What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,997 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
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.
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 <span id="157" class="column-number" data-column-number="157"></span>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.
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 <span id="160" class="column-number" data-column-number="160"></span>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.
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.
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 <span id="171" class="column-number" data-column-number="171"></span>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 <span id="172" class="column-number" data-column-number="172"></span>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.
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.
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 <span id="176" class="column-number" data-column-number="176"></span>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.
<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>
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.<span id="537" class="column-number" data-column-number="537"></span> 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.
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?
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.
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. <span id="542" class="column-number" data-column-number="542"></span>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. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> 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.
We are reforming welfare, and the Prime Minister has made it clear today—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> 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—
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.
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.
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. <em>Ordered</em>, That the debate be now adjourned.—(<em>Liam Conlon.)</em> <em>Debate to be resumed</em><em> </em><em>on Monday </em><em>2 November</em><em>.</em> Petition
<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>
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?
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.<span id="520" class="column-number" data-column-number="520"></span> 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.
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 <span id="521" class="column-number" data-column-number="521"></span>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.
I also have constituents affected by the sodium valproate issue. I wonder whether she agrees that it is a double injustice—first, that the parents, Emma and Janet, had to fight to get recognition and change in the prescription of sodium valproate; and secondly, that they have to fight again to get compensation for the very real damage caused.
I know from the Minister’s previous work that she will be conscious of the issues, but we are two years on from the Hughes report, which made it clear that we need to act. This is an important issue, and it feels like a group—primarily of women—are being left to one side to wait their turn or bide their time. Can the Minister assure me that she will be in the Department, making sure that we get a real answer on financial and other redress? I am sure she will be doing that, but we need to see some action.
As the Minister knows, I support local government reorganisation, and I welcomed the original pause of the decision to split Amber Valley in two. I know that the Minister is taking the time to carefully review the situation, and I thank him for the thorough and thoughtful manner in which he is doing so. However, delays bring uncertainty about council officers’ futures, planning services, and delivery of projects for the people of Amber Valley. Given that splitting Amber Valley is the only point of contention between the boroughs and districts of Derbyshire, can I urge the Minister to commit to a swift and firm timetable for Derbyshire? This can be sorted out quickly.
<Question HRSContentId="{14E40FDE-7C3B-4E72-8162-4A21988F99F1}">T7. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{E451A23B-3D7E-4930-8060-CA6A68674FD3}"></QuestionText>As the Government prepare their taxi and private hire vehicle Bill, will the Minister ensure that local authorities such as Sunderland have the enforcement powers and resources that they need to regulate all vehicles operating in their area, regardless of where those vehicles are registered?</Question>
The hon. Member said that he believes in making evidence-based decisions, but he is unable to say what it would cost to make this change. If that is his belief, can he explain what the cost of the new clause would be?
My constituent Hazel McLeod has brought generations in Winchburgh together—pupils from Winchburgh and Sinclair academies, together with members of the senior community group Good Companions—to create a book of residents’ memories called, “What do you see when you look at me?” The book received the “highly recommended” award at the global Intergenerational Excellence Awards 2026, which recognised 13 projects worldwide. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating everyone involved, and commend Hazel’s sterling efforts throughout the years, and make a statement on the value of intergenerational projects in preserving local stories and strengthening community spirit?
<Question HRSContentId="{E28432DF-E185-4743-AA1D-6B7D1058CD70}">12. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{A4CC7DF7-3BB4-41F6-B23A-9833258EBD5F}">What steps she is taking to improve rail services in Bolton North East constituency.</QuestionText> </Question>
When I worked in Manchester, my train from Hall i’ th’ Wood station was regularly delayed, cancelled or overcrowded thanks to Northern Rail’s two-carriage service at rush hour. Ten years on, commuters at both Hall i’ th’ Wood and Bromley Cross stations are still being failed by Northern Rail, and, with no Metrolink access, it is no wonder that Boltonians feel left behind. What are our Government doing to connect Bolton to the 21st century?
The shadow Chancellor says we will be less secure. After 14 years of Tory Government, our armed forces were reduced to a size smaller than at any time since the Napoleonic wars. How secure were we during his time in power?
This Budget comes at a time when conflict in Europe and the middle east —not of our choosing, not of our making—has hit the cost of living hard here at home, while the threats facing our country make investment in defence and national security more important than ever. As today’s debate was opened on the Government side by the Defence Secretary, I want to make a further point, which is that economic security and national security go hand in hand. That is particularly important in my constituency, <span id="538" class="column-number" data-column-number="538"></span>where the aerospace and space sectors are vital parts of our local economy. Indeed, as I have said many times in this place, over a quarter of satellites in space contain components made in my town of Stevenage. To have that security in the long term, though, we have to make sure people get through the attack on our cost of living now. That is why this Budget does so much to provide that breathing space, such as helping with soaring energy bills. We have the £100 household energy payment, which will help 36,000 homes in Stevenage and our villages, and the extension of the electricity VAT cut. The lowest-income pensioners will not be paying income tax as a result of this Budget, and our retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in Stevenage will benefit from not facing a real-terms increase in business rates over the next two years. Taken together, these measures all help, and it is no good the Opposition belittling any of them. When it comes to security, as the Opposition have accepted, the defence investment plan is fully funded. That means that our defence industry can now get on with providing the equipment and support that our armed forces need. We in this House are all united in supporting Ukraine, and I am glad that we all welcome the extra support for Ukraine, but the Opposition had 14 years in government, and they lecture us about defence now. In that time, as I have already said, our armed forces were belittled. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) talked about calling on the last Government to increase defence spending, but they never did it, and now the Conservatives say that they will cut welfare. Welfare ballooned under the last Government, and now they say that they are going to cut £30 billion. They have no plans; they ask us for a plan, but there is nothing from them, so why should we believe a word they say? This is a time to think about providing breathing space for our constituents. I commend this Budget to the House.
The Government recognise that airport drop-off charges can be a source of frustration for passengers, particularly where payment arrangements are unclear, signage is difficult to follow or motorists face additional charges for late payment. Recognising those concerns about the impact of airport drop-off charges on passengers, the Government have committed to undertake a review to ensure that travel remains accessible and passengers are treated fairly.
Let me be clear: we expect airports to treat passengers fairly and to ensure that travel remains accessible. The review is going to look at the impacts of airport drop-off charges on users of airport services. The detailed scope will be developed as part of the <span id="420" class="column-number" data-column-number="420"></span>review process, but it could include affordability, accessibility, travel behaviour and the experiences of different groups of passengers. More broadly, the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill, which has just been through Committee, seeks to modernise the United Kingdom’s aviation legislative framework. One of its key objectives is to strengthen consumer rights and protections, particularly for those who travel with disabilities.
The shadow Secretary of State does not seem to want to face up to the fact that this Government are taking decisive action to help our airports and airlines, whether it is signing off airport expansion across the country or modernising our airspace to provide community benefit alongside efficiencies. I have already been clear that the review will look at questions of affordability and access to airports. That is the right way to ensure that we have a system that is proportionate for consumers and airport users while addressing the fact that, as he mentioned, planning considerations are often built in with mode share targets that are linked to airport drop-off charges. This Government will take a proportionate approach to that review and to the aviation sector as a whole.
Through our Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill, we are cutting down on the cost and the stress of flying for families across the country. Our changes mean that airlines on all UK flights will be required to seat children under the age of 14 with a parent free of charge, and that simple name errors on bookings can be fixed for free, ending unfair and irritating charges.
This Government welcome the £1.1 billion investment into Stansted by Manchester Airports Group, which will transform the airport and provide wider benefits to the local area, including Harlow, for which my hon. Friend is a determined champion. The investment is a great example of the conditions for growth in the aviation sector that this Government have created. It is going to support jobs, local businesses and skills, with the planned expansion of Stansted airport college in collaboration with Harlow college, supported by £5 million of funding by the Department for Education. This shows that the Government have a strategy that is delivering for both the aviation sector more broadly and for communities like Harlow.
Regional airports are vital gateways for passengers and major sources of local employment. The UK aviation sector operates in a commercial market, with airports attracting passengers and airlines responding to demand through route development. The UK Government support airport growth across the country. Through the Aviation Council, which I co-chair, and its regional connectivity working group, we are examining the challenges and opportunities facing regional airports.