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 6,905 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

   Draft Housing (Tenancy Deposit Schemes) Order 2026

   It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, whom I have seen more often in the past few days than my own wife. I appreciate the remarks that he has made, and I welcome the opportunity on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to address this measure, but I must be frank: we do not like the draft order very much, because it appears to be little more than an act of state-sponsored thievery. In this Halloween season, lurking in the shadows is not a vampire or a monster, but the larcenous light fingers of Marsham Street. The draft order seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to hive off a portion of the interest accrued on someone else’s money and pocket it on behalf of the Government. As a Conservative—as a believer in private property—I am astounded to find the Government pushing through yet another stealth tax just days after the Budget. I know I should not be—after all, it is not the first, and I doubt it will be the last stealth tax we see in this Parliament—but the brazen lack of respect for other people’s money beggars belief. That is why the Opposition will seek to divide the Committee and will vote against the draft order today.<span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span> As the Deposit Protection Service has stated, at present interest goes towards the effective running of the scheme, back to tenants or landlords, or in some cases to charity. In siphoning off funds to pay for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s litany of costly policies, the Government’s action raises a number of questions—some of which, to be fair, the Minister may have just answered. For example, will the draft order leave the deposit protection schemes financially exposed? What assessment has been made of the funding needed to keep these schemes running so that tenants and landlords are protected with certainty, along with the jobs that these companies provide? The draft instrument has no clear purpose, outlines no formula and sets no clear cap. We are being asked to approve a power without knowing how much money the Government are seeking to take, nor what limit the Secretary of State will impose on herself in a scheme that lets the Government profit from other people’s money. I also want to raise concerns about the relationship between this policy and the planned abolition of insured tenancy deposit schemes. Taken together, hiving off the interest on deposits for the Government’s benefit and moving all deposits into the custodial schemes will create a perverse incentive. If the Government take income from the same custodial deposits that they are forcing the whole market towards, how can they demonstrate that profiting from interest on other people’s money has played no part in their decision-making process? That is a very serious concern and it deserves far greater parliamentary scrutiny than hon. Members have been afforded today. We believe that there is a convincing argument that these changes should be made not through a statutory instrument, but in primary legislation. We can make no amendments today, we have little time to probe the details and we are being asked to approve a new tax outside the place best suited constitutionally to scrutinise financial legislation. The draft order lets the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, take a share of the interest earned on tenants’ deposits. It does not say how much, it does not say what the money is for, and it sets no cap and no formula. The Government are asking the House for a blank cheque to draw down on other people’s money. That money does not belong to the Government. By changing the system a week after a tax hike on landlords, the Government are creating another stealth tax. That comes on top of a new database fee and a rewritten tenancy system, in a sector in which landlords are already considering the viability of their portfolios. Every cost eventually lands on renters. The Opposition’s tests are simple. Is this a stealth tax? Yes, it is. Is it the Government’s money? No, it is not. Does it deliver for renters? Clearly not. For all those reasons, we will divide the Committee and vote against this instrument.

   Hansard source
2. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

   Draft Housing (Tenancy Deposit Schemes) Order 2026

   If that is so, why not simply put that into this statutory instrument? I share the suspicion of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington—he and I seem to be agreeing a lot these days, which I am sure makes us both feel uncomfortable. The Minister has used this phrase again, “the Government expect”, which we have heard so many times over the years. An expectation is not the same thing as something actually happening. It needs to be put into the law. Why not simply put it into the SI?

   Hansard source
3. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

   Budget Resolutions

   I am sure that hon. Members will be delighted to know that I am putting the time limit back up to four minutes.

   Hansard source
4. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

   Budget Resolutions

   That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.

   Hansard source
5. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bradley Thomas

   Budget Resolutions

   This Budget was a missed opportunity for the residents of Bromsgrove and the villages. There was next to nothing in it for my residents, or for the hard-working business owners and businesses across the constituency. The frank reality is that businesses across the country and in my area are really struggling right now. In recent months, we have seen Labour Ministers’ true colours. Over the weekend, we heard the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stating that those who employ people are not workers themselves. I am not sure that the carpenters, plumbers, café owners <span id="633" class="column-number" data-column-number="633"></span>and florists in my constituency would agree with that. They are frankly insulted by it. We also heard the Work and Pensions Secretary reveal earlier this year that all Labour MPs wanted to do was ask the question, “Who can we tax more to spend more money on welfare?”. Inflation is up, Government spending is up, unemployment is up, welfare is up and debt is up. How people and businesses feel is what matters, and that will be the ultimate litmus test for the Government. Following the Budget, UKHospitality told us the reality. Despite the Government’s announcement on business rates, only one in 10 pubs will be affected. The Government need to go further. They need to endorse the Conservatives’ full exemption for hundreds of thousands of retailers, pubs and hospitality businesses. Wherever I go in my constituency, I am repeatedly told that businesses operating in these sectors are not recruiting because red tape and the cost of employment have gone up dramatically. The voices of business are clear. Make UK has said that the Budget was a failed opportunity to reindustrialise, and the Federation of Small Business has said that the Budget contained “nothing to make hiring someone more affordable”. Unemployment has gone up by 276,000 in the last two years, and we are destined to see it go up even more. The Government need to get off the backs of businesses and get on their side. I would like to briefly touch on the Government’s proposals for devolution and local government reorganisation. The Government announced something last week for Worcestershire that will not improve the quality of people’s lives. It will increase the cost and bureaucracy of delivering local government services. It is not in Worcestershire’s interests. Worcestershire does not have a Mayor and it does not want a Mayor. It is not a geography that would best suit a mayoralty. We do not need more politicians in this country; we need fewer—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I say that as a politician. We need fewer politicians in this country, and we need the system to work better.

   Hansard source
6. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bradley Thomas

   Budget Resolutions

   If the hon. Lady had listened to what I was saying, she would have heard me say that Worcestershire does not want a Mayor. The Government’s proposals for devolution are nothing more than a cop-out to absolve Westminster of its failure to tackle the big issues facing this country, and that is the theme that runs through this Budget. Politicians do not create jobs. I read in <em>The Times</em> this morning that the Government believe that mayors and local leaders can be empowered to create jobs. That is absolute rubbish. It is businesses that create jobs. Every single penny and pound of taxation received by the Government is generated, ultimately, through the endeavours of private enterprise. <span id="634" class="column-number" data-column-number="634"></span>We have to get to the point, once again, where risk taking and entrepreneurialism are not frowned on. They should be embraced and encouraged. If the Government want to tax something, they have to create wealth and prosperity first. They need to get off the backs of businesses and get on their side.

   Hansard source
7. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bradley Thomas

   Budget Resolutions

   If the picture is so rosy, can the Minister explain to me why, a couple of weeks ago, when I visited six businesses in my constituency, all in the hospitality sector, every single one of them said that they are not recruiting and nor have they recruited since the Government increased national insurance contributions? Why is he painting a picture that is different to reality? Why does he think they are not recruiting?

   Hansard source
8. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

   Budget Resolutions

   “What incentive is there for hard-working families and young entrepreneurs to remain in Britain after this Budget?” That is the question that a constituent put to me at a community meeting I held in Wixams in Mid Bedfordshire last week. Let me start with what I think is the main test that really matters for any Budget: will it make my constituents richer in five years’ time than they are today? Having listened to the Chancellor and the reaction over the weekend, I am afraid that the answer is no. There is simply no confidence whatsoever that this Budget will deliver growth in their postcodes, and it certainly does not give hope in their hearts. Given that the Prime Minister is extremely comfortable looking to the past, whether it is to the 1970s or 2016, but not to the future, I did a little reflecting myself over the weekend. It is fitting that we debate this Budget 40 years on from the big bang in 1986, when regulations that were strangling our economy were swept away, making London into the powerhouse of global finance that it remains today, opening the City of London to the world and delivering prosperity here at home. The courage of that decision in 1986 benefited every corner of Britain, delivering more jobs, investment and tax revenues that paid for schools, hospitals and public services.<span id="647" class="column-number" data-column-number="647"></span> During my 15 years in the City before coming to this place, I saw at first hand how EU regulations after the credit crunch steadily ratcheted up costs and de-risked our entire economy. The courage and ambition of 1986 have slowly given way to the caution and complexity of 2026. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is right to say that Britain needs a new economic revolution even bigger than the big bang. Where are we today? The OBR says that the tax burden will reach a record 38.6% of GDP. The Budget raises tax on savings and rental income—again. It doubles the bank surcharge and leaves Labour’s damaging jobs tax untouched. After Labour’s first Budget, I told the House that it was “a job-cutting Budget”. Some 1.7 million people older than 16 are now unemployed—up by 276,000 under this Government—and vacancies are at their lowest level since 2014. Last year, about 136,000 more British nationals left the country than came home, with two thirds of them under the age of 35. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor may have changed, but this Budget makes it clear that Labour has not. It is still picking the pockets of working people to pay for welfare. That was plain to hear this weekend, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury redefined working people to exclude employees. It may be a new team at the Dispatch Box, but their contempt for British business and British business owners in this Budget is as strong as ever.

   Hansard source
9. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Aphra Brandreth

   Budget Resolutions

   The Budget was a missed opportunity for our rural economy, which yet again this Government have failed to back. My message to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor is simple: stop saying that every postcode matters, and start showing it. In Chester South and Eddisbury, around our farms sit the contractors, vets, farm shops, pubs and family businesses that keep our villages alive.

   Hansard source
10. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Aphra Brandreth

    Budget Resolutions

    The hon. Gentleman is a champion for farmers in his community, and he is right—the Chancellor had the chance to repeal the vindictive family farms tax and family business tax, but he chose not to.<span id="641" class="column-number" data-column-number="641"></span> Nearly nine in 10 rural businesses have paused investment, and when investment stops, the consequences ripple through the whole rural economy. Conservatives would scrap those damaging taxes. The Government also had the chance to give small businesses some much-needed breathing space. They did not. Our rural businesses, particularly in hospitality and tourism, are being squeezed by rising costs, higher taxes and more regulation. When businesses are struggling they stop investing, they stop expanding and, crucially, they stop taking on staff. These are the businesses that give so many young people their first step into work, and we should be making that easier, not harder. That is the difference between this Government and the Conservatives: we would halve the jobs tax for under-25s and create 100,000 new apprenticeships, because the best way to get young people into work is to back the businesses willing to employ them. This Budget did neither. Then there is the cost of fuel. The fuel duty freeze is welcome, but the Conservatives kept it frozen for 14 years because we understand how much rural communities rely on their cars. This is not just about fuel for transport. On Saturday, I was out chatting to residents in Audlem, and so many of the people I spoke to are living off-grid. The price of heating oil has nearly doubled this year, and families are wondering whether they can afford to fill their tanks before winter. Rural communities are being left out in the cold, quite literally, and the Budget offered them nothing. That is the real cost of this Budget in the countryside: investment on pause, young people not taken on, homes going cold, and family farms wondering whether they will survive. The contrast could not be clearer. The Conservatives would back our family farms, cut taxes on jobs, bring down energy bills through our cheap power plan, and get our rural economy growing again. The president of the National Farmers’ Union described this Budget as “tinkering while Rome is burning”, and he was right. Our farmers, rural businesses and families do not need more promises, more consultations or more plans for the future. Rural Britain needs action now, and this Budget has failed to deliver it.

    Hansard source
11. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Green·Hannah Spencer

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    By allowing those with more money to jump the queue and receive earned settlement status faster, these changes amount to an attack on lower-paid workers and, by extension, lower-paid British-born people too. Time and again the working classes, whatever their nationality or migration status, have been looked down on and left behind. Does the Home Secretary agree that her changes send a clear message to people who have come here or people who have been born here that they are worth less if they do not earn enough?

    Hansard source
12. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

    Topical Questions

    Suffolk county council is proposing significant cuts to its healthy child services. That is deeply worrying to new parents such as Chloe, who became a mother at 18 and, without the help of family, relied on the young parent pathway to develop the skills and knowledge to raise her baby boy. What assessment has the Department made of the positive impact of healthy child services, and will the Minister intervene to protect these vital services?

    Hansard source
13. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Wendy Morton

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    What a missed opportunity to strengthen the rules, strengthen the illegal immigration policy and strengthen our borders. How can the Home Secretary reasonably think this is fair to the British people?

    Hansard source
14. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Support for Renters

    The independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook”, published alongside the Budget, says on page 77 that the consequence of the 4% hike in property income tax will be fewer rental properties and higher rents as landlords pass on those costs. Does the Minister think the OBR is wrong? If not, does he accept that rents will go up as a result of those measures?

    Hansard source
15. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Roger Gale

    Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

    Ms Darlington has indicated to me that she needs to speak and then leave. The Front Benchers may wish to know that, exceptionally, I have given her leave to do so.

    Hansard source
16. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Topical Questions

    How does the abolition of a rural district council such as New Forest, and its absorption into a unitary authority dominated by an urban centre such as Southampton, increase devolution and local democracy?

    Hansard source
17. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    Like the Home Secretary, I come from an immigrant family that came here legally, but I fail to understand why she thinks not being able to get settled status for 20 or even 30 years will deter people from coming here illegally, provided that there is no prospect of them being removed from the country because of laws like the European convention on human rights?

    Hansard source
18. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir James Cleverly

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    A Home Secretary clearing up the mess of her immediate predecessor—who would have thought it? When I brought through changes to the visa regime, the chorus of disapproval from the then Opposition, who now sit on the Government Benches, was deafening. She has already conceded that her proposals are not as robust as the announcement she made this time last year, so what confidence can the House or the country have that she will not further water down the proposals she has announced today as they go through the legislative process?

    Hansard source
19. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    Restricting access to public funds to those with settlement rights will most likely require primary legislation. When will such a Bill be brought forward?

    Hansard source
20. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Edward Leigh

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    The Home Secretary is right to say that government is about a social contract, and I can see where she is coming from. Some of us do not have amnesia. Many of us were putting this to our then Government in that period in 2023, and anybody who was serving as a Home Office Minister at that time should wear sackcloth and ashes. Frankly, as a party, we will never move on until we accept that—although there was a very difficult situation after covid. I still worry about a couple of things. I am still not entirely clear why, apart from political pressure, the Home Secretary is watering down her proposals from last time, if she is. I can see what she is trying to get at with care workers earning their right, but surely we should establish the firm principle that people have to have come here honestly to work in the care system and go on working. My last point is that I agree with her that, if people come here illegally, they should not be allowed to claim an indefinite right to stay until after 20 years, but are we going to have people in hotels for 20 years? Surely this underlines the fact that we have to arrest people, detain them and return them, otherwise there is no deterrent.

    Hansard source
21. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Edward Leigh

    Budget Resolutions

    I agree with the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) about reindustrialisation, but we will not reindustrialise Scunthorpe in my neighbouring constituency by screwing it with the highest energy costs in Europe, and nor will we reindustrialise simply by exporting our carbon by importing oil. That is why we need to get on with Rosebank. I came to the House with a load of figures about the rising tide of debt, the tax burden rising to 38% of GDP and the £4.3 billion tax raid on landlords, but we know all those figures. What are we going to do about it? Traditionally, Governments—I have seen so many come and go—get the bad news out first. This Government still have three years to go, but I do not quite know why we have got over 100 tiny policy changes but are not actually fixing the fundamental problems now. We should get the bad news out now. A colleague told me today that actually the Prime Minister is being very shrewd about this: we live in a TikTok generation, so he can let out a little policy announcement every week to keep people happy and delay decisions. That may be good politics, but is it good government? We all know that society is breaking down because people feel that some are abusing the system. We had the statement this afternoon about legal and illegal migration, and we know how strongly people feel about that, but in working-class constituencies people feel strongly about so many abusing the system. They feel particularly strongly about young people who are not in work, education or training. I agree with the Government that we cannot solve that problem with what they call crude benefit cuts, but there has to be some balance; work and training have to be worthwhile. Therefore, we cannot dodge the issue of the amount and level of benefits paid to young people. I was reassured by the front page of <em>The Times</em> today, which said that the Government are looking at what is going on in the Netherlands. So, great, we will not have crude cuts, but we have got to get these young people into training, given medical help and helped into work. We need them to be not dismissed by the system in a tick-box exercise, filling in paper, but seen by a real person and helped into education or training—or, if they cannot get into that, some form of workfare. The trouble is that half the benefit bill is taken up with the state pension. For years, I have been one of the few people who has questioned the triple lock. It is amazing how Ministers defend the triple lock, but the moment they cease to be Ministers they say it is unaffordable. The Government have listened to all the economic advice, but eventually the triple lot will have to come to an end. Again, why delay it? The Government cannot imagine that getting rid of the triple lock will pay for the vast cost of a national care service—the NHS writ large. It would be better to say to pensioners—this is a fair deal, which I think they would accept—that their state pension should, as a proportion of the economy, stay roughly the same. We would not be bankrupting the nation, and the state pension would go up by how much the economy grows every year, which is fair.<span id="631" class="column-number" data-column-number="631"></span> If we want to save money, we do not want to delay these decisions till 2030. Surely what we need now is to get old and frail people out of expensive hospitals and into new cottage hospitals. They need not be in “all singing, all dancing”, hugely expensive private finance initiative hospitals. We should have more cottage hospitals where old people can be looked after, in a caring and loving way, and relieve the health service, if we are to save the national health service. On saving one thing, the average price of a house in my constituency is just £200,000, and what really upsets people is seeing how their whole inheritance, which they want to pass to their children, will go on care costs. Let us go back to the old idea of having a cap on the total amount paid for care. There is a way forward. I think we can work together to get young people back into work and training, and we can reassure old people that they will be looked after in their old age.

    Hansard source
22. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Support for Renters

    The question is about reducing the cost of renting. What is the contribution of the 4% increase to a reduction in the cost of renting? Mr Speaker, my interest is recorded in the register.

    Hansard source
23. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Ashley Fox

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    Although I welcome the earned progression model, it is disappointing that the Home Secretary has watered down her original proposals under pressure from Cabinet colleagues. Her plan to make illegal migrants wait 30 years for permission to remain will not deter any small boat crossings. Does she agree that the only way to stop the boats is to deport all those who arrive illegally?

    Hansard source
24. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    It is weeks since I wrote to the immigration Minister, but I have not had a response—out of generosity of spirit, I will say that the Government have been busy—so I will take this opportunity to invite the Home Secretary to come to the proposed site in Linton-on-Ouse. It is an integrated village. If the Home Secretary were to come and see it for herself, I think she would be quite shocked. I do so in the full, open spirit of working co-operatively—I do not even mind if I cannot be there on the day. I really want the Home Secretary to come to site with the Linton-on-Ouse action group and to see for herself just how inappropriate it is.

    Hansard source
25. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Robbie Moore

    High Streets: Vape Shops and Barber Shops

    <Question HRSContentId="{DD04D927-7200-4D74-9529-67ED14E43567}">11. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{ED844246-D649-4CC7-8640-9C49024A8DCE}">What assessment she has made of the adequacy of powers available to councils to stop the opening of vape and barber shops on high streets.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
26. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Robbie Moore

    High Streets: Vape Shops and Barber Shops

    This year alone West Yorkshire trading standards has raided 20 premises in Keighley, seizing illegal and counterfeit goods, and yet residents watch those same dodgy shops reopen within days. Our local trading standards has received well over 3,000 intelligence reports about dodgy shops such as minimarts, vape shops, takeaways and barbers, with reports linked to money laundering, drug supplying, modern slavery and illegal working—and that is just within Keighley. Despite the Government’s rhetoric of wanting to take a tough stance on this issue, why was West Yorkshire trading standards not included in the latest round of funding to support local trading standards with law enforcement action against organised criminal activity? Will the Minister look to resolve this issue?

    Hansard source
27. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Rishi Sunak

    Fire and Search and Rescue Services

    Following the complex rescue of a lady at Aysgarth Falls earlier this year, I want to pay tribute to Swaledale mountain rescue and the North Yorkshire fire and rescue service. In particular, Swaledale mountain rescue relies on dedicated volunteers to respond to emergencies right across the Yorkshire dales. Will the Secretary of State join me in praising its contribution to our rural community and continuing to support close co-ordination between its volunteer efforts and local statutory emergency services?

    Hansard source
28. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Paul Holmes

    Topical Questions

    Since I last asked the Minister about the Liberal Democrats’ £620 million-worth of debt at Eastleigh borough council, it has got bigger, the external auditors have said that there have been financial misstatements and a lack of management financially, and the Government have now given it <span id="576" class="column-number" data-column-number="576"></span>£150 million for social housing. What will it take for this Minister to come down on Eastleigh borough council and get that debt down?

    Hansard source
29. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    Order. I urge colleagues to keep their questions short and for the Home Secretary to be as on point as she can be.

    Hansard source
30. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    Order. Marvellous. I call the Home Secretary.

    Hansard source
31. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    I think you made your point. Well done.

    Hansard source
32. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Budget Resolutions

    I call the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

    Hansard source
33. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Budget Resolutions

    Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, more than 84 Members are hoping to speak, so every minute we can give Back Benchers will go down well.

    Hansard source
34. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Budget Resolutions

    I call the shadow Secretary of State.

    Hansard source
35. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Budget Resolutions

    Order. Because so many colleagues wish to contribute, Back Benchers are on a five-minute speaking limit.

    Hansard source
36. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Budget Resolutions

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
37. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Budget Resolutions

    I call the Father of the House.<span id="630" class="column-number" data-column-number="630"></span>

    Hansard source
38. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mr Mark Francois

    Park Homes

    I have over half a dozen park home estates in my constituency, so I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Government are reviewing whether to get rid of the 10% charge that owners have to pay if they sell their park home. No other property owner has to pay such a charge, and my constituents feel very strongly that this is iniquitous. May I make a submission to the review on their behalf? They would be very grateful if the Minister were to abolish the charge.

    Hansard source
39. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Houses in Multiple Occupation

    Earlier this year, Liberal Democrat-run Three Rivers district council put in a notice for an article 4 direction. However, it will not come into effect until June 2027, with the council citing financial concerns, despite repeated calls from me and local Conservative councillors to do it sooner and protect my residents from overcrowded and unwanted HMOs. What advice can the Minister <span id="565" class="column-number" data-column-number="565"></span>offer my residents, such as those who live in Muirfield Road in South Oxhey, who have already been affected by this issue?

    Hansard source
40. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lincoln Jopp

    Topical Questions

    West Surrey unitary authority wrote to the Secretary of State asking her to change the name of that authority to West Surrey and South Middlesex—a move that I thoroughly support. The local government Minister wrote back to them and said, “It’s nothing to do with me; just change your name yourself.” Will the Minister confirm what his spokesman said to the BBC, which was that, “West Surrey Council has the power to change its own name to include Middlesex if it chooses to do so, and we’ve set this out in a letter to them”?

    Hansard source