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·Lib Dem·Gideon Amos

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I am grateful for the opportunity to move new clause 16, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives. It concerns rent to discounted sale agreements, or covenanted housing as it might be called. I will be brief, but this important potential tenure option can retain social housing in the long-term ownership of the sector while giving people the ability to acquire a new home by providing them with 50% equity in the property. When they choose to move on, the equity is sold and they receive the uplift in that equity; the property reverts to the charity or housing association that sold it. It is important for us to have mechanisms to get people on to the housing ladder without jeopardising—or, indeed, almost completely extinguishing—our stock of social housing, as has happened following the loss of 2 million homes from council and social housing stock since the 1980s. This important tenure deserves recognition in the Bill. It is already in operation in parts of the country, and I commend it to the Committee on that basis.

   Hansard source
2. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Gideon Amos

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   There is no automatic reason why the new clause would lead to a reduction in social rent. Covenanted housing of that kind could be an option within the existing quantity of shared ownership or other tenures and be offered to people as a route to home ownership and an equity stake in their home. The Liberal Democrats continue to believe that this is a valuable tenure and should be expanded. But I can do the maths, so I will not push this to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 18 Duty to report: social housing levy scheme “(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a report on the merits of establishing a local levy on holiday accommodation for the purposes of generating revenue to fund local social housing projects (the ‘social housing levy scheme’). (2) A report under this section must assess the merits of a social housing levy scheme that would— (a) enable local authorities either to disapply small business rates relief or apply a local levy with respect to properties that are— (i) used wholly or mainly as self-catering holiday accommodation, and (ii) suitable for occupation as a permanent dwelling; and (b) enable local authorities to use any additional income generated by these actions for funding— (i) the provision of social rented housing; (ii) the provision of affordable housing secured for community benefit in perpetuity; (iii) social housing projects delivered by not-for-profit community-led housing organisations; (iv) investments in social housing to ensure it meets decent home and energy efficiency standards; and (v) bringing long-term empty homes back into social housing residential use. (3) A report under this section must also set out the factors to which a local authority might have regard to when determining whether local properties should be subject to a social housing levy scheme. (4) For the purposes of this section, a ‘not-for-profit community-led housing organisation’ means— (a) a Community Land Trust; (b) a Community Benefit Society established for the purpose of providing housing; (c) a housing co-operative; (d) a charitable housing trust; or (e) any other body prescribed by regulations which— (i) operates on a not-for-profit basis; (ii) is controlled wholly or substantially by members of the community it serves; and (iii) retains housing assets for community benefit in perpetuity.”—<em>(Gideon Amos.)</em><span id="144" class="column-number" data-column-number="144"></span> <em>This new clause would require the Government to report on a social housing levy scheme that would spend additional income from local holiday lets (either via a levy or disapplying small business rates relief) on local social housing projects and related purposes.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First </em><em>time</em><em>.</em>

   Hansard source
3. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Gideon Amos

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Even though I can do the maths, we Liberal Democrats believe that new clause 18 is particularly important. It would require the Government to report on a social housing levy scheme that would spend additional income from local holiday lets, either via levy or disapplying small business rate relief, on local social housing projects and related purposes. The new clause stands in the name of my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, who has worked extensively in the affordable housing sector and knows about that of which he speaks. He points out that in Cornwall alone, holiday let companies—holiday home owners—have been granted over £500 million in small business tax relief and covid aid during the last decade. That is a transfer of subsidy that the sector can ill afford. In yesterday’s Budget, the Chancellor extended small business rate relief; that is recognised. Whether or not that will affect those premises is yet to be seen. A huge number of second home owners have flipped their second homes from council tax to business rates to take advantage of the small business rate relief. That is not the intention of the system. We need to find ways, particularly in areas such as Cornwall and elsewhere, to properly control the level of second home ownership and prevent those second homes from being subsidised by the hard-pressed taxpayer. On that basis, I commend the new clause, which would levy those second home businesses, to the Committee.

   Hansard source
4. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Gideon Amos

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   This will be the last Liberal Democrat new clause for a while. I recognise that the Government are addressing second home ownership in various ways, but the question that remains unanswered is whether it is legitimate or acceptable for second home owners to flip their homes into small businesses to take advantage of business rates relief and avoid the council tax implications of a second home. That is costing taxpayers—hard-working people, as is often said—huge amounts of money. Some claimants are now backdating their tax relief claims back to 1993. For those reasons, I will press new clause 18 to a vote. <em>Question put, </em>That the clause be read a Second time.

   Hansard source
5. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Gideon Amos

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I agree with the comments that we have just heard. This is the most iniquitous and divisive amendment to the Bill, as I said on Second Reading. I will tell the Committee who it excludes: the nurses in my local hospital, Musgrove Park, who are looking after very sick people. They have been invited here by us—by our society—to come and work as nurses in the NHS, but under a Conservative Government they would be turned out of their council houses. I will tell the Committee who else the new clause excludes.

   Hansard source
6. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Gideon Amos

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   It is gracious of the Opposition spokesperson to consent to those nurses staying in their homes, but apparently when we invite nurses in future to come to Taunton and Wellington and elsewhere in the country, we will tell them, “You must work for the NHS and you must pay your taxes, but if you need affordable housing, you cannot have it. Tough. Go and find somewhere else.” I have had nurses in my surgery desperately looking for social housing and affordable housing, having come here and moved their family and <span id="166" class="column-number" data-column-number="166"></span>children here at the invitation of the previous Conservative Government. They were invited here, but they cannot find anywhere to live. They would not be welcome to have social housing under the Conservative new clause. I can tell the Committee who else would not be welcome: the care workers looking after our loved ones in care homes. Again, they come here at our invitation and would be told they are not allowed to have social housing. The people who come and support our high streets and our local businesses who do not yet have leave to remain would not be allowed access to social housing. As we discussed on Second Reading, the new clause would extend not only to the hon. Member for Ealing Southall, but to the first Duke of Wellington, if he were alive today. They would be refused a council home under the Conservative new clause, were they to apply.

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Gideon Amos

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I think the history books will show that the Duke of Wellington was born 32 years before the Act of Union between Britain and Ireland, and Britain and Ireland are—I know this will come as a shock to the Opposition—two different places. He was an Irish citizen, not a British citizen. Since the ninth duke is no longer in Parliament as a result of sensible reforms to the House of Lords, I feel as the Member of Parliament for Wellington that I have a duty to stand up for his line of heritage. When I see the ninth duke, I will explain to him that his ancestor would no longer be welcome under the Conservatives’ new clause. The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip was absolutely right when he identified that this new clause relates to where someone was born, because the biggest single factor in whether someone is a British citizen is their birthplace. The vast majority of people who achieve British citizenship do so because they were born here. The Duke of Wellington was not the only Prime Minister not born here; Boris Johnson was born in the United States. It is hard to imagine him falling on hard times, but if he did, I do not know if he would be allowed social housing. There are other national treasures, such as Spike Milligan, who were not born here. The main thing I remember about him is that he had “I told you I was ill” on his tombstone. He was born in India—he was not a British citizen, and objected to that fact for a number of years. Let us move away from the history. The main point is that the lack of social housing is not the fault of migrants; it is the fault of successive Governments for not building enough and flogging off far too many council homes. That is why we do not have enough social housing. This is a divisive new clause. I was hoping for better from the Conservative party—they are chasing the Reform mantra. They should leave it to the Reform party to indulge in this kind of politics. It is beneath them. The Committee should reject this new clause, and we will vote against it.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Al Pinkerton

   Local Government Reorganisation

   As the Minister said, LGR and devolution are intrinsically linked, so it came as a bit of a surprise to read on page 66 of the Red Book that Surrey is apparently in advanced talks with the Government over a new strategic mayoralty, because those talks have not involved any of the local MPs and have apparently entailed only a 10-minute phone call with the new unitary authorities for Surrey on Monday evening. In the spirit of consensus and correspondence, can we make sure that before this goes any further, those unitary authorities and the local MPs are fully consulted?

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Claire Young

   Ofcom

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing this timely debate. I want to focus on Ofcom’s role as the regulator of postal services. That is a different aspect from its work ensuring that news is impartial or keeping our young people safe online, and therein perhaps lies the problem—it is being asked to be a jack of all trades and, as a result, it is the master of none. Earlier this week, I spoke about the effectiveness of Ofcom during a debate in the Chamber on Royal Mail, and I have come here today to reaffirm that argument. Since 2022, Ofcom has fined Royal Mail £5.6 million, then £10.5 million, then £21 million for failing to meet its targets. In the year to March 2026, only 75.7% of first-class mail arrived the next working day, against the target of 93%. Ofcom opened an investigation into that failure on 1 June. Nearly five months later, we are still waiting for the outcome. Meanwhile, the targets themselves have been lowered, to 90% for first class and 95% for second class, and second-class deliveries have moved to alternate weekdays. The public are being asked to accept a reduced service, measured against easier targets, from a company that has not even managed to meet the old ones in years. In May, the Business and Trade Committee concluded that Ofcom is failing as a statutory regulator, and that its approach has for years failed to deliver the step change in performance that the public deserve. Part of the problem is that fines are simply not a deterrent. The law allows Ofcom to fine postal services up to 10% of turnover, <span id="249WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="249WH"></span>but its largest penalty is a small fraction of that, and every penny goes to the Treasury. Nothing reaches my constituent who missed a hospital appointment because the letter arrived a day after the actual appointment. Where is their opportunity for recourse? At the moment, Royal Mail’s own complaints process is aimed at the sender of the mail and is all about compensating them for the cost of postage by giving them books of stamps; it does nothing to compensate recipients of mail for the consequential losses from that mail not arriving on time, which can be significant. Aside from missed appointments, there can be financial issues, and we had an example where someone had received a court summons too late, which obviously had very serious consequences. If a constituent makes a complaint to Royal Mail and they are not happy with the outcome, they cannot go to Ofcom and make a complaint about the individual case. We have been told that Ofcom will not look into local cases and will look only at the picture across the country as a whole. We need a regulator with teeth, legally binding penalties that can actually change a business’s behaviour, automatic compensation and a proper complaints system. A regulator ready to use its powers could solve this problem. I have raised this issue in questions and letters to Ministers, but each time the response is essentially a regurgitated, “This is a matter for Ofcom.” However, Ofcom’s powers are set by this Parliament, and I do not believe they are working, so Ministers have a responsibility to intervene. Either Ofcom’s postal powers and its approach must be fundamentally reset or its responsibility for postal regulation should move to a dedicated independent regulator that will take it seriously. Surely, that is what Ministers must now be considering. If the Minister stands here today and again tells us that Ofcom is an independent regulator, and Royal Mail a private company, so nothing can be done, it will be utterly embarrassing. Where are the Government’s teeth? Are they seriously taking the same lacklustre approach as Ofcom? I have two direct questions for the Minister. First, do the Government accept the Select Committee’s conclusion that Ofcom is not effectively regulating Royal Mail’s performance? Secondly, will the Government commit to a review of Ofcom’s postal powers, including whether those powers would be better held by an independent postal regulator? Too much time has been spent bringing Royal Mail’s failures to Ministers’ attention. They have heard enough. Will they now act?

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Christine Jardine

    Budget Resolutions

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). It is fair to say that all Budgets are keenly awaited, speculated about and then scrutinised in great detail. Some herald landmark decisions, such as the initial covid response package in March 2020. Others live in infamy, such as the mini-Budget that crashed the markets in 2022. This one is more difficult to categorise, coming as it does at a time when the unpredictability of the White House and Trump’s provocation of foreign wars creates instability in the international markets and for families in the UK, and massive uncertainty. That is why the £15 billion for Ukraine is so important for its defences, for ours, and for Europe’s. There is much more that I welcome in the Budget, partly because this is not the time for disagreeing for disagreeing’s sake, or point scoring. The people of this country face massive problems with energy prices and the cost of living, and it is down to us to work together to fix them. Any measures to bring down the crippling cost of energy bills, remove the unfairness of gas standing charges and give families a little headroom in the cost of living crisis should be endorsed. We must remember that while supermarket shelves are filling with luxuries, for too many people, this winter will be about keeping warm and keeping their children fed. Businesses will also struggle, so I was delighted to see that funding from gambling and vape shops will go to support other high-street businesses, and that the Government are asking the banks that the British taxpayer bailed out two decades ago to return the favour. It will be no surprise to anyone in this place to hear that I heartily endorse the impetus to create a better working relationship with the EU, as well as the £18 million for advanced chip development led by Edinburgh University and the £6 million for Glasgow’s Scottish Event Campus, but I worry, as most Scots here do, that many of the measures in this Budget, which will lead to £600 million of consequentials for Scotland, will disappear into the black hole created by the Scottish Government, given the £5 billion shortfall that their budget now faces. Yesterday, the Chancellor said: “This is a Labour Budget for the worker, the sole trader, the parent at the school gate, and the young person desperate to start their first job or…business.”<span id="vol792_col314" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="314" data-volume-number="792" data-external-id="F5B77951-C068-4E8E-8957-07FFEF97C2E1">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 28 October 2026; Vol. 792, c. 314.]</span><span id="532" class="column-number" data-column-number="532"></span> Those are the people who will decide which category this Budget falls into. They will decide whether their lives are better for it. When we come out of the “storms” that the Chancellor talked about, we will see whether this tanker, which will take a long time to turn around, is facing in a direction that families will welcome.

    Hansard source
11. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Charlotte Cane

    Topical Questions

    My constituents have suffered delays, cancellations, and trains that are meant to go from London to Ely or King’s Lynn terminating early at Cambridge. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can take forward the Ely junction improvements, which will increase capacity and make our railway more reliable?

    Hansard source
12. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Charlotte Cane

    Local Government Reorganisation

    As many Members have said, this process has been a shambles, but I welcome the “minded to” approach, and the fact that people have time to give their views. Although I want this process sorted quickly, the timetable has to be long enough for a real consultation. Bear in mind that all local government has to give proper due <span id="482" class="column-number" data-column-number="482"></span>notice of its meetings, and of what will be on the agenda, so that the public can come and have their say. I am not at all sure that three weeks is long enough. Will the Minister please look at having a timetable that makes it practical for local authorities and local people to properly make their representations?

    Hansard source
13. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Bobby Dean

    Business of the House

    Our thoughts, too, are with the victims of the train crash in Spain and their families. I also want to add to the congratulations to Harry Kane, and say on behalf of all Tottenham Hotspur fans that he is one of our own. It is tempting to get into yesterday’s Budget, but I have not spoken in the debate yet, and I fear that if I start now, I might run out of things to say. Of course, there were a record number of measures in that Budget, but they had the lowest cumulative value that we have seen in decades. I think that makes it the most extravagant display of looking busy for the boss in history. Turning to other events, on Monday the AI debate was bumped off the agenda. I am afraid that that makes Parliament look slightly ridiculous. We last debated AI properly in this Chamber back in 2023; given how technology moves on, that is light years ago. Instead, we debated the performance of Royal Mail—an important issue, but one that was debated only the previous week in Westminster Hall. Critics are saying that this exposes how this House spends more time engaging with popular local issues than with some of the complex challenges our country faces. My view is that we must make time for both of those things; we need to make sure that we tackle those important local issues in our constituencies, but also rise to the challenges of our time. There are huge questions to answer on the growth opportunities presented by AI and how we get it adopted widely across the country, but also on the safety concerns and the threat that superintelligent models pose to our society. Those are critical questions for this Parliament to engage with, so will the Leader of the House make time for a debate in Government time as urgently as possible, so that colleagues can engage with these big questions of our time?

    Hansard source
14. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ben Maguire

    Major Trauma Centres: Helipads

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this vital debate. The Cornwall Air Ambulance is a vital service for many of my North Cornwall constituents, many of whom live over 50 miles from their closest major hospital, and I am extremely proud that it is headquartered in my constituency—it was great to see its second helicopter recently. The air ambulance is critical to accessing uneven terrain that ambulances simply cannot drive over or reaching the most remote areas, ensuring that nobody is locked out of lifesaving care because of where they live. That is particularly vital in my North Cornwall constituency, with our vast moorland, rocky cliff lines and many remote villages. It is essential that we ensure that our emergency services are equipped to manage the rurality of our region, ensuring that urgent lifesaving care is not based on a lottery postcode. The Cornwall Air Ambulance is on the frontline of getting people who may otherwise be stranded for hours to hospital for lifesaving treatment. It is also equipped with medical equipment and personnel who can save lives at the scene of an emergency. Cornwall’s Air Ambulance chairman David Richards has described the air ambulances as “flying doctor services”, offering far more than just transportation. I want to briefly highlight two cases that demonstrate the invaluable service that Cornwall’s Air Ambulance provides. In my North Cornwall constituency, 15-year-old Lewie received lifesaving care from the Cornwall Air Ambulance after falling from a cliff in Bude and becoming trapped in an inaccessible cove in the cold water. Lewie was hypothermic and drifting in and out of consciousness. He had suffered severe injuries, tearing two ligaments in his wrist, breaking his hand in three places, his thumb, <span id="227WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="227WH"></span>right elbow and right ankle, shattering the left side of his pelvis, breaking two of the seven plates in his neck, five of the 12 plates in his back and several ribs, suffered a punctured lung and lost half a kidney. Lewie credits the Cornwall Air Ambulance with saving his life that day, stating: “I wouldn’t be here without them”. After Lewie was winched to the clifftop by the coastguard, critical care paramedics onboard the air ambulance helicopter were able to administer pain relief, apply a pelvic binder and transfer him safely into the helicopter. While flying to the hospital they gave him high-flow oxygen and intravenous fluids because he had low blood pressure, reduced oxygen saturation and a weak pulse. Lewie’s story demonstrates just how effective the Cornwall Air Ambulance is at not only transporting critical patients to the hospital but ensuring that they make it to the hospital in a stable condition. Three-year-old Mia became unresponsive amid a sudden seizure while on a family holiday in Cornwall. A helicopter with two critical care paramedics and a doctor was able to land in a nearby field. Mia received lifesaving treatment on the roadside because her condition had worsened and she had suffered a second prolonged seizure while her family tried to rush her to the hospital. Mia’s mother Carissa later said: “I believe that Cornwall Air Ambulance saved Mia’s life that day and I don’t know what we would have done without them…You really don’t know how much Cornwall Air Ambulance do and how much they are needed until it is you that needs them.” Representatives of Cornwall Air Ambulance have told us that they are deeply concerned about the delays to the works to aid access to the rear helipad at Royal Cornwall hospital, Treliske, in Truro. The delay has severely affected the service that Cornwall Air Ambulance can provide to people across Cornwall who rely on its lifesaving work. With the Treliske A&amp;E helipad closed, landings now take place at the rear helipad and require a transfer by road of around 400 metres to the emergency department. That obviously introduces delays and safety risks in what are often life-critical situations for patients being flown in from across the region. It entirely undermines the strength and efficiency of our brilliant air ambulance service. Additionally, increasing traffic and footfall around the site, including from nearby housing developments and additional car parking, will continue to place more and more pressure on the already constrained route. I and my Cornish MP colleagues, including the two in the Chamber for this debate—the hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon)—have argued that there is a strong case for targeted transport interventions to ensure that patient transfers are as swift and as safe as possible. We have called for measures to be implemented that could provide secure, reliable access for ambulance transfers, including a safe road crossing from the helipad to the hospital. Cornwall Air Ambulance has stated that the prolonged delays and more complex routes for transporting patients have imposed operational challenges on clinical teams, creating an additional burden that teams delivering critical urgent care should not have to face. It has said that improved collaboration between the NHS and regional air ambulance charities could help to create a <span id="228WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="228WH"></span>more seamless process, increasing resilience to challenges through shared resourcing and more cohesive long-term planning. Will the Minister please commit to call for more systematic and formalised collaboration between NHS teams and air ambulances, to ensure more cohesive and seamless care for patients arriving at hospital via air ambulance? Will she commission a report into the collaborative frameworks of the nation’s air ambulance charities and their work with the NHS? Such a report should engage with regional charities and air ambulances across the UK to explore potential partnership structures. Finally, will the Minister please work with Cornwall Air Ambulance, Cornwall council and others to ensure that a safe crossing can be installed between the helipad and Treliske hospital? On behalf of my constituents, I place on record my thanks and admiration for the whole team at Cornwall Air Ambulance, including the tireless clinical staff and the incredible volunteers and fundraisers. It is an incredible service that, quite unbelievably, does not receive any Government funding.

    Hansard source
15. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ben Maguire

    Major Trauma Centres: Helipads

    I am pleased to hear about the review the Minister has announced. Can she give us any sense of a timeline for when that review might conclude?

    Hansard source
16. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ben Maguire

    Topical Questions

    In May, the Government announced £57 million in nationwide funding for wi-fi on trains. Some other parts of the country have had many rail upgrades, but the south-west has terrible rail lines, and delays due to the High Speed 2 works at Old Oak Common. Will the Minister commit to a minimum fair share of £12 million for the south-west, to cover the entire Great Western Railway network of 93 inter-city express trains?

    Hansard source
17. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ben Maguire

    Business of the House

    Last month, South West Water was fined £8 million for more than 500 sewage dumps. Rather than going back to the Treasury, that money should reduce the bills of customers who pay for waste and sewerage services. The fine followed 330 illegal dumps into the River Camel and 230 untreated dumps at Harlyn beach, a world-class beach in Cornwall. My constituents are sick of a company that keeps breaking the law, and that treats fines as a cost of doing business. Will the Leader of the House commit to a debate in Government time on holding these failing water companies to account, and on introducing jail time for offending water bosses?

    Hansard source
18. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ben Maguire

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I commend the Government on granting Cornwall, by exception, a single-authority FSA—foundation strategic authority—devolution deal. I have been proud to work with all of Cornwall’s MPs and the council leader on this, and Cornwall is very much relieved that it will not be merged with any other region. Will the Minister now meet all of Cornwall’s MPs to discuss how we can move to that mayoral suite of powers and funding, without a mayor, as new legislation comes before this House?

    Hansard source
19. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

    Topical Questions

    My constituents are not demanding a multibillion-pound, high-speed answer to the five-and-a-half-hour journey time from Penzance to London, for example; they want just a fraction of that amount, to improve the comfort, reliability and punctuality of the service. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) mentioned that £57 million has been allocated for wi-fi on trains. That is a fraction of the money spent on high speed policies. We understand that the money is being held by the Treasury at the moment; when will it be rolled out? It is desperately needed now.

    Hansard source
20. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Alison Bennett

    Topical Questions

    The derailment in the summer between Haywards Heath and Lewes caused great concern to my constituents. It happened during a period of very hot, dry weather that caused the ground to dry out and crack. I understand that Network Rail is <span id="438" class="column-number" data-column-number="438"></span>looking at ways to change how it maintains embankments and cuttings, but there was no money in yesterday’s Budget for railway services in the south-east. Do the Government have a plan to ensure that our services are punctual and safe?

    Hansard source
21. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Alison Bennett

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Still West Sussex waits, and we badly need certainty on the geography of the new authorities for my county. I cannot overstate how cash-strapped and fragile our public services are. The £500,000 to offset the cost of further delay is welcome, but it is only the tip of the iceberg of the amount of money that the Department has spent in the past two years on LGR. May I press the Minister again: how much has that cost?

    Hansard source
22. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    My new clause 22 asks for a report on decision making in relation to asylum applications. My amendment 62 is intended to prevent the Bill from being brought into force until the report set out in new clause 22 is published. The new clause would require the Home Office to publish a report on decision making in the asylum system. Making asylum decisions as efficiently as possible, so that they are right the first time, should be the main function of the asylum system. It is noteworthy that there is no mention in any of the Government’s asylum reforms of improving the quality of decisions.<span id="500" class="column-number" data-column-number="500"></span> As we heard from a range of experts during oral and written evidence, poor-quality initial decisions have had a corrosive impact on the asylum system, adding to the number of people appealing on decisions—people who should and eventually will be granted status—and contributing to the overall costs of asylum support. In the 2025-26 financial year, 64% of appeals processed were either granted by the tribunal on appeal or withdrawn before they were heard by the court. The majority of withdrawals are done by the Home Office after reassessment of the initial decision. As the chief inspector’s report indicated earlier this year, the Home Office makes those withdrawals because it feels that it cannot defend its decisions on appeal. That issue deserves further consideration before the Bill comes into force. We have heard officials say that the tribunal grant rate has gone down. That may be true, but their point is undermined if that is a result solely of the withdrawal rate going up because the Home Office is withdrawing its most poorly made decisions before the tribunal can consider them. New clause 22 would provide the data to support or refute that case. The chief inspector’s report did a quality check on about 47 cases and found that decisions had been made using insufficient evidence in over 75% of them. If that number were repeated throughout the system, it would mean that a significant number of initial decisions need improvement. What does that mean in practice for the system as a whole? According to the Government’s statistics, at the end of March, 87,450 asylum appeals—relating to roughly 113,000 people—were outstanding. Based on those numbers, the Refugee Council has estimated that between 27,900 and 33,480 of those people will be housed in dispersal accommodation while waiting for an appeal that will end with them getting status. The Government are looking to close hotels and are opening military sites in response, but it would be well worth focusing on making better-quality decisions. That would significantly reduce the number of people who, because their initial decision was rejected when it should have resulted in a grant of protection, need to be housed in those divisive and often horrible types of asylum accommodation for longer than necessary. Crucially, that is not about giving status to more people but about ensuring that those who are going to get status get it earlier in the process. That is better for the refugee, the asylum system and the public. The new clause lays out what needs to be included in the Government’s report to better understand how the process is working and how the Government can better address this urgent issue. That should be the top priority, before we have any more asylum system reform. The Minister may be able to address some of those points now, including how the Government intend to deal with these issues. Given that the provision would have such a significant effect on the appeals backlog, I have also tabled amendment 62, which would prevent part 1 of the Bill from being implemented until the report has been published, so that any learning from the report could guide the development of the independent immigration appeals authority.<span id="501" class="column-number" data-column-number="501"></span> Finally, given that other parts of the Bill, including part 4, respond to some of the consequences of poor-quality decision making—the backlog and the need for asylum support in the longer term before people are allowed to work—it is important that the Government prioritise fixing that problem. That must happen before they take the scythe that this Bill represents to the spirit—and, I believe, to the letter—of so many of our international obligations on human rights.

    Hansard source
23. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I have worked on new clause 23 with the Latin American Women’s Rights Service and a wide coalition of groups that support victims, survivors and refugees, who have long wanted to see the introduction of protections for safe reporting. That is what the new clause would do. My new clause is a wider safe reporting amendment than new clause 15, which Lib Dems colleagues spoke to earlier. It would solve a number of important problems because migrant victims of many crimes, not just modern slavery, trafficking and exploitation, but also domestic abuse and many kinds of violence against women and girls, avoid reporting them due to the fear of the police sharing their data with immigration authorities. This problem limits and deters access to other statutory services for victims and survivors, including to GPs and social services. That needs looking at. We know that perpetrators and exploiters weaponise immigration status and immigration policy as a tool for coercive control, deterring reporting. Victims with insecure immigration status already fear the police will not support them, so when data sharing occurs, the fear is reinforced, <span id="523" class="column-number" data-column-number="523"></span>which further harms trust in the police and compromises the rights set out in the victims code. Statutory independent watchdogs say that police data sharing causes significant public harm. It also obstructs the police’s own wider efforts to tackle modern slavery and violence against women and girls, if people do not report it. It increases the risk to all women and girls if perpetrators are left in the community. As we have discussed, the Bill already creates new fears that people may be targeted for immigration enforcement and increases the fear that people will not be treated fairly. We need to do something to mitigate the weakening of the protections for victims of abuse and exploitation in the Bill; now is the ideal time to introduce the safe reporting provision outlined in new clause 23. The principle at stake here is that no one should have to choose between remaining in an abusive or exploitative situation and risking immigration enforcement by seeking safety and support. It is important to note that a safe reporting mechanism—a firewall between authorities—is not an amnesty. It is not an immigration route in itself; it is simply an extension of people’s privacy rights. It is a safeguard designed to ensure that reporting crime and seeking protection do not, in and of themselves, trigger immigration enforcement. The police should not have to be involved in this work. Earlier, we discussed the separation of duties that needs to happen within the Home Office, and the sharing of data that occurs is a symptom of the mixing-up of security and immigration policy that currently happens in too many ways in the Home Office. The police should be able to focus on their job of investigating serious crime, protecting public safety and protecting victims of crime; immigration enforcement should be completely separate. As such, my new clause would introduce a firewall within the Department—a separation between the police and other statutory services and immigration enforcement, so that migrant victims can safely report crimes against them. There are successful international examples of safe reporting mechanisms, such as in Spain and Belgium. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has also recently implemented a safe reporting mechanism. Victims in England and Wales should receive the same level of protection. If victims do not report crimes, the police may lose access to evidence, intelligence and opportunities to protect victims and investigate perpetrators. Furthermore, it creates an environment in which the perpetrators of serious crimes feel they can act with impunity and continue their abuse. With a firewall such as the one in my new clause in place, the police would still be able to investigate crimes, protect the public and ensure that victims can come forward safely. It would enable them to build trust with communities and focus on their main job. That is one reason why safe reporting mechanisms have been supported for a long time by specialist violence against women and girls, anti-trafficking and migrant organisations. It is also one reason why the Government’s own violence against women and girls strategy admits: “We also recognise how immigration status can affect victims of VAWG and that many migrant and asylum-seeking victims will not come forward to report abuse out of fear about their future”, and promises that<span id="524" class="column-number" data-column-number="524"></span> “this Government will introduce a requirement for police to seek a domestic abuse victim’s consent before sharing their information with Immigration Enforcement.” That is some progress, but the proposed consent-based model set out in that strategy will not work in practice to prevent migrant victims. It is limited to domestic abuse alone and does not cover the wider crimes associated with uncertain migration status, and it fails to recognise the power imbalance, lack of clarity and lack of safeguards that would come with what has been promised. We need wider safe reporting protection for these kinds of victims, and I hope the Government will look at this issue again. I hope they will listen to the groups that asked me to table the new clause, and could help to tell Ministers the real impact of the policy on the victims and survivors they represent. I hope the Government will also talk among themselves—that they will talk to everybody involved in the violence against women and girls strategy, who can hopefully persuade the Home Office to relent on this matter.

    Hansard source
24. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    The Minister says that solving crimes and immigration are linked, but the way they are linked in the logic of the new clause and in the logic of current data sharing means—I think the police would agree—that immigration threats hamper crime investigation. Does the Minister not see that?

    Hansard source
25. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    Another key part of the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy is that it offers protection only to victims. Will the Government look again at considering the inclusion of witnesses as well?

    Hansard source
26. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I thank the Minister for her answers. I do not think she has really dealt with the issues at hand, particularly in respect of witnesses and the idea that the provision would be a one-way firewall and therefore not open to any kind of abuse. However, I am happy to withdraw the new clause and continue the discussion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 24 Right to work for asylum applicants where decisions not made within six months “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make such changes to the Immigration Rules as may be necessary for the purposes of granting a person making an application for asylum, and any adult dependants of that person, the right to work in the United Kingdom where— (a) a period of six months has elapsed from the day on which the person made an application for asylum, and (b) the Secretary of State has not made a decision on the person’s application. (2) A grant of the right to work under subsection (1) must— (a) be granted without the need for an application by the person making the application for asylum or an adult dependant of that person; (b) permit the person to take up employment or self-employment without restriction on occupation, skill level or salary; (c) be on terms no less favourable than those that would apply to a person granted refugee status in the United Kingdom; (d) persist until— (i) the person’s claim has been finally determined, or until any right of appeal has been exhausted, or (ii) the person otherwise ceases to be an applicant for asylum or an adult dependant of such a person; and<span id="527" class="column-number" data-column-number="527"></span> (e) be capable of being evidenced by documentation or a digital status which can be relied upon by an employer for the purposes of a right to work check. (3) For the purposes of this section, ‘the Immigration Rules’ mean rules laid before Parliament under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.”—<em>(Siân Berry.)</em> <em>This new clause would require the Secretary of State to grant applicants for asylum, and their adult dependants, the right to work where a decision has not been made on their application within six months.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em> <em>Question put,</em> That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
27. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Can the Minister clarify whether those are 18,000 vacant new homes, or 18,000 homes that currently have social tenants?

    Hansard source
28. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    New clauses 25 and 26 are really an effort by the Opposition to force the Government to use the Bill to secure new homes. I wish the Minister a very happy birthday; I will expedite my speech so that we can pop down to the Two Chairmen and pick up where the Chancellor left off last night.<span id="149" class="column-number" data-column-number="149"></span> On Second Reading, I was intrigued to hear the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) say: “Our right to buy reforms will mean a net gain of 18,000 social homes over the next 10 years”.<span id="vol790_col1300" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="1300" data-volume-number="790" data-external-id="096C88D8-FD38-4822-B126-89586D2170EC">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 10 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 1300.]</span> That is the same claim that the Minister has made today. I have studied the impact assessment produced by the Government, and, sure enough, on page 25 there is this line: “Following implementation of the Bill, the model instead estimates a net gain of around 18,000 homes over the same period.” Dig into that figure, however, and it is not quite what it seems. It is not that 18,000 new homes will be available to new tenants who are languishing on the housing register. The 18,000 net increase in homes is made up entirely of retained stock and, importantly, retained tenants. That is not 18,000 new homes; that is 18,000 homes with someone already living there, who has probably been living there for some time. In fact, the impact assessment shows—I assure the Committee that I am not repeating the shadow Minister’s points—that whereas more than 50,000 new houses were due to be built under the old regime, the Bill will now deliver only half that, approximately 28,000 new homes. The impact assessment says that there will be a reduction in the new homes built as a consequence of the Bill, because fewer homes are being sold and there is less funding available for new builds. The real irony is that the Bill effectively tackled the economic problems of right to buy through the admirable inclusion of clauses 6 and 10, which rebalance the economic viability of right to buy in the LA’s favour. Those measures make right to buy economically viable, allowing councils to retain funds from the sale of units at a more appropriate price. I can understand and accept the fundamental problem that right to buy posed to councils by making the deal too favourable to prospective buyers and tenants. Even if we take into account higher prices and higher rates of retention, councils will still be substantially short-changed under the Bill. That point leads me on to the shadow Minister’s new clauses 25 and 26, because of what a one-for-one replacement policy means within the Bill. I return to the impact assessment: on the pre-November baseline, there is a deficit to the tune of 26,000 from housing being lost. As I understand it, each council would be bound to replace the lost house with a new house. If we follow the new clauses to their conclusion, there could be 26,000 additional new homes, which, funnily enough, would chime with the point that the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green made in the Chamber.

    Hansard source
29. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    There is a lot to unpack there. I am sure that previous Governments have made mistakes on housing policy that have partially been corrected in this Bill, and funding has been attached where it should have existed before. However, I struggle to understand—and will always struggle to understand, despite the Minister’s eloquent speeches, superb oratory and rational arguments—how preventing old stock from leaving the system is somehow beneficial to the 1.3 million people who are languishing on the waiting list.

    Hansard source
30. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Again, there is a lot to unpack there. My speech and this new clause are focused on delivering new houses. On the Minister’s point about the cost of one equalling the sale price of three, I recognise that economic imbalance—

    Hansard source
31. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I feel as though we are going around in circles. The purpose of new clauses 25 and 26 is to get new houses on the market and available to social tenants. I believe that the new clauses would secure adequate numbers of new council houses, and that is why I support them.

    Hansard source
32. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Earlier today, the Institute for Fiscal Studies published a statement regarding the Budget yesterday that said that household disposable income will continue to decline over the coming years as a result of the dire economic situation that the country is in. At the same time, we are looking at change to the make-up of social housing in this country, which would further disadvantage taxpayers in this country. Would the shadow Minister like to comment?

    Hansard source
33. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Good!

    Hansard source
34. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I would challenge that. This is not an issue of penalising; it is not an attack. It is an issue of equity and of standing up for what is fair. When asking someone to subsidise something else we must take into account whether it is fair.

    Hansard source
35. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The hon. Member is making a very good speech. She alluded to her constituents in Barking. Everyone in this Chamber, even the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, has constituents who are concerned about the social contract. Where would her constituents draw the line on what is fair for the welfare state to hand out to people who are not British citizens?

    Hansard source
36. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I will not speak for long, but I thought it would be relevant to raise the fact that twice in my life I have been an immigrant in countries with astringent approaches to my access to public services. I did not think that was divisive; I thought it was logical. I remember specifically when I moved to America being told, “Don’t get yourself into any healthcare trouble or into a situation where you might need to call an ambulance because you will be charged thousands of dollars if you have to do so.”

    Hansard source
37. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Patrick Spencer

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I will answer half the hon. Lady’s question by saying that my first name is Patrick, I have blood in the Republic of Ireland and my brother was at Trinity College Dublin. I adore that country. I will point out only two things: that the contribution of Irish people to our economy is astronomical and is something we must preserve; and that the housing policies of the Republic of Ireland perhaps reflect the fact that their economy has gone through the roof on the back of low taxes, low regulation and a pro-business approach to the economy. Where was I? I only raise this point because I think that accusations of being divisive, exclusive, pernicious or unpleasant are not fair accusations in this context. We are rapidly becoming a poor country, unable to afford the social services that we ideally would like to provide. That leads me on to my last point, which I made earlier in an intervention. In this place, we have to reflect—as do all those under threat from extremist populist parties—on the fact that we have not got immigration right. This Bill is about social housing, but its undertone is about welfare, the social contract and what that means to people who come here. If we continue to get this issue wrong, we will continue to see populist parties taking our votes, and we will be at risk of losing this country.

    Hansard source
38. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lewis Cocking

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the Minister on his birthday today. It is also a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, whom I wholeheartedly support on new clauses 28, 44, 46 and 56. I will speak to new clause 46 and make some general points. We need a strategy for improving the existing management of the social housing stock. As the Minister knows—I alluded to this point when he came before the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—overcrowding is an issue in social homes. I suspect we all speak to many constituents, as I do across Broxbourne, who are in a two-bedroom home and need a four-bedroom home. In a previous life, when I was a councillor on the planning committee, I always argued that, within section 106 negotiations or the affordable housing part of a development, we should get some larger social homes, because they are very hard to come by and people have to wait years for a four-bedroom home.

    Hansard source
39. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lewis Cocking

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I go back to my earlier point: if we took all those homes back into social housing, the same people who are living in them now would still be living in them. They are not new social homes. They would not reduce the social housing waiting list. I speak to constituents who are overcrowded in a two-bedroom home and waiting on the list for a four-bedroom home. A three-bedroom home might alleviate some of their overcrowding. It would not be ideal— I completely agree that if they went into a three-bedroom home they would still be overcrowded—and it could be <span id="156" class="column-number" data-column-number="156"></span>seen only as a temporary fix, but under the current system they are forced to stay in a two-bedroom property while they wait and bid on four-bedroom properties, which do not come along often. We need to be better at securing larger social homes in developments. Sometimes developers do not want to build them because they are more expensive. Will the Minister look at changing the rules? If a family with a mum, dad and three kids in a two-bedroom property moved to a three-bedroom property, they would at least have the space of an extra bedroom. When I speak to my constituents, sometimes they say that that would be a good stepping stone, rather than having to wait to get a four-bedroom property. I say this in the nicest possible way: we need a strategy, because we can use the stock better to make people a bit less overcrowded. I am not saying that that will solve all the problems. Some constituents will prefer to move straight into a four-bedroom property, but they understand that they must wait a considerable time for that. Sometimes councils do not have the powers to force developers to build those larger social homes. Will the Minister reflect on the current rules on overcrowding? Changing those rules slightly might make our constituents’ lives easier.

    Hansard source
40. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lewis Cocking

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I rise to speak in support of the new clause. I will be brief, because I have some comments to make on the next group of clauses. I am very proud that in around 2010, my local council in Broxbourne, which is Conservative-run, brought in rules for local connection such that someone had to have a connection for five years to the borough to get on the housing waiting list. That is good, because it is local residents who have to put up with all the disruption that goes with development. Where we can, we should support local people first on council housing waiting lists.

    Hansard source