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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,997 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Euan Stainbank

   Business of the House

   This month, 141 student loan staff, 120 of whom are based in Scotland, were told that their jobs will transfer to Capgemini, the same company that, incidentally, helped design the Student Loans Company target operating model. The transfer will come into effect from 1 March—one month before the Government’s public interest test will start compelling Departments and non-departmental bodies like the Student Loans Company to evidence the long-term cost of outsourcing decisions. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Cabinet Office to provide a statement on how it can prevent outsourcing decisions from being accelerated before the public interest test comes into effect?

   Hansard source
2. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Zubir Ahmed

   Budget Resolutions

   The hon. Gentleman says this country has a defence problem. Could he elaborate on the context of that defence problem, and perhaps reflect on the fact that it may have something to do with the under-investment that has left the Army with unprecedented levels of poor morale and left British soldiers unequipped to do their basic job of defending our country?

   Hansard source
3. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Zubir Ahmed

   Budget Resolutions

   When I was first elected to this place as the proud Member for Glasgow South West, many of my constituents lived in great financial uncertainty: the more than 6,000 kids in my constituency who live in relative poverty; the many constituents who have not had a decent wage rise for over 10 years; and the proud shipyards of Govan that are unable to fill their order books. I am proud that I was part of a Government, and a friend of a Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), who helped to eliminate some of that uncertainty by ensuring the fastest wage growth in a year—it was much greater than any wage growth that happened in the previous 10 years —and by lifting the two-child benefit cap. That took thousands of kids in my constituency out of poverty, and probably benefited the local economy to the tune of £4 million. We also secured the Type 26 frigate contract, which will give certainty to Govan shipyard workers for generations to come. It is not only in the large policy areas that this Labour movement does its work. It is at its best when, at the ground level, it feels the pain of ordinary people who are trying to get by and are not able to live the life that they were promised by their forefathers. In that regard, I am very proud of the Budget, and the direction that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken, particularly in relation to energy bills. Through this Budget, we are committed to immediately ensuring that 90% of my constituents will feel the benefit of £100 off their energy bills; and 100% of my constituents will be absolved from the need to pay standing charges on their energy bills. All my constituents will also have VAT eliminated from their electricity bills. No country or Government can insulate their citizens from the pressures of global markets and global conflict, but we can do as much as we can. I believe that we are doing as much as we can on energy bills, and creating the space for people to live more comfortably.

   Hansard source
4. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Zubir Ahmed

   Budget Resolutions

   The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a quasi-judicial process, and it would be remiss of me to make undertakings on an issue for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is responsible. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that those calculations have been baked in for many years. This is not some new reference to the assumptions in this year’s OBR report, and he knows that very well; I think he is being a little mischievous in his questioning. Let me return to my principal point about giving breathing space. It is not only families and individuals who need breathing space; it is businesses, including small businesses on the high street. I am really proud that before and in this Budget, we have been lifting many more businesses on the high street out of the need to pay business rates. As hon. Members may be aware, in Scotland, that will not be automatic; it is at the discretion of the Scottish Government. I plead with <span id="515" class="column-number" data-column-number="515"></span>them to ensure that the Barnett consequentials of that decision translate into savings on business rates for ordinary high-street businesses, including pubs. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an undertaking during the summer to reduce business rates for music clubs and pubs. As far as I know, that has not yet translated into a similar policy statement in Scotland. I know that pubs in my constituency, which are around many of the underground stations in Glasgow—students and others like to do a Clockwork Orange pub crawl—crave and would benefit from those savings. I urge the Scottish Government to pass them on with immediate effect. Those interventions all make life a little more bearable and easier. I know that some Members think that there is a binary choice to be made between social and personal economic security on the one hand, and our national security on the other, but there is not; one is very much reliant on the other. That is why we are committed to ensuring that our defence spending hits the 2030 and 2035 targets that our NATO allies expect it to. I am proud that my constituency is contributing to the defence of our nation, whether it is through the shipyards and building the Type 26 frigates that will patrol our seas, or through more novel technologies, and drones being designed in my constituency. Labour Members are proud of investing in defence. Investing in defence is not taboo, contrary to the view that the Scottish Green party and the Scottish National party have sometimes espoused; we in Scotland should be proud that we are at the forefront of defending our nation, and we will always invest in that. I am grateful to the SNP for finally relenting and matching our funding for two defence technical excellence colleges in Scotland, enabling us to defend our nation. In closing, I will just say that when I speak to this Prime Minister and this Chancellor, I find that they understand Scotland, and they feel the needs of Glasgow South West. The Budget that they have delivered will give us breathing space for today, but also—more importantly—hope for tomorrow.

   Hansard source
5. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Rupa Huq

   Ofcom

   It is a genuine pleasure to follow three excellent speeches, with which mine will overlap to some extent. Ofcom’s role is vast. It has grown exponentially since it was set up in 2003, and it now has in its clutches online harms and the whole minefield of regulating social media, but my focus today will be on broadcasting. Parliament decided that—uniquely—broadcast news should be impartial, and it is more important than ever that the airwaves provide a vital counterbalance to the partisan, clickbait world out there online.<span id="250WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="250WH"></span> Arguably, nowhere can Ofcom’s ineffectiveness be seen more than in that most glaringly obviously anomalous broadcaster of them all, GB News—the telly wing of the Reform party. Some of these criticisms apply similarly to its close bedfellow, Talk TV and radio. The Communications Act 2003 laid down the law, quite literally, on impartiality in “news in whatever form”—those are the actual words used. Sections 319 and 320 set out the Ofcom broadcasting code. However, GB News and Talk TV and radio flout these rules daily, and they make no pretence at all of objectivity. This question has already been raised by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade): what other channel would platform a serving MP and party leader—the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who has been emailed—with a regular show? That would not happen anywhere else. Other hosts include ex-MEPs from what used to be called the Brexit party and a Reform MP, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who has also been emailed. It is all part of a one-sidedly right-wing roster; Jacob Rees-Mogg is as leftie as it gets. On the rare occasions when airtime is afforded to someone from the other side, they are set up as a punchbag to be pilloried. Let us remember how Gary Lineker was pulled up for his tweets. BBC directors general have always insisted that their presenters leave their politics at the door, but there is no such rule for GB News. In fact, to have right-wing politics appears to be a prerequisite to be a presenter. Look at the subject matter: rape gangs, small boats and Muslims—the Reform party’s greatest hits. Section 2 of the Ofcom broadcasting code spells out the duty to protect the public from “harmful and/or offensive material”, section 3.2 explicitly forbids “hate speech”, and section 3.3 stipulates: “Material which contains abusive or derogatory treatment of individuals, groups, religions or communities, must not be included in” broadcast television and radio services, yet all those occur daily on these Ofcom-regulated services, in contravention of the rules. Manifold examples exist. Some have already been mentioned. In January, GB News host Josh Howie said that “the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ persons…includes paedos”. What! Ofcom received 70,000 complaints and ruled that GB News had breached its broadcasting code, but after an on-air apology there was no further action. In June, right-wing influencer Based and Bougie claimed on the channel that gay men are “more prone” to “sexual deviancy” and “child sexual assault”. Ofcom received 3,000 complaints and opened a formal standards investigation to which there is no conclusion yet. In July, Caroline Farrow, a well-known anti-gay rights and anti-abortion activist, stated that pride “is not about gay rights” but has become about celebrating “bestiality” and “paedophiles”. Ofcom received 12,000 complaints, and we are still waiting. Those are not examples of rogue guests; they are people invited for their extreme views in the age of clickbait. The story is the same with presenters. On Talk radio last year, Mike Graham stated of dinghies that we should “destroy them, set fire to them, flamethrow them, do whatever you want with them.”<span id="251WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="251WH"></span> There is no published Ofcom action. It has twice upheld complaints against that anchor, but there are no published financial penalties or statutory sanctions. This August, Talk radio presenter Kevin O’Sullivan spoke of the “infestation of thousands and thousands of illegal migrants in our country”. Ofcom decided after assessing it that there was no breach. We know that similar remarks have been made by Reform politicians after ITV’s secret filming led to resignations. In normal life, public figures who make or are associated with inflammatory or hateful remarks face professional, social and organisational consequences; with Ofcom, don’t hold your breath. In fact, as its remit has expanded, Ofcom’s published investigations have shrunk; there are fewer and fewer, and long delays. In 2019 there were 142 editorial cases, but by 2025 there were just 36, and decisions in recent years have been glacially slow. How can Ofcom justify this steep decline and abject lack of urgency, accountability and transparency? Why do these channels feel so able to act with impunity? There is a clear pattern, and unless Ofcom imposes meaningful sanctions to prevent recurrence, it is just going to happen again and again. Clearly, Ofcom is not doing its job. It is not feared and breaches just seem blatant. Ofcom was once an arm’s length regulator, but it has turned into a curious mixture of free-speech warrior, drum-banger for those lot and passive complaints handler. It often says, “People didn’t complain in the official form, so we are not doing anything about it.” It has defended at all costs channels that style themselves as disruptors but are actually echo chambers lazily putting out the same old content. In April 2022, Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister, was interviewed by a husband-and-wife couple of his Back-Bench MPs. It all looked very cosy, but Ofcom took no action. Even when Ofcom found that an interview with the Chancellor on the same show—they had a regular show at the time—breached its due impartiality rules, as the programme had failed to present an appropriately wide range of alternative perspectives, no fine was issued. What is the point when broadcasters know that there will be no consequences? What is Ofcom’s answer to all this? We had the new chair, Sir Ian Cheshire, before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee the other day, and he said that Ofcom’s critics should “set up a left-wing version of GB News.” What? That fails to understand the problem. I must say that Stewart Purvis and Chris Banatvala, the original founders of Ofcom, did not like the way they were named in that response. Sir Ian said, “Stewart and Chris should make their own left-wing show,” but they have never been political. They just want the truth—they want proper journalism—and they had genuine criticisms. Parliament did not legislate for due impartiality to be achieved by balancing one unbalanced broadcaster with another—one partisan with another—so that response smacks of ignorance and arrogance. I hate to say I told you so, but when Lord Michael Grade did his pre-appointment hearing for chair of Ofcom—I have been on the Committee for that long—I said that his outspoken opinions on the BBC and other culture war issues meant that he was politically partisan. He went through and served his term, and now we have <span id="252WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="252WH"></span>this other one, who is described by the <em>Financial Times</em> as a “City grandee”. He is on £120,000 a year for a three-day week—not bad, is it, to get work like that? He told the pre-appointment hearing that he would take these criticisms seriously, and that he would make it his priority, but like all these regulators, once he got his feet under the table, he appears to have gone native. He is reinforcing Dame Melanie Dawes, the chief executive officer—who is apparently on half a million pounds and is reportedly connected to <em>T</em><em>he Daily T</em><em>elegraph</em>—whose usual standard answer is, “I do not accept that.” That was the answer that we got the other week, sadly. Sir Ian said he would look at the blurred distinction between news and current affairs, which is how GB News gets around the requirements. He said that he would make it an immediate priority. He made all these solemn promises to the Committee, but none of it has happened. In fact, the remarks suggest that he does not understand the regulatory framework that he is responsible for overseeing. He said that he would look into politicians presenting shows. I had to say back to him that if a leftie GB News happened and it was as unbalanced as the real thing, I would be the first to complain. This is not about left and right; it is about right and wrong. Andrew Neil, whom the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole mentioned, resigned from GB News, describing it as the “biggest mistake” of his 50-year career, because of its descent into bizarre conspiracy theories and its love for the nuttier end of politics. He is no leftie, but he is a journalist, and journalism seems to have been lost in all this lazy opinion stuff that is pumped out. Ofcom—what is it good for? It is supposed to be a communications watchdog, but it feels overly reactive, ultimately pointless and toothless. Why does this matter? Like everyone in the Chamber, I have been deluged by correspondence from constituents who want a social media ban, so it is all the more important that Ofcom effectively regulates the broadcast world. This is not Fleet Street; these are public service broadcasters. Ofcom should create a safe space for the young online and offline, because the two coalesce and overlap to a great extent. Young people get their news from feeds. Our news media environment has changed—it is far beyond the “One”, the “Six O’Clock” and the “News at Ten”. When Ofcom was first conceived in 2003, social media was not even a glimmer in anybody’s eye. Nobody would have imagined it. The internet still made a noise—that sort of funny sound. In the years since we have seen the influence of traditional broadcasters disrupted by online news and the two things are intertwined. Ofcom must pull its socks up. There is no incompatibility between freedom of expression and impartiality, but the Ofcom-created rule seems to have been fabricated by some of the right-wing elements within it: under the spurious divide between news and current affairs, a politician cannot read out the news but they can front a current affairs show. In the Boris Johnson era, that divide seems to have been retrofitted on top of the Communications Act in order to green-light GB News, Talk radio and their ilk. They are not public service broadcasters by any stretch of the imagination. For Ofcom to effectively function, there must be rules and consequences when the rules are broken. Ofwat has abjectly failed because it allows the cowboys of Thames Water to leave a burst water pipe through the summer in <span id="253WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="253WH"></span>my seat, put in place a hosepipe ban for the rest of us, and put a fee on our bills. Ofsted was named in a coroner’s report as a factor in the suicide of a headteacher. Ofcom too is a regulator with which we can find a multitude of faults—maybe its brief has become too big. Presumably my hon. Friend the Minister will know more, but it is probably unfashionable for Governments to create more players on the regulatory playing field. Even so, the world has changed and regulation must keep up. In the meantime, it would appear that the woefully inadequate Ofcom is a regulator that is simply not regulating.

   Hansard source
6. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Rupa Huq

   Ofcom

   I am grateful to and have a lot of time for the Minister—she has helped me sort many constituency issues. The issue of broadband is not just a rural thing. In my seat, Ealing Central and Acton, which is in London in zones 2 and 3, we have appalling broadband. We have been told that fast fibre will be rolled out, and it would be great if the Minister looked into that. Also, is the distinction between news and current affairs being looked at? It is something that seems to have been invented in the last 10 years for GB News.

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Rosena Allin-Khan

   Topical Questions

   <Question HRSContentId="{6ECF4F7B-9253-4859-ADCF-FFD6E33F5C5F}">T9. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{DB1EFB58-CF1A-4379-AB3E-37150AF649BE}"></QuestionText>A second runway at Gatwick airport will be a lightning rod for our economy. It will bring £1 billion in economic benefits and 14,000 new jobs, many of which will benefit the south Londoners I serve. Now that it has the green light and work is about to begin, what support are the Government giving this important infrastructure project?</Question>

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

   Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{BD45896B-0C7A-4423-9527-F3251B9D8233}"> </QNum></strong> I am the MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket in Suffolk, where we have a lot of problems with our roads and no motorways. I think the general public are anxious about the price and what it is going to cost for them to take their vehicles through this new tunnel. On what you said earlier about there being very little choice—people will use this tunnel if it is there—there is a fear that the public will be held to ransom. That is the problem. How are we going to deal with that? What do you anticipate the price of taking my car through this tunnel will be when it opens? <em><strong>Steve Gooding:</strong></em> I hesitate to say what the price is going to be. I suspect it is going to be whatever it costs today to go across the Dartford crossing and some more. Given the anxiety that people quite rightly feel at the moment when looking at the cost of the lower Thames crossing, there must be a question whether it has to cost quite that much. Whatever further pressure can be applied, everything is going to flow from that initial estimate. How the RAB is valued over time will flow from the question of what it costs to build this thing. That is why it is so important at the outset that as much pressure is put on National Highways to keep the costs under control and preferably drive them down. That is what will affect things. Subsequently, some quite big bills will come in for the refurbishment and renewal of the existing bridge and tunnels. Keeping pressure on those is important and that is why, as we keep saying, the pressure from the regulator to press for the efficient cost is so important to the structure working.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

   Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{70E30791-DE44-42B0-8F13-7A5CE1C40AF7}"> </QNum></strong> And you would like to see that written into the Bill? <em><strong>Steve Gooding:</strong></em> It is very hard to write it into the Bill. However, there is absolutely the need to keep the pressure up. That is why we have the independent regulator—some entity that is effectively saying, “You can tell me whatever you like about the cost of this, but in my opinion, the efficient cost of it is x.” In this model, particularly if we are talking about the lower Thames crossing, that first estimate will be derived from the National Highways model, obviously with ORR involvement, but it will not be quite the same as subsequent reviews where it will be entirely down to the ORR. <span id="12" class="column-number" data-column-number="12"></span> <em><strong>Edmund King:</strong></em> Currently the cost at Dartford is £3.50 for cars and £8.40 for heavy goods vehicles. It brings in about £130 million a year. If you do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, on a 120-year concession, that would bring in £15.6 billion. It is estimated that the scheme might cost £11 billion now. People accept that the £3.50 and it is affordable. I think it should be based on that figure with limits built in, whether linked to inflation or something else. It is vital that it is to be affordable for people, not just fair and transparent.

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Marie Tidball

    Passenger Rail Services

    The Penistone line, which runs through my constituency, serves over half a million people, eight constituencies, six hospitals, four universities and a network of colleges, schools and GP surgeries, but it has only one train an hour. Our Government are funding phase 1 of upgrading the line, but further funding is needed to deliver phase 2 to enable two trains an hour along our line—the spine that connects south and west Yorkshire. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that delivering both phases of the upgrade together will most effectively secure two trains an hour, and will she meet me ahead of the next spending review to discuss delivering the full upgrade and two trains an hour to ensure growth in every postcode along the line?

    Hansard source
11. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Marie Tidball

    Business of the House

    I have been going to Penistone Paramount in my constituency since I was a child. This 110-year-old art deco cinema is the jewel in the crown of our town, yet the Reform-led Barnsley council has decided to shelve the £1.8 million in principal towns funding that was going to be used to build a second screen and a new café and bar area, as well as to make the cinema accessible throughout. Reform’s decision is indefensible: this was ringfenced funding, with planning permission already granted and a procurement notice published. My constituents agree, with over 5,500 of them signing my petition calling for the council to reverse its reprehensible decision. Will the Leader of the House advise me on how I can best work with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that generations of local people can continue to enjoy our treasured community asset for another century to come?

    Hansard source
12. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Jeevun Sandher

    Budget Resolutions

    I am going to give a slightly different speech today, because I think that what the Government are doing with this Budget shows both a material and moral difference between our two sides. For us on the Labour Benches, it has always been clear—indeed, it is in our founding values—that every single person in this country should be able to live a decent life and that out of that we build prosperity for all. Those on the Opposition Benches believe that only some should be able to afford a decent life—a vision that has made us not just materially poorer but morally poorer. I have written Budgets in the Treasury and in Somaliland. I have seen really difficult Budgets and, make no mistake, this was a difficult Budget at an incredibly difficult time. We face existential challenges, including an affordability crisis, a burning planet, war in Europe—and all of it coming at the same time. Underneath it all is a question that underlines our politics: will we stand strong together to meet this moment, or will we fall apart divided, weaker and poorer? We made our choice in this Budget: we will see every single person, family and place do even better than before. Families, workers, business and Government will work in partnership to create prosperity. In this Budget we reduced energy bills so that families can afford the basics, but also because when families have more in their pockets, they spend more down the shops, and that helps their local businesses. We are helping businesses with the things that they require —roads, skills and investment in energy—and we are cutting rates to give them a bit of breathing space as we go into what we all know will be an incredibly difficult winter. For the Government, it is being able to raise the funds that we need in the fairest way possible and in a way that does not damage prosperity. That is why we have a windfall tax on the banks, who have made huge profits in the past few years, and on oil and gas giants. They are making tens of billions of pounds from Iran and Ukraine, so we are making a choice to use some of that money to help cut bills for people in our constituencies across our country.<span id="526" class="column-number" data-column-number="526"></span> We know that this works not just because we have the fastest growing economy in the G7 but because it is what our past tells us. We know that it was Bevin’s alliance of labour and capital that helped win the second world war. We know that Attlee built common prosperity based on common sacrifice, all of it from common endeavour, and Blair and Brown renewed a nation. All that built upon the fundamental ideal that we hold, included on our founding membership card and, indeed, today, that we achieve more by standing together through our common endeavour. There are those who believe differently from us. They believe that we should allow oil and gas giants and banks to make huge, record windfall profits, leave that there and not try and help every single person in this country. We have also seen that Reform, which supports racist thugs and masked people on our streets, will use those kinds of tactics to distract from the fact that it wants to give its crypto-billionaire mates tax cuts. That is who we stand against and that is the ideal that we stand against on the Labour Benches. We choose a different path. The British people are better than that—better than the anger and the division, but also better than the penury that leads to. We know, on these Benches, what we have always known and seen throughout our history: that we build prosperity for all; that we stand together when each of us can stand as tall; that a nation is only as strong as each of the people who has a stake in it; and that they have a stake in that nation if life is affordable for all. That is the choice that we have made in our history—in our greatest moments—that was the choice that helped us win a war and rebuild our nation afterwards and it was the same choice that saw us build prosperity in our past and, indeed, prosperity in our present. That is what this Budget represents, that is the choice that we make and every single one of us is so proud of it.

    Hansard source
13. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Douglas McAllister

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating my constituent Connor McElwaine, who has completed an extraordinary 18,000 km cycle ride from Canberra Avenue in Dalmuir to Canberra, Australia? Over the course of nearly a year, Connor has biked through 23 countries and raised more than £5,900 for Venture Scotland, a charity that supports young people to build confidence and realise their potential. Connor is now embarking on the long journey home via New Zealand, the United States and Europe. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Connor every success for the remainder of his remarkable adventure and a warm Clydebank welcome when he returns home next spring?

    Hansard source
14. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Deirdre Costigan

    Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

    I hesitate to ask the hon. Gentleman a slightly difficult question so early in the proceedings; he is a very nice man and does a very good job. He has previously said that national housing targets should not be dictated by Whitehall, that the Government’s housing targets are over the top and that a targeted approach to housing is unreasonable. Does he not agree that what the Government are doing is in line with his previous comments, and that it will achieve more social and affordable housing by overhauling the funding mechanisms for housing and by breaking down the planning barriers? That is a better approach, as he would previously have agreed himself.

    Hansard source
15. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Deirdre Costigan

    Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

    Hear, hear.

    Hansard source
16. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Deirdre Costigan

    Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

    The hon. Member talks about the importance of building on brownfield land first. That is certainly the policy of this Government. Would the hon. Member agree that although the previous Government professed to want to focus on developing brownfield land, they did absolutely nothing to make that viable, whereas this Government are putting money into the <span id="107" class="column-number" data-column-number="107"></span>brownfield land release fund, which will help to clean up that land? Those are steps that the previous Conservative Government absolutely failed to take.

    Hansard source
17. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Deirdre Costigan

    Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

    Ah!

    Hansard source
18. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Deirdre Costigan

    Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

    The hon. Gentleman’s new clause 3 is very similar to the official Opposition’s new clause 53, which I believe they describe as a probing amendment. I have a probing question for him. How does he see things moving beyond the changes that the Government have already brought in, on a cross-party basis? Awaab’s law will allow tenants to report problems with repairs and have them dealt with by their housing provider within a very short timescale, and it will enable them to sue for breaches or go to the ombudsman. On top of that, there is the new right in the Bill to manage provision, which will allow tenants to get rid of the repair provider completely and bring in their own. How does he see his new clause moving things beyond that? What gap would it fill?

    Hansard source
19. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Deirdre Costigan

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    A quick google would tell the hon. Member that under the right-to-buy policy, which his party introduced, about 1 million homes—80% of the homes, in fact—have not been replaced. Despite that, he has tabled new clauses about like-for-like replacement. The hon. Member may not be too embarrassed to table the new clauses, but will he at least admit that his party are showing a breathtaking cheek in doing so?

    Hansard source
20. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Deirdre Costigan

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has been very generous today. Is he aware that 90% of those in social housing in this country are British citizens and that asylum seekers are barred from social housing, as are people on temporary work or study visas? Is he also aware that by restricting social housing to British citizens, the new clause would stop people like myself, from the Republic of Ireland, and many of my constituents in the Hanwell area of Ealing Southall accessing social housing? In that context, has he spoken to the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary and shadow Foreign Secretary to tell them that he intends to dismantle the common travel area with the Republic of Ireland?

    Hansard source
21. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Deirdre Costigan

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Hansard source
22. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Deirdre Costigan

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Hansard source
23. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Deirdre Costigan

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The hon. Member is very good at giving way, so I thank him for that. I wonder whether he has ever tried to be an immigrant in the Republic of Ireland. It is a very nice place, so I recommend it. Were he to go to the Republic of Ireland, he would find that he is eligible for social housing, should he need it. That is because of the common travel agreement. Equally, people from the Republic of Ireland are eligible for social housing here. Will he answer the question that his colleagues seem unable to answer? The new clause would unilaterally close that agreement to Irish citizens living in this country, so when is his party going to tell the Irish Government that it intends to pull out of the common travel agreement?

    Hansard source
24. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Deirdre Costigan

    Roadwork Disruption: Northern Ireland

    The Street Works (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 allows the Northern Ireland Executive to bring in a lane rental scheme to charge contractors a daily rate for disruptive roadworks, but they have chosen not to take this position. Will the Secretary of State extol the virtues of the lane rental scheme to the Northern Ireland Executive? While she is at it, will she take the final steps to give the lane rental powers under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 to the Mayor of London, to cut traffic in Ealing Southall too?

    Hansard source
25. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dawn Butler

    Business of the House

    At Middle Yard apartments in my constituency, one constituent is stuck on the fourth floor because the lifts are not working, and 500 constituents are without hot water or heating, and they have been told that this situation could last for months. Harley Property Investments Ltd and Union Developments Ltd are responsible for this. Will the Leader of the House ask Energy Ministers to help urgently reconnect the gas, given that we are entering the colder months? Will he also ask the Minister for Housing for a statement, so we can look at financial mismanagement by freeholders and management companies, because they have form, with an apartment block in Hackney also without water?

    Hansard source
26. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·David Williams

    Local Government Reorganisation

    When I am out listening to residents in Kidsgrove and its surrounds, they tell me that they want good public services delivered efficiently and to a high quality, but a two-tier system causes constant confusion. If a resident wants to raise issues about their local park, they can go and speak to the borough council. If they have a question about their local library, they can go and speak to the county council. If they need a pothole fixed, they can go and speak to their county council, not their borough council. The list goes on. At the same time, we are paying for managers and directors at two councils, rather than one, which is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Does the Minister agree that what matters most to the residents of Kidsgrove and its surrounds is having good, high-quality services that work for them? That also offers greater accountability; at the moment, my residents are passed from pillar to post. Equally, residents in Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove want clarity from the Government, so can I please press them to offer that clarity?

    Hansard source
27. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dave Robertson

    Ofcom

    The hon. Member is making a really important speech about many of the ways in which Ofcom’s regulation touches everybody’s lives, especially through Royal Mail—I am sure she will be aware that I am doing some work in this space. A number of other Labour MPs and I spoke to Ofcom at a meeting just last week where we asked what other powers it needs. Fines are clearly not working: the fines that Ofcom is levying on Royal Mail are not leading to any improvement. I was really disappointed at the response, which was that Ofcom has not really thought about what other powers it needs. Does the hon. Member agree with me, and with the Business Committee, that Ofcom really needs to think about what other powers it needs to regulate the market more effectively? It is failing to, currently.

    Hansard source
28. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dave Robertson

    Passenger Rail Services

    <Question HRSContentId="{07DF38D5-3611-4BF6-AD5E-87EEE2361A5D}">6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{F2E0960A-A64F-433C-99AC-23A8688966FE}">What steps she is taking to improve passenger rail services. </QuestionText></Question>

    Hansard source
29. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dave Robertson

    Passenger Rail Services

    My constituents rely on the Cross-City line to get them in and out of Birmingham, but the last train back from Birmingham in the evening does not run as far as Lichfield, meaning that we cannot make the most of the nightlife there. As Christmas approaches, does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to change that and boost the evening service from New Street to Lichfield City, so that my constituents can make the best of Birmingham’s Frankfurt Christmas market?

    Hansard source
30. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dave Robertson

    Business of the House

    Advantage Retirement Homes runs two care homes in my constituency: St Thomas’ Priory near Armitage and Chasewater Mews in Burntwood. <span id="460" class="column-number" data-column-number="460"></span>Between those two properties, the company is currently owed almost £600,000—a staggering sum—by the local integrated care board. The board is failing to pay out funded nursing care payments, a weekly sum that the NHS should pay to cover the cost of registered nurses in care homes. This has been going on since 2003. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is utterly unacceptable, and will he ask the relevant Minister to meet me to discuss the penalties available for ICBs that fail to make payments that are owed to hard-working companies in our constituencies?

    Hansard source
31. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

    Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

    I am slightly worried to say that I agree with an Opposition Member, but I share the hon. Member’s frustration at the fact that there are many homes, often on brownfield sites, that have permission but have not been built. I see that in my constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. However, from my experience of speaking to landowners and developers, the reason why those homes have not been built is that the Liz Truss mini-Budget crashed the financial models of those schemes, and that the Building Safety Regulator and the roll-out of new regulations, including second staircase rules, under the last Government stymied and slowed down development and changed the viability. Fundamentally, in the hon. Member’s patch and mine, Conservative councils are taking far too long to approve development on brownfield sites, if they ever do. Again, that is pushing against viability. This Government have taken measures on all the things I mentioned. Does the hon. Member not agree that it is slightly rich for the Opposition to claim that this Government are somehow responsible for those homes not being built out more quickly?<span id="108" class="column-number" data-column-number="108"></span>

    Hansard source
32. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

    Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

    Perhaps I am going to get in trouble, but once again I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Member says. It is frustrating that the future benefits of infrastructure have not often been realised because of the funding models in place. Local leaders and local mayors have said, “The case is clear for this infrastructure: it will unleash housing and growth,” but to get that capital they have to go to the Treasury to make a business case, with begging bowl in hand. It takes too long. This Government are changing that. The Budget yesterday gave significant new powers to mayors: in London and around my patch, they include the tax increment financing scheme for Euston, the Bakerloo extension and a number of other projects. The Government are looking to give mayors a greater share of business rates and taxation to invest up front in infrastructure and the benefits of growth to come. Are the Government not doing exactly what the right hon. Member is saying should happen?

    Hansard source
33. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I will probably put this in less eloquent terms, so it might be easier to understand. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the situation we have got to is ludicrous? A huge amount of council stock has been sold privately, and much of it is now rented back privately as subsidised housing through the housing benefit system. Is it not ludicrous that, rather than seeing people benefit from subsidised rents through social housing, we are publicly subsidising higher rents through the PRS system? A huge amount of that stock is now run by buy-to-let landlords. Even more ludicrously, we now have councils buying back that stock with public subsidy to use as affordable housing. Is this not the opposite of a virtuous cycle? It is a cycle of decline, with more and more public subsidy being wasted, rather than the stock being kept for use as affordable housing. Is that not worth seeking to end?

    Hansard source
34. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I echo what the Minister is saying. I have dealt with real issues affecting victims of domestic violence, who often have to move from places where they have spent many years, and we have been talking to the Department about the application of local connection tests, as well as rent arrears requirements, and their disproportionate impact. Many other groups can be affected, such as veterans, rough sleepers, and victims involved in gang-related crime who have to leave their area. Using purely a local connection test really does have worrying impacts on homelessness and housing. Taken to the extreme, in Hillingdon we have a local connection test that requires 10 consecutive years’ residency. Someone waiting for their situation to be assessed may end up sofa surfing with a neighbour just over the border in Harrow and suddenly forfeit their residency. They will have been there nine years, but lose out on the 10 consecutive years of waiting and therefore be deprioritised. Is it not right that we should be proportionate in how we apply these tests?

    Hansard source
35. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I was not intending to speak to the new clause, but having heard Opposition Members, and considering my experience at the weekend in my constituency, I have a responsibility to do so. At the weekend, I attended the international mass at Our Lady of Lourdes and St Michael Catholic church in Uxbridge. It was standing room only, with 300 people—it had not been that busy for decades. It was full of people wearing football shirts from around the world and international dress. It was a congregation of Uxbridge residents from all over the world. The priest stood up in front of the packed church and proudly said that more than 50 nations were represented. He rightly considered them all to be part of our community, and he spoke about how the Irish community in Uxbridge had built the church, and now the congregation was building Uxbridge. I met social care workers, people from India who I already knew and who work at the hospital as nurses, people who are starting businesses—all those people are taxpayers, and many of them have indefinite leave to remain. Their children may have been born in Britain and be British citizens even if the parents are not. The new clause seeks to drive a wedge between our community and create second-class citizens and second-class residents in this country. It is not based on need. I take umbrage about the point that this is funded by the British taxpayer. The new clause is not talking about what is and is not funded by the taxpayer. Many people who have come here and made their home here are taxpayers. Many people who live in council homes and may not have been born in Britain are taxpayers.

    Hansard source
36. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    It is good. The new clause does not seek to distinguish between contribution and who is or is not a taxpayer; it is loaded with that language, but fundamentally it is an attack on people who were not born in Britain, which is deeply unfair.

    Hansard source
37. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich.

    Hansard source
38. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I do not think the hon. Gentleman has read the new clause and the comments about taxpayers. As far as I understand it, this is not a new clause that says, “You only qualify if you’ve paid tax.” It is not about that; it is about someone’s place of birth.

    Hansard source
39. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Again, as far as I am aware, the new clause does not suggest prioritising only people who have made a certain contribution towards housing, or in tax. That is the language that has been used by the Opposition, but let us be frank that it is not the nature of what they are talking about.

    Hansard source
40. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Perhaps it is the Opposition’s naivety— I am sure it is not deliberate—but in reality, focusing on whether someone is a British citizen will obviously preclude only those not born here. There will be no people born in Britain who will suddenly be precluded. The new clause is not about whether someone has contributed a certain amount of money or whether they are a taxpayer. The Opposition are seeking to drive a wedge through our communities and somehow suggest that the reason we have not got council homes is that they have all been snapped up by recent arrivals on boats, not because millions were sold off under the Conservative party of old. I hoped for better from the Opposition. I hoped we could start a discussion about how we deliver more council homes—I thought that was what we were attempting to do. Instead, the nasty party is back, seeking to drive wedges through our community. Everyone I met in that church who contributes to Uxbridge deserves a fair shout at local housing if they need it.

    Hansard source