my birthday, so I am trying to be as generous as I possibly can, but whether deliberately or inadvertently, the new clause would sow division. It is divisive. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich alluded to the real reasons for that: if not for the threat of Reform on the right of the Conservative party, the Opposition would not be making arguments in favour of this new clause today. After all, the system that we on the Government Benches are defending is the system that they presided over for 14 years in government and did not change. It is really important that we have this debate on the basis of the facts and a proper consideration of what the implications of the new clause would be. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall rightly made the point that eligibility for social housing is already tightly controlled. If a person’s visa means that they cannot access state benefits or local authority housing assistance, they are not eligible for an allocation of social housing and they cannot join a social housing waiting list. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking rightly made the point that the vast majority of non-UK nationals are not eligible, as most visas do not grant recourse to public funds. Those arriving in the UK on skills, work or student visas, for example, are not eligible, nor are those who arrive in the country illegally with no leave to remain. In 2024-25, 89% of lead tenants in new social lettings were UK nationals, the implication being that 11% were not. That 11% included European nationals, such as Irish nationals, who made up 4% of that, and 8% was composed of people with nationalities from outside the European economic area. That was broadly the same as the previous year. The really important point, which a couple of my hon. Friends have made, is that even households where the lead tenant is not a UK national can include UK nationals. It is not the case that every household in a social home is composed entirely of either UK nationals or non-UK nationals. A lead tenant could be an Irish citizen married to a British citizen; that is the type of family that the new clause would affect. Where non-UK nationals are eligible for social housing, they will have their housing needs considered on the same basis as other eligible applicants, in accordance with the local authority’s housing allocation scheme. In addition, as my ministerial colleague Baroness Taylor of Stevenage set out on Report in the other place, under the withdrawal agreement—the agreement negotiated and signed by the previous Conservative Government—the UK must treat EU citizens with settled status on the same basis as UK citizens. New clause 32 would cut across that obligation and put us in breach of the withdrawal agreement that the official Opposition negotiated and signed. I do not think that they have thought any of this through. The previous Government oversaw the current arrangements for 14 years. They did consult, very late in the day, on a UK connection test to determine access to social housing. The majority of respondents to that consultation did not agree with the introduction of such a test, and feedback highlighted significant concerns about its feasibility and the cost of implementation. This is really important. Even in practical terms, respondents were clear that such a test would increase homelessness pressures and temporary accommodation costs for local authorities. This Government set out their response to the previous Government’s consultation on changes to social housing allocation tests on 2 September 2024. The conclusion set out in that response remains our position. We do not believe that the new clause is necessary or workable, for the reasons that I have outlined, and we cannot support it. On new clause 37, as set out in the other place, the Secretary of State has powers to issue statutory guidance on social housing allocations, to which local authorities must have regard. Local housing authorities can already take account of whether applicants are foreign public office holders, including their financial circumstances. Any need for further guidance on public office holders and overseas assets should be considered within the existing allocations framework rather than through a separate legislative provision. As I have said on a couple of occasions, we are already reviewing the statutory guidance on social housing allocations, providing an opportunity to consider whether any further clarification is needed on this issue. I turn to new clause 43. The impact of migration on social housing was another issue raised during the Bill’s passage through the other place. It is really important to say that demand for social housing comes from a multitude of factors, including economic conditions and a range of Government policies, so a yearly assessment would not be proportionate. It is artificial and potentially misleading to seek to easily, neatly and reliably separate the impact of net migration from other factors. Any increase in any one year of social housing lettings to migrants may not be directly due to the net migration figures. For all the reasons that I have given, we cannot support these new clauses. I hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw the motion, although I suspect that he will not. We are more than happy to take a Division on the issue.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
The Government recognise the impact that persistent antisocial behaviour can have. I very much agree with both the spirit and the letter of what the shadow Minister has just said. Our inboxes are full of cases of antisocial behaviour, which absolutely blights the lives of individuals and, in some cases, entire communities. The Government are clear that no one should feel unsafe in the places where they live, work or visit. In all cases of antisocial behaviour, but especially where it is persistent, landlords must be able to respond quickly and appropriately. Social landlords already have a range of powers and enforcement tools to tackle antisocial behaviour, and we expect them to use those promptly and appropriately, putting the needs of victims at the heart of their response. That is why we do not consider the new clause to be necessary. Community protection notices are designed to provide a flexible and proportionate response to persistent antisocial behaviour. Where a social landlord has been designated by the relevant local authority, it may issue a notice itself. However, linking every community protection notice to a mandatory review would reduce local discretion and add undue administrative burdens on landlords. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 has strengthened the powers available to the police and other agencies. That includes an increase in the maximum fixed penalty for breaching a community protection notice from £100 to £500 and stronger measures to tackle persistent offenders. Also, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 has shortened the notice period for the mandatory antisocial behaviour eviction ground and, once that is implemented in the social rented sector, landlords will be able to make a claim to the court faster in cases of serious antisocial behaviour. In that context, much of what the new clause seeks to achieve duplicates existing powers and regulatory requirements. On that basis, I hope that I have reassured the shadow Minister and, respectfully, I hope that he will withdraw it.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I thank the shadow Minister for speaking to new clause 35, which would require the Secretary of State to review “regulatory requirements on local authorities and registered providers of…social housing relating to social housing provision.” The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that regulatory requirements on social housing providers are proportionate and that, wherever possible, they do not create barriers to their delivering new social homes. We want to reduce regulatory burdens across Government where we can. Of course, we must also ensure that the necessary regulation is in place to protect social housing residents and ensure that social homes are safe, high-quality services are delivered and providers of social housing are well-governed and financially viable. When introducing new regulations, the Government ensure that a robust assessment has been made of their impact. I would also reflect on the fact that there are overarching requirements in place that seek to ensure that regulatory requirements on social housing providers are proportionate. They include a statutory duty on the Regulator of Social Housing to carry out its work in a way that minimises interference and, as far as possible, is proportionate, consistent, transparent and accountable. The shadow Minister and I have had debates on these issues many times, and I know that he profoundly disagrees with some of the regulations introduced by the previous Government. In the months and years to come, I hope that we might be clearer on precisely which of those regulations the Opposition wish to remove. Do they wish to do away with second staircase requirements, or Awaab’s law, which was in legislation that they introduced? We could have a longer debate at another time—I feel that the energy and enthusiasm of the Committee are waning. Put simply, in our view, a further review is not necessary in this area for the reasons that I have given, so I kindly ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Patrick
Royal National Lifeboat Institution
<Question HRSContentId="{50B5D8B9-9602-4FD1-B167-9A3881C6B51C}">13. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{1E476842-481C-4F3F-8CB9-6975C2937516}">Whether she is taking steps to support the work of the RNLI.</QuestionText> </Question>
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Patrick
Royal National Lifeboat Institution
I thank the Minister for his answer and for his full-throated support of the RNLI. He will be delighted to learn that five of the brilliant volunteers at West Kirby and Hoylake RNLI stations in my constituency have been awarded long service awards. However, they and the whole RNLI family are having to deal with a disinformation campaign run by cowards hiding behind a balaclava or a keyboard. I ask the Minister how he will give the RNLI his support and whether he could show some of that Wirral spirit, because Wirral is backing the RNLI every step of the way.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Markus Campbell-Savours
Topical Questions
The last train from London to Newcastle tonight is at 11.08 pm, but the last train from London to Carlisle is at 7.30 pm. Now that the experiment with train privatisation is coming to an end, is it possibly time for a new experiment where the west coast gets the same level of service as the east coast?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Markus Campbell-Savours
Business of the House
Purchased for £51,000 in 2022, Cockermouth’s Old Courthouse later collapsed and still partially sits in the River Cocker. However, the accounts of owner Halal Group Ltd state that it has fixed assets of £248,000, and the company has not responded to calls for transparency or action. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on micro-company accounts, their use by property investment businesses and the lack of transparency about asset valuations?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Mark Sewards
Business of the House
I was shocked and appalled when a peaceful Hindu festival in Wakefield the weekend before last was attacked by masked individuals, leaving two people injured. Children and families were present, including 50 of my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Ossett and Denby Dale (Jade Botterill), in whose constituency this took place, has done sterling work in liaising with the police and the community. There is more work to come, but in the meantime, will the Leader of the House join me in condemning this kind of violence and the individuals who encourage it, and standing with the Leeds South West and Morley Hindus whom I represent? Will he also call for a debate in Government time on the need to protect all of our communities from abhorrent attacks?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Mark Sewards
Budget Resolutions
In the short time available to me, I will go through a few things in the Budget that will genuinely help my constituents, as well as a few areas where the Government should go further. Let me start with household bills. I will certainly not be alone in this House in finding that most of my constituents are genuinely worried about the pressure of household bills. It is definitely welcome that standing charges have been scrapped from gas bills, that VAT on energy bills has been suspended for longer and that a new £100 household energy payment is being introduced. That will benefit 40,000 properties in my constituency alone. That is welcome breathing space, but it cannot be the summit of our ambitions on energy bills or bills more generally. That is why I welcome the long-term direction set out on energy by the Chancellor yesterday. However, I assure my constituents and give fair warning to Members on the Front Bench that I will be asking for more support if bills do not come down quickly enough in the short and medium term. I welcome the support given to businesses. Nearly half of all businesses in Yorkshire and the Humber will not pay business rates, following the announcement yesterday. Alongside that immediate support for families and businesses, the Budget made some investments in my home city of Leeds, not least the £200 million extra to transform Leeds train station. There is a lot in that, such as a new bridge over the platforms, three new entrances and bigger and better concourses, but when I went through that yesterday with my wife, Alice, she was very quick to remind me that the improvements to the lifts are incredibly overdue, and she is absolutely right. The lifts are so painfully slow that people have to factor an extra 15 or 20 minutes into their journey if they have a pram or a wheelchair. As somebody who has a five-year-old, a two-year-old and another one arriving in a few weeks’ time, I welcome that investment in our lifts, and I cannot wait to spend the money to make them that a little bit faster for anybody with a pram. I also welcome the £15 million being given to Leeds College of Building for its new campus on the south bank. That campus is going to be used by my constituents; it is going to benefit them and give them the chance to start a new career in an area where we already have skills shortages. In the very short time available to me, I will also say as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire that we were about to put out a report calling on the Government to give fiscal devolution to the regions, to allow mayors to keep more of the tax revenue that we raise centrally. I was very pleased that the Chancellor beat us to the punch with his announcement. I know that the Prime Minister considers Lord Blunkett to be a personal mentor and hero to him, and he has also been a mentor and hero to our APPG, so I will just say that he took what was in our report and gave it to the Prime Minister, and that is how it ended up in the Budget statement. That is my story, and I am sticking to it.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Luke Myer
Topical Questions
Cowbar Lane in my constituency is at serious risk of collapse into the sea. We have a plan in place for relocating it and making it safe. Will Ministers meet me to discuss it?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Luke Murphy
Local Government Reorganisation
I thank the Minister for his statement. I urge him to make a “minded to” decision as quickly as possible for Hampshire, and for that to include the creation of a north Hampshire unitary authority. It is right economically and for the delivery of public services, and has a coalition of charities and businesses behind it. I also join my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) in urging representation for districts—not just cities, but large towns such as Basingstoke—on the Hampshire and the Solent combined county authority.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Lucy Rigby
Budget Resolutions
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this Budget debate. It is an honour to respond on behalf of the Government. Yesterday, the Chancellor delivered a Budget that will steer Britain through a period of global volatility and the economic storm that has increased pressures on families and firms across this country. It is a Budget that doubles down on our fiscal discipline, and that strengthens our economic resilience and national security, making responsible choices in an uncertain world. It is a Budget that offers households and businesses breathing space from cost pressures in the here and now, and one that makes critical structural changes that will drive our future prosperity. Over the course of the debate, the Defence Secretary and Labour Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) and for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), have rightly emphasised the importance of our commitment to fiscal responsibility, which underwrites every promise this Government make to the British people. As was made clear yesterday, in this Budget the Chancellor has met his fiscal rules, and for the first time this Government are meeting them in the third year of the forecast. The headroom against the stability rule is £15 billion, rising to £22 billion in 2030-31. Last year, we cut borrowing to its lowest level in six years, and the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook confirms that borrowing will fall over the forecast. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will forgive Government Members for taking the advice of the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), with not so much a pinch of salt, but a whole bucket of it, because not only is he the architect of the mini-Budget, but he maintained just a few weeks ago that the mini-Budget, as the Defence Secretary said, contained lots of good things. Perhaps the shadow Chancellor would like to tell us what those good things were. Were those good things the sky-high mortgages for millions of people right across this country, including in my constituency, the disastrous market impact, or the cratering of our international reputation? Britain’s economic reputation was so badly damaged under the Conservatives that the IMF publicly warned them to change course. [Interruption.] You can tell that they do not like to be reminded of it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Armed Forces Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), does not like that either, because he was one of the mini-Budget’s chief architects and, indeed, one of its most ardent fans. The reality is that the contrast between their approach and ours could not be clearer.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Lucy Rigby
Budget Resolutions
We are reforming welfare, and the Prime Minister has made it clear today—[Interruption.] The welfare Budget ballooned under the Conservative party. The Prime Minister has been very clear today that the welfare bill will come down. As I have said, the contrast between our approach and the Conservatives’ could not be clearer. The IMF forecast earlier this month that our deficit would be the lowest in the G7 by 2029. Fiscal strength matters because our economic security and our national security are inseparable. That is why this Budget strengthens Britain’s capacity to withstand global volatility. It funds the defence investment plan by reprioritising capital budgets, so that Britain can respond to a more dangerous world. It also strengthens our defence industrial base and supports skilled jobs across the country. As has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), it also—
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Lucy Rigby
Budget Resolutions
Let me talk now about energy security, because it is part of our national security, too. We are reforming our energy system so that Britain is less exposed to volatility. We will freeze new policy costs on bills, pending a comprehensive cost control framework. We are accelerating investment in the grid and we are procuring clean power only where it lowers bills and can connect properly. When it comes to our public services, this Government have stabilised spending after years of under-investment by the Conservative party.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Lucy Rigby
Budget Resolutions
The Prime Minister confirmed earlier today that we will bring the welfare bill down as soon as possible. I am very happy to confirm that. As the Chancellor said yesterday, when it comes to public services we will insist on reform, prioritisation and value for money. That is what resilience looks like: sound public finances, secure energy, strong defence and a state that is able to act when the country needs it to. As hon. Members have made clear, including my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), for Shipley (Anna Dixon) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), the measures in the Budget will provide breathing room for families and businesses now, while also helping to bring bills down over the long term. We know that energy pressures are not just felt by families but by businesses, too. That is exactly why we are increasing the small business rate relief threshold for retail hospitality and leisure properties, taking around 70,000 more businesses out of business rates altogether. For other businesses in the sector, rates will be frozen in real terms for two years. We are supporting high streets and the businesses that give them life. We are backing pubs, clubs and music venues. We are reducing the supply-side barriers that firms repeatedly tell us hold them back: energy costs, slow infrastructure decisions, red tape and access to finance. And because of our commitment to fiscal responsibility, all those measures are fully funded.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Lucy Rigby
Budget Resolutions
I can. On that commitment to sound finances, our plan is to double down on the conditions that will allow for the growth that will drive this country’s future prosperity. We are determined that Britain will be an even better place to start a business, to scale it and then to stay. A new founders’ relief will offer a 10% capital gains tax rate on eligible lifetime gains of up to £10 million for founders of high-growth companies. We are doubling the CSOP—company share option plan—limits and we are tripling the trading allowance, too. Recognising that artificial intelligence is the defining technology of our time—it is already turbocharging productivity—we are putting more than £700 million behind making it safer, more secure and easier to adopt. I am pleased to confirm to the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that we will continue to safely adopt AI within the public sector, improving public services and productivity while securing better value for taxpayers. The Chancellor also talked yesterday about significant change to our energy policy, because we know that affordable, secure energy is a platform for growth. By accelerating grid connection, controlling costs and lowering electricity bills, we will strengthen industrial competitiveness and unlock investment across the country. We are putting our public finance institutions at the heart of Britain’s growth mission with an additional £20.4 billion of capital for the national wealth fund and the British Business Bank. To conclude, in the first half of this year, our economy was the joint fastest growing in the G7, alongside the United States. The OBR has raised its forecast for growth this year. Whole economy investment, business investment and productivity are all up. That progress is being tested by global pressures, which is exactly why the Chancellor has delivered a Budget that will steer us through the storm. It is a Budget underpinned by fiscal discipline, it provides support to families and firms now, it will strengthen our resilience, and it will put this country on the better, more secure and more prosperous course that the British people deserve. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Liam Conlon.) Debate to be resumed on Monday 2 November. Petition
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Lola McEvoy
Topical Questions
<Question HRSContentId="{237D6651-A6FB-47A0-9486-C9124BE4A1A9}">T5. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{DA916794-649E-4317-83B7-789A3394BC10}"></QuestionText>The Department is aware of my increasing frustration at balaclava-clad yobs tearing up and down on dirtbikes in Darlington. Indeed, the rest of the House is increasingly frustrated and we need action. Will the Minister and the Department commit to licensing or registration at the point of sale to aid the valiant effort of our police forces in the north-east?</Question>
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Liz Twist
Business of the House
This month marks GloWeek, the Child Brain Injury Trust’s annual campaign reminding children to be bright and be seen as the clocks go back. I recently joined Delves Lane school for a GloWeek event, at which I was joined by County Durham fire and rescue, Consett neighbourhood police and Elddis Transport; it brought along vehicles to show pupils how to stay safe on the roads. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the trust, and will he make Government time for a debate on improving road safety education, so that we protect young brains from injury?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Liz Twist
Budget Resolutions
I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on the Budget, and to talk about some of the things that will affect my constituents. This Budget does indeed provide the breathing space needed by families, workers and small businesses across the country, built on the bedrock of fiscal discipline and helping families to deal with high living costs. Most notably, looking at energy costs, over 92% of households across the Blaydon and Consett constituency will benefit from the household energy payment, directly delivering £100 to help households with bills this winter, alongside the extension of 0% VAT on electricity. Many of these houses are of course of poor quality and poorly insulated, so it is particularly welcome. For local motorists, tradespeople and commuters, extending the 5p fuel duty cut keeps daily costs down, and many constituents have written to me about that. When talking to the North East chamber of commerce recently, I heard that our local businesses were concerned about operating with the current system of taxes. For our high street businesses, the £1 billion business rates package ensures that over 52% of retail, hospitality and leisure properties across the north-east will pay no business rates at all next year, giving independent traders room to plan and to invest. Alongside the 35% business rates relief for pubs, the new guest beer legislation will give local landlords the right to serve locally brewed beers on tap, supporting independent north-east brewers such as the Firebrick Brewery in Blaydon and the Thirsty Moose in Ryton, which have spoken to me about these issues.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Liz Twist
Budget Resolutions
There are indeed welcome moves in this Budget, and I know that the guest beer one was particularly wished for. On regional growth, I warmly welcome the new £1.5 billion borrowing facility for mayoral strategic authorities that was announced yesterday. In Gateshead, these devolved borrowing powers will allow us to move forward with the transformation of the Gateshead Quays development. Backed by £24 million in enabling funding from North East Mayor Kim McGuinness, essential site preparation and infrastructure work can now begin. Once these loans allow us to start investing in full, Gateshead will gain a world-class venue featuring a 12,500-seat arena and an international conference centre. The North East combined authority estimates that this ambitious development will attract over 1 million visitors every year, generate a £70 million annual boost to our local economy and create 2,000 good local jobs. I want to set the record straight on the international investment summit. The Budget Red Book announces that “The next International Investment Summit will take place in spring 2027 in Newcastle.” I must gently correct the record for the Treasury. As the Chancellor announced in his speech yesterday, that major summit will actually be hosted on the south side of the Tyne, right in Gateshead. I look forward to seeing Tyneside on the global stage. As we prepare to welcome global investors, my firm hope is that the investment announced at the summit stays directly in Gateshead and the surrounding area, helping to further fund our local regeneration and economic growth, and benefiting my constituents on the Blaydon side and beyond to provide employment opportunities, so that it will affect the whole of Gateshead, not just the quayside. There is a little-noticed measure in the Budget on the preventive departmental expenditure limit. I particularly welcome the creation of ringfenced preventive expenditure, which establishes a spending category for early intervention in the spending review. We do not have much detail on that, but I am going to get my bid in quite early. I want investment in preventive measures that affect all Departments in relation to suicide prevention and mental health. This is a really important issue and one that I come back to regularly. I warn those on the Treasury Bench that I will be referring to it many times in future, so that they do not lose the message—if they could take a note now, that would be helpful. Extensive research conducted by Samaritans and Mind demonstrates that every single suicide prevented saves our economy roughly £1.46 million. We cannot reduce lives to figures on a spreadsheet, but that shows that investment in preventive work on mental health and work on suicide prevention is well worth the money. Across County Durham, 878 local properties will benefit from the real-terms business rates freeze, alongside 377 in Gateshead. To help our young people gain high-quality skills and secure good careers, new apprenticeship brokerage funding and expanded mayoral apprenticeship services will support businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises, to hire and train the next generation. The derelict buildings fund will help both sides of my constituency, making a difference to our high streets.
Hansard source

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

All parties, latest first

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Royal National Lifeboat Institution

Royal National Lifeboat Institution

Topical Questions

Business of the House

Business of the House

Budget Resolutions

Topical Questions

Local Government Reorganisation

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Topical Questions

Business of the House

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions