What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,997 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I can answer with real feeling, having visited the Torness nuclear power plant in my own constituency last week and met a group of young apprentices. Those are brilliantly skilled jobs and talented young people, yet because of the policy of the Scottish National party in Edinburgh, we are forgoing millions of pounds of investment, energy security, and good, well-paid, unionised jobs for decades to come.
I understand that Conservative Members speak with some authority, given that the Conservatives grew the size of the civil service after Brexit. For us, the measure of the effectiveness of GB Energy was never the number of officials working in the headquarters in Aberdeen; it was how many jobs are created in the north-east, across Scotland, and across the whole of the United Kingdom. We are proud of having a publicly owned energy company that is getting down to work, and proud of the fact that consent has been granted for Jackdaw. I think the Conservatives could do better.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of sentencing for causing death by dangerous or careless driving. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate, although I cannot honestly say that it is a pleasure to do so. We are here because people have lost their lives on our roads. Families have lost children, parents, partners and friends, and too many are left feeling that the justice system has not reflected the enormity of their loss. This debate is about accountability, public confidence and whether the law does enough to punish those responsible and deter others from making the same devastating choices. I want to begin with the tragic case of my constituent Keely Morgan, a 15-year-old girl whose life was cut short while crossing the road in Cardiff. She was a much-loved daughter and a cherished granddaughter, sister and friend with so much to look forward to. On 1 May 2023, Keely was struck by a car while crossing at a pedestrian crossing in Caerau, in my constituency. She died at the scene. The court heard that the driver was travelling above the speed limit, had been driving erratically and showing off, and had removed the vehicle’s black box, invalidating his insurance. The judge described him as an “irresponsible show-off”. He received 16 months’ imprisonment for causing death by careless driving, and 11 months for causing death by driving while uninsured, to be served concurrently. He was also disqualified from driving for two years and eight months, yet he was released after serving only around six and a half months. Keely’s family must live with their loss for the rest of their lives. Her mother, Sian Morgan, has channelled her grief into campaigning for change. Her petition has attracted nearly 12,000 signatures, and I am pleased that Sian is in the Public Gallery today. I pay tribute to her determination to ensure that other families do not have to endure the same tragedy. Her campaign deserves to be heard, and, as her Member of Parliament, I will ensure that it is. This House must take seriously the questions that it raises. I recognise that courts must consider the individual circumstances of every case. The distinction between careless and dangerous driving is important, and not every offence should result in the same sentence, but where a driver’s actions demonstrate a serious disregard for the safety of others and a life is lost, we must ask whether our sentencing framework adequately reflects such conduct. Sadly, these concerns are not new in my constituency of Cardiff West. Almost a decade ago, my predecessor raised very similar concerns following the death of another constituent, in a case involving dangerous driving in Adamstown, Cardiff. The constituent was killed after two drivers deliberately pursued her and drove her off the road. Both were convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to just six and a half <span id="168WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="168WH"></span>and seven and a half years in prison respectively. The outcome then left the victim’s family members feeling that justice had not fully reflected the gravity of what had happened. How can I find myself, almost 10 years later, representing the same constituency, arguing the same point in the same Chamber? Why and how can history continue to repeat itself in this way?
I entirely agree. I will shortly come on to some actions that I am calling on the Government to take forward, some of which I think my hon. Friend will be pleased and will agree with. In 2024, a collision in Carmarthenshire claimed the lives of two young people. In sentencing the driver at Swansea Crown court on 2 April this year, Judge Huw Rees observed that, although the driver had not exceeded the speed limit, his driving was “simply not appropriate for the prevailing road conditions”. Visibility was limited and conditions were extremely poor, yet the driver accelerated when greater caution was required. That driver received 16 months’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months on both counts of causing death by careless driving, with the sentences again running concurrently. He was disqualified from driving for 18 months and ordered to complete 200 hours of unpaid work. Two young lives were lost in that case, yet the driver did not receive an immediate custodial sentence. That outcome and the others I have talked about in the cases of my constituents inevitably raise questions about whether the seriousness of the conduct and its consequences are adequately reflected in sentencing. Road safety cannot be measured solely by whether someone exceeds the speed limit: drivers must exercise judgment, adapt to conditions and put the safety of others first. When two lives are lost, the public must have confidence that the sentences reflect the seriousness of that failure. Of course, sentencing is not solely about punishment; it must also be a deterrent. If we want drivers to think twice before speeding, showing off, using their phones at the wheel, taking risks in poor weather or disregarding other road users, the consequences must be clear and meaningful. When families repeatedly see outcomes that they perceive as inadequate, public confidence suffers. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. We must also consider what happens after an offender has been sentenced. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Where a driver has demonstrated a serious failure to meet their responsibilities, we must ensure that their return to the road is subject to appropriate safeguards. I urge the Government to take action in four areas. First, driving disqualifications must be reviewed. Where a driver has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to drive safely, there should be a robust process for <span id="169WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="169WH"></span>assessing their fitness to return to the road. The Government should consider Sian’s proposal for automatic licence revocation following serious traffic incidents, notably before an appearance at or a conviction by a court. Such steps should be considered alongside mandatory reassessment before driving privileges are ever restored.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. She makes the point excellently; I totally endorse what she said and I am sure that the Minister was listening carefully. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about that. I am aware that the suspension of driving licences was consulted on as part of the Department for Transport’s motoring offences consultation. That covered not just death by dangerous or careless driving but drink and drug-related offences. I ask the Minister to do everything he can to ensure that the Department for Transport carefully considers this question, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), as it analyses those consultation responses. Secondly, sentencing guidelines must be reviewed. The Government should examine guidelines for careless and dangerous driving resulting in death, ensuring that excessive speed, deliberate risk-taking, previous offending and disregard for safety receive appropriate weight.
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing those stories, I extend my greatest sympathies to the affected constituents who he so admirably represents, and I entirely agree with what he said. Consistency is important, but it must not come at the expense of properly reflecting the circumstances of each crime. Relatedly, the Minister will know that the unduly lenient sentence scheme allows anyone to ask for certain Crown court sentences to be reviewed by the Attorney General’s Office if they think they are too lenient. The review is ultimately conducted by the Law Officers—the Attorney General or the Solicitor General—and if they consider that a sentence appears unduly lenient, they can ask the Court of Appeal to review it. However, only sentences passed in the Crown court in respect of offences triable only on indictment—that is, <span id="170WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="170WH"></span>in the Crown Court—or those offences added to the scheme by subsequent order may be referred to the Court of Appeal. The offence of causing death by careless driving is not triable only on indictment and although there is a long list of offences that have been subsequently added to the ULS scheme by various orders, the offence of causing death by careless driving has not. Following the sentence of Keely’s killer, Sian was mistakenly told by the prosecuting barrister and the Crown Prosecution Service lawyer dealing with the case that the sentence imposed might have been too lenient and that they would consider whether the matter should be referred under the ULS scheme. Regrettably, and for the reasons I have mentioned, that was a mistake. I wonder whether the Minister might reflect on that disconnect and say whether he will seek to inquire whether the offence of causing death by careless driving should be added to the ULS scheme. Thirdly, the Government should consider whether legislative changes are needed to strengthen custodial sentences.
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing yet another tragic story. I again extend my sincere condolences to her constituents, and I entirely agree with her. I hope the Minister can address the issue she raised. Of course a prison sentence can never bring back a loved one, but it must provide meaningful accountability and act as a genuine deterrent, as we have been saying. We must examine whether the sentences available and imposed in these most serious of cases adequately reflect the harm caused, including considering whether suspended sentences are appropriate in such cases. Fourthly, we must address repeat offending and consider prevention. In my opinion, the Government should review whether the current penalties sufficiently address patterns of irresponsible driving before they lead to further tragedy. Stronger sentences alone will not solve every road safety problem. Enforcement, education and safer infrastructure must remain central.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I again extend my condolences to the people in her constituency who are affected. Part of my constituency is rural; indeed, these issues affect many constituencies across our four home nations. I am sure that the Minister was listening carefully to that intervention. The debate is not about revenge; it is about justice, accountability and prevention. We cannot change what happened to the victims of these offences, but we can decide what lessons we learn from their deaths.
I completely agree with the hon. Lady and extend my condolences to the constituent she is so admirably representing. I agree that it is about accountability, justice and the message that it sends to the victims and their families who have to live with that loss for the rest of their lives.
I thank the hon. Lady for sharing that tragic story and I again extend my condolences to those affected. I entirely agree. We have to think of this issue holistically, because the impact is forever for the families and friends of the victims. If two different families and two different MPs from the same constituency have been raising the same concerns for almost a decade, Parliament has a responsibility to listen. We must ask whether our laws provide sufficient punishment, deterrence and protection for the public. If they do not, we must have the courage to change them. Every day, residents cross the zebra crossing in Caerau to visit the park. For the community there, it is a daily reminder of Keely and the life lost. I know that the community support for the family has been tremendous, but no amount of flowers, murals or kind words will bring Keely back to Sian and her lovely family. I am grateful and thank Sian and her family, as well as everyone who supported her campaign, for their courage. They have channelled their grief in an attempt to get the productive outcome that we are talking about here today. Keely should have been able to cross that road safely and return home. She was so much more than the circumstances of her death. She was a daughter, a sister <span id="172WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="172WH"></span>and a young girl with her whole life ahead of her. Her family should be able to remember her for who she was, rather than having to fight to ensure that no other family has to suffer the same indignity. Ultimately, this issue is about ensuring that our sentencing framework reflects the seriousness of these offences, gives families confidence that justice has been served and acts as a meaningful deterrent to prevent further tragedies. We must ensure that the consequences are serious enough to reflect the harm caused, hold offenders accountable and deter others from taking the same risks. I urge the Government to review the legislation and sentencing framework and to take meaningful action. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and the further contributions of colleagues.
Thank you, Ms Lewell, for your excellent chairing of this debate. I thank everybody who has contributed. It has been incredibly humbling to hear the stories of loss and tragedy, and, as the Minister said, of such cases’ prevalence. I am particularly touched to have Sian and her family and Sue and Del Waterman in the Gallery, and to hear inspiring examples of individuals channelling grief and tragedy into learning lessons to ensure that people do not have to go through such tragedies again. That includes the example of Lillie’s law, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). We have been talking about this issue for too long and too often in this place, so I am grateful for what the Minister said about the action that I and others have called for. I shall appreciate anything he can do to impress the urgency of the situation on the new Roads Minister. Will he encourage him to meet me and no doubt Sian again, and to listen to the calls of action from me and others who have spoken, as well as the <span id="191WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="191WH"></span>Watermans and the proposers of Lillie’s law? Anything he can do to drive change across Government will be central to ensuring that this pernicious issue is dealt with. It has gone on for too long. In his discussions within the constitutional pool, will the Minister speak to the chief prosecutor of Wales about some of the challenges that have been found? Will he ask why, in the case of my constituent, sentencing was pegged and they had to go with the lesser offence? He could learn some invaluable lessons for part of the wider framework that he is putting together. I will finish by thanking everyone for contributing. First and foremost, I send my condolences to all the constituents whose cases we have referred to. I particularly thank Sian and her family for inspiring me and allowing me to work with them to drive change. <em>Question put and agreed to.</em> <em>Resolved,</em> That this House has considered the matter of sentencing for causing death by dangerous or careless driving.
This Government are taking action to give families breathing space. We are driving the long-term changes needed to create good jobs and growth in every postcode. The Prime Minister has been clear that pushing economic power out of Holyrood and into the regions of Scotland is key to reindustrialisation. The UK Government stand ready to work with the Scottish Government to do this. At the same time, we are empowering regions through action like the local growth fund, which will benefit my hon. Friend’s area.
The Prime Minister wants to see reindustrialisation, and we are committed to driving growth in Grangemouth and the wider region. We have acted swiftly at every stage as the Grangemouth site transitions, including through a £120 million commitment to safeguard the chemicals plant. I know that the Minister for Reindustrialisation and Cabinet Secretary Flynn are focusing especially on the preparation of ground conditions and the remediation of potential sites for new projects, which is key to unlocking the £200 million from the national wealth fund. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to push for his constituents.
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point about this Government’s record on building new homes in England. My officials regularly engage with the Scottish Government on a range of matters to exchange learning. As she knows, housing and planning are devolved matters, so house building responsibility rests with the Scottish Government. Of particular concern are the increasing numbers of children living in temporary accommodation in Scotland and the increasing numbers <span id="286" class="column-number" data-column-number="286"></span>of people sleeping rough. While our Prime Minister is determined to end rough sleeping, in Scotland it is on the rise, and that is not good enough.
The clean energy transition is a generational economic opportunity to reindustrialise Scotland, from the islands to the borders. Scotland is already a clean energy powerhouse, with the industry supporting 105,000 jobs and adding £10 billion to the Scottish economy. Last week, the Chancellor announced a new £2 billion energy wealth fund to further support the UK’s transition to low-carbon power. Berwick Bank is on course to be one of the largest windfarms in the world and is off the coast of Scotland.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have worked with the Scottish Government to make approving energy infrastructure in Scotland simpler. Those reforms are intended to help Scotland to realise our clean power ambitions while providing investors with greater confidence, yet we continue to hear from industry that the Scottish planning system is holding back growth. Planning is also the mechanism that the SNP uses to block new nuclear energy projects in Scotland, costing us up to 5,000 skilled jobs in the last decade alone.
I greatly enjoyed my visit to the right hon. Gentleman’s beautiful constituency. He is right about the opportunities that we have for clean power in Scotland, which our Government are already taking advantage of. I saw for myself what is happening in Orkney with tidal, wave and wind power, and I will pay significant attention to the report that he mentions.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the opportunities for new nuclear energy in Scotland, and the SNP Scottish Government have to tell the Scottish people why they are standing in the way of them. The National Economic Council is meeting in Scotland this Friday, at which the Prime Minister and the First Minister will have a chance to discuss such matters. I hope the First Minister will take those opportunities.
The hon. Gentleman is doing what he does best, which is to fire up the grievance machine rather than look at all the enormous opportunities that could be coming to Scotland. Perhaps he could tell us what his own party’s policy is on Jackdaw and on energy. When will we see an energy strategy for Scotland? It has been more than five years, and we are still waiting.
Once again, a typical display from the hon. Gentleman—firing up the accusations of betrayal before he has even heard the Budget. I understand that he called for standing charges to be removed from gas bills some time ago, so I look forward to hearing him welcome some of the measures in the forthcoming Budget.
The Prime Minister has been clear about our shared ambition with business to drive investment, create jobs and grow the economy. We are cutting red tape and striking new trade deals around the world to drive up exports, and boosting the role of Scottish small and medium-sized enterprises in sectors such as defence and energy. Our industrial strategy sets out a 10-year road map for the UK economy, backing Scotland’s strengths and providing business with the certainty it needs.
I was glad to meet representatives from the fishing sector across Scotland recently, and this matter will be on the agenda for the EU summit taking place at the end of next month. The Prime Minister has also rightly said that it is time for us to have an honest conversation with the country about our broader relationship with Europe. That stands to benefit Scotland in many ways, and I wish the hon. Member’s party would get behind that. Moreover, it is an interesting day to hear about measures that would benefit the economy from the Conservatives, given that Liz Truss has been talking about her mini-Budget, saying that she was right. Let us remember that the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), was one of the architects of that Budget, which torched our economy.
My hon. Friend is a tireless advocate for the people of West Dunbartonshire, and I am delighted that it will benefit from a new youth hub opening this week. This Government’s investment in a generation of young people includes the expansion of youth hubs across the UK. There are now 12 youth hubs open in Scotland, with a further 27 planned across our nation. Each will provide a range of services to our brilliant young people, helping them to earn, learn and live the fullest possible lives.
This Government are committed to supporting a competitive and sustainable steel sector across the United Kingdom, with Scotland a vital part of that. The UK’s first-ever steel strategy, published in March, sets out an ambitious long-term plan to rebuild the sector, return domestic market share to around 50%, attract new investment and position the UK as a world leader in clean, modern steel production. The significance of Scotland’s steel industry to local communities, jobs and supply chains is beyond doubt.
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for those she represents, and I know she discussed the situation at Dalzell works with the Prime Minister when he was in Motherwell recently. Liberty’s failure to pay its workforce on time is a huge worry to her community. It is intolerable, as she says, and we share that concern. The UK Government want to see the Dalzell site operational once more, and we are looking at the situation closely. We will continue to work with her.
It is astonishing to get lectures on energy policy from the Conservatives. The reason that the Jackdaw decision took longer than it otherwise might have taken was that they messed it up. The right hon. Gentleman’s party would do well to remember that clean, green, home-grown power is the only way to bring down bills in the long run, and that is what our Government are focused on doing.
<Question HRSContentId="{4A641476-6445-40EC-8326-7F12E9DF7147}">Q5. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{B2C9DF7C-AF0E-437B-8552-37D56B963B41}"></QuestionText>Having lived my whole life in Easterhouse, one of Scotland’s most deprived communities, I know the challenges that our young people face, but also their enormous potential. I was therefore encouraged to hear the Prime Minister commit to the Easterhouse principle, inspired by the work of Ian Montague and the charity FARE Scotland’s “names not numbers” approach. Will the Prime Minister accept my invitation to return to FARE with the Work and Pensions Secretary to discuss making that principle a guide for supporting young people across Britain?</Question>
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. In our manifesto, we promised to overhaul the regulation of an insecure and unjust private rented sector. Our transformative Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on 27 October last year, delivered on that commitment. On 13 November, we published an implementation road map setting out our intention to switch on the provisions of the Act in three distinct phases. The first phase, which entailed the introduction of the new tenancy regime, was implemented on 1 May this year. We are now progressing with the second phase of our reforms. That entails establishing a landlord ombudsman for the PRS to improve dispute resolution, settling issues between tenants and landlords without costly court proceedings, and introducing our innovative database of PRS properties to bring together key information for landlords, tenants and councils. The regulations we are considering today concern the latter. They set out the registration framework for the database and are essential to enabling its roll-out, which will commence regionally from 15 December. The database will record information about private landlords and privately let properties in England. It will help landlords understand their obligations, give tenants better information before entering into a tenancy and support local authorities with enforcement. The service will be known publicly as the “Register your rental property” service, but I will refer to it as the database for the purposes of the Committee. The regulations determine how registering for the database will work in practice. They cover who can make entries, what information must be provided and how the database can be kept accurate over time and up to date. Landlords will be required to make a landlord entry, which will include their name and contact information. Entries for organisational landlords will include information about the organisation and its management. Joint landlords will share the dwelling entry for the property, but each will need their own landlord entry. Landlords will be required to make a dwelling entry for each property, which will contain information including its address, ownership, property type, rent level and relevant management details. Once occupied, it must include tenancy and health and safety information, including uploaded certificates and information relating <span id="4" class="column-number" data-column-number="4"></span>to gas, electrical and energy performance information. Landlords will be legally responsible for registration, payment, renewal and compliance. Under regulations, they may, however, delegate the supply of certain information to an agent or property manager to reduce administrative burden. The regulations also allow entries to be made, updated or renewed by certain third parties in discrete circumstances—for example, where a landlord lacks capacity or where a possession restriction is in place when a mortgage provider requires a court order possession of an unregistered property. Entries will need to be kept up to date for an entry to be deemed active. Recorded information will be treated as out of date where details no longer reflect the landlord, property, tenancy or relevant compliance position. It must generally be updated within 28 days. Regulations give the database operator the ability to correct errors and remove entries that do not meet the requirements for inclusion. We will issue guidance on the operational detail, including on the verification of entries by local authorities. The regulations require landlords to pay a fee to make or renew a dwelling entry. The instrument does not set the fee, but it does delegate that to the database operator. The operator is required to set the fee by reference to the relevant costs as specified in the Renters’ Rights Act. We have separately announced the fee of £65 per property per year, pro-rated during the initial roll-out to ensure that costs remain fair and that those registering first are not paying more. This is the first of two statutory instruments needed to implement the database. Following parliamentary approval of this first instrument, roll-out of the database will commence on 15 December. Each region will be rolled out in one-month intervals. When a region’s registration window goes live, landlords will have three months to register properties in the region. We have issued guidance showing the order and timings for that. All relevant entries are required to be made by the end of 14 November 2027. A second statutory instrument will cover the public-facing side of the database, the addition of specified breaches and offences committed by landlords, and further data sharing. We will commence that as soon as possible following completion of the initial roll-out. It will concern what information is made visible to the public and wider data-sharing arrangements. Those matters are not in the scope of these regulations. To conclude, these regulations put in place the operational requirements needed to begin the roll-out of the PRS database. They are a critical step toward a more transparent and enforceable PRS system, supporting compliance while giving tenants better information about the homes they rent. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
I think it is the first time in this Parliament that I have seen the Liberal Democrats and Conservative party in unison. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> But if they will let me finish, given that His Majesty’s Opposition opposed the Act outright, I am not surprised by their opposition to this measure, although I am somewhat surprised by the Liberal Democrats’ opposition. I take the challenges on the various points in good faith, however, so let me try and reassure hon. Members about what we are trying to achieve here. First, on how the data is uploaded, I will make it clear that it is not the case that each landlord needs to log on and upload the same information each year starting from scratch. They need to update the information only if the information they have already entered has changed. Once the initial information has been uploaded, they will not need to change it if it remains unchanged. We have explored options for enabling bulk uploads—something I have pushed officials on. I started from the same position that Opposition Members did: “Can’t we just allow bulk uploads?” We have concluded, after looking into the issue in some detail, with quite a significant amount of sector engagement, that due to significant challenges with data validation and error handling, traditional solutions such as uploading Excel files—one of the options put to us—would add complexity for the user. We are designing the service to be as straightforward as possible for landlords, including those with larger portfolios. To meet their needs, we will enable organisations to add multiple employees to their accounts, enabling easier administration.<span id="9" class="column-number" data-column-number="9"></span> We are looking at how to make it easier for landlords, particularly those managing large portfolios, to connect their existing property management systems directly with the service and to create some efficiencies in that respect. We will look to provide a secure digital connection that landlords and their technology providers can choose to integrate with, reducing the need to enter the information manually to register their properties. We will continue to explore opportunities to improve functionality and reduce burdens as the service develops. I hope that that has answered some of the points about bulk data entry.
Well, we are going to look to integrate the management systems of large portfolio holders. I was asked, “Does each large portfolio holder have to sit there and add in each entry every year?” That is not the case. I am trying to clarify some of the misconceptions that have been put to me. On selective licensing, as we debated at length through the passage of the Act, selective licensing and the database have different purposes. The database will not duplicate or replace selective licensing. We recognise the important role that licensing can continue to play where it is used appropriately. The national database will provide consistent information about private landlords and rental properties across England, supporting transparency, compliance and local authority enforcement. We will, however, continue to review how selective licensing and the national service interact as implementation progresses, with a specific view to reducing duplication. I very much agree that, in terms of the information currently held when a selective licensing scheme is put in place, there are ways to reduce the amount of that required once the database is in place. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, asked why letting agents cannot register on behalf of landlords. One of the key goals of the database is to improve landlord awareness and capability. Responsibility for ensuring that registration requirements are met will remain with the landlord throughout. Letting and property agents will not have a mandatory role in registration and will not be separately registered through the service. Requiring landlords to initiate registration ensures that they engage with their legal responsibilities from the outset. We do, however, recognise that letting and property agents play an important role in supporting landlords to meet these responsibilities. To reflect that, agents will be able to support landlords by providing certain information once the landlord has started the registration process. Again, I come back to the importance of the initial registration in this first phase of the roll-out. Where an agent agrees, the landlord will be able to delegate the provision of specific tenancy and health and safety information to them. A series of points were put to me about the fee. The fee is set at £65 to fund a national service. It is fair, sustainable and capable of supporting effective enforcement. I think the shadow Minister has put to me on several occasions, as has the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, the need to properly fund local authority enforcement in the private rented sector—here we are with the means to do so. Every landlord is required to <span id="10" class="column-number" data-column-number="10"></span>pay the annual £65 fee for each property they register on the database. As the fee is charged per property, landlords must pay each time they register a different property. The fee has been set in that way to balance fairness and sustainability for landlords with the cost of operating the service and tackling non-compliance in the private rented sector. The shadow Minister is absolutely right that the NRLA and other organisations support the database in principle, because it will allow us to bear down on the unscrupulous landlords in the market who do much to colour the reputation of the good landlords out there.
I do not think we need to think again, because we are already thinking about this issue. I say to the hon. Gentleman again that we are exploring how we can make it easier for landlords, particularly those managing large portfolios, to connect their existing management systems directly with the service and integrate them.
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head at me, but if landlords have a way of integrating their service and of providing that faster upload, that is precisely what we are trying to look at already.
We are not going to pause—I say this to the shadow Minister quite plainly—because we want the database in place. It has benefits for landlords in understanding their legal responsibility, and it has benefits for tenants. This is the first of two statutory instruments, as I have made clear. We think we can do that work, working with the sector to understand how we might integrate their management systems.
I will give way, and then I am going to make some progress, because the same points continue to be raised.
We have thought through the timetable and the implementation, and we are confident that we can proceed as we intend to.
No, I will make some progress. Fees will support activity to identify and act on non-compliance with the reforms in the Renters’ Rights Act. The funding will support councils, ensuring that they have the staff and skills required to identify and tackle non-compliance and to drive landlords who persist in breaking the law out of the sector. Fees will be pro-rated during the initial roll-out, ensuring that landlords in regions required to register early are treated fairly. To go back to my opening remarks, we will roll-out the measure on a regional basis from December. I think I have answered all the points put to me.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that commitment. The Government have looked into the practicality of bulk uploads, and we do not think it <span id="12" class="column-number" data-column-number="12"></span>is, in the terms he has put it to me, a workable solution. As I have tried to make clear at several points, we are looking at how we can integrate the management systems of larger landlords into the database in a way that does not require them to manually input each of their properties, as has been put to me in this debate. We are looking for those efficiencies—why would we not look for those efficiencies? On the hon. Gentleman’s point about fees, to be clear, it is not the Government’s intention to use the fees to fund wider costs that are not connected to the private rented sector, but some of the fees will go towards local authority enforcement. As we have debated previously, it is incredibly important that local authorities have the resources to properly enforce the Act. To conclude, the regulations set out the practical steps required to deliver the PRS database, and set the registration framework that landlords, local authorities and the database operator will follow. In commencing the roll-out of the database, the regulations will support landlord compliance, strengthen local authority enforcement and give tenants better information about the homes that they rent. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee. <em>Question put.</em>
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), though I disagree with the vast majority, if not all, of what he said. As we have seen, growth is running at about 2.1%. We have not seen that economic performance for about 10 years, with the exception of 2022, as we emerged from the pandemic. In the 2024 general election, we promised that we would fix the foundations; that cannot be done overnight. We said that we would produce the highest growth rate in the G7 and we have done that. I am proud of the Government’s record, as, I am sure, are all my colleagues on the Labour Benches. That is not just about what we have heard today; it is about what has happened over the last few years. I want to place on record my thanks to the last Labour Prime Minister and his Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), for their stewardship, because they delivered fiscal discipline, bold economic reforms and good growth. We face the impacts of global events at home when doing the weekly food shop or filling up at the pumps, with Trump and Netanyahu’s war in Iran set to cost each household £2,500 by the end of 2027. Listening to the Chancellor, today’s Budget looks to build on the fiscal foundations and I welcome the measures laid out. It will give families the breathing room they need by extending the VAT on electricity bills this winter and spring into July next year, taking £50 off; cutting standing charges on gas bills, saving £45 for the average household; knocking green levies off bills; and providing a council tax rebate of £100 to help 20 million households with their energy bills—that will help almost 40,000 households in my constituency of Warwick and Leamington. Today’s Budget cannot fix the cost of living overnight. Between 2010 and 2024, real weekly average wages rose by just £16, but if we had matched the wage growth seen in Germany, our earnings would be £3,600 a year higher. The extension of the 5p tax cuts on fuel duty to July is welcome, as is holding down red diesel. I congratulate the Chancellor for helping motorists, particularly business users, with the higher mileage rate increasing from 25p to 35p. That will make a significant difference. The average house price in my constituency 30 years ago was five times the average annual salary. Today, it is 10 times the average annual salary. That is why I welcome the Government’s announcement; it is critical to increase supply to help young people to stay in their areas and to help key workers to locate themselves near their work. That is particularly relevant not just to the businesses in <span id="365" class="column-number" data-column-number="365"></span>my constituency but to Warwick hospital. When it comes to the delivery of affordable housing and council homes, extending the discounts on the local authority borrowing rate is important, and the introduction of the £4.7 billion Your First Home programme is welcome. I am delighted to see the Chancellor backing UK businesses by taking more of them out of paying business rates. The raising of the small business rate relief threshold means that 52% of all retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will pay no business rates at all, and the real-terms business rates freeze for eligible businesses will benefit 535 properties in my constituency. The Chancellor also mentioned the relief for family businesses, and the relief for entrepreneurs and founders, which is particularly welcome and innovative. I commend him on that. On the reindustrialisation programme, the additional investment announced, totalling £20 billion and supporting 100,000 jobs in sectors such as AI, defence and green energy, will strengthen our economic resilience. In Warwick and Leamington, we are very well positioned to take advantage of that, in particular through our advanced manufacturing, automative and defence businesses. Let me highlight just one company, given that we have been talking about innovation and have heard that are no £1 billion businesses in the UK. A company just down the road in Oxford—a spin-out of a PhD project at Oxford University—had zero money in 2009, but by 2019, just 10 years later, it was worth £100 million and was subsequently bought by Mercedes. To build on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) about pensions, ISAs and encouraging greater investment in the United Kingdom, I believe that there is a lot of money in this country as liquid assets and we have to use much more of those assets, such as those in ISAs, to invest in the United Kingdom. I would like to see more encouragement and more fiscal incentive for individuals to use their savings to invest in the United Kingdom or in the UK’s defence sector. On devolution, it is welcome that there is transitional growth funding. I agree with the combining of powers—for Warwickshire, Coventry or the west midlands, whichever way we end up—and believe that it is important. I really do hope, though, that areas such as mine will not lose out just because of the mistakes made with local government reform back in the 1970s, when Coventry was hived off from the rest of Warwickshire. I welcome the long-term thinking that the Prime Minister is bringing to his role and how he sees Government. Working with countries such as Vietnam, we will see the benefits of a long-term plan and the strategy for delivering permanent growth and long-term prosperity for communities. We must have AI sovereignty, either through strategic leverage of the AI stack or through a sovereign frontier AI model, so I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement on a sovereign AI unit. I welcome the measures in the Budget, particularly what has been done to help households through this incredibly tough time—a tough time brought on by external events, whether it be the war in Ukraine or the unnecessary war in Iran brought about by Trump and Netanyahu, which has seen energy prices spike dramatically during the past 10 months. These are significant headwinds, <span id="366" class="column-number" data-column-number="366"></span>and there is only so much a Government can do to battle them, but I really appreciate the measures that this Government and this Chancellor have introduced to address them. I agree with my colleagues that this Budget has been delivered by a Chancellor who is renowned for his steadfastness, durability and seriousness. He brings all his personal qualities to the role of Chancellor, and his first Budget underlines his vision and the seriousness with which he wants to steer our country through a very difficult time. I look forward to supporting the Budget.
I warmly welcome the Budget. It offers breathing space for both families and businesses, and, crucially, hope for the future. Although this is a time of really quite severe international headwinds, as we are all very aware, there are real signs of growth in the British economy. We are jointly leading the G7 in terms of growth, and the IMF is welcoming the Government’s measures to reduce debt and deficit. Let me deal briefly with the key measures that will offer breathing space and support to families and businesses, before moving on to some of the longer-term measures. Many of my constituents live in older properties, in Victorian houses or possibly houses built in the 1930s, and I was delighted to note that they will benefit from a host of measures to reduce their energy bills in what will be a very hard winter for them. That shows a real understanding of the pressures on families at this difficult time. I particularly thank the Chancellor for his offer of £100 paid directly to residents, which I consider very sensible. That, and a range of other measures, will help to reduce the current severe pressure on family finances. The measures to support small businesses, particularly those in our high streets, will also be welcomed in <span id="399" class="column-number" data-column-number="399"></span>Reading and many other towns and cities. Moreover, 47% of small hospitality, leisure and retail businesses in the south-east will now not pay business rates. In the time available to me, I want to say something about the longer-term measures, particularly those relating to improved devolution to help businesses and development and regeneration, along with a series of other measures to support businesses and homeowners. When it comes to regeneration, the new mayoralties that have been announced present some real opportunities. I warmly welcome the Thames Valley mayoralty of Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Swindon, and, in particular, the scope for mayors to free up land near railway stations. As many Members on both sides of the House have seen, a huge pool of land is available. On one side of the railway in my own town of Reading, a £1 billion regeneration project is bringing jobs, growth and new housing to the town centre. On the other side, where there are a series of small, fractured sites where developers are not working with one another, there is no regeneration. One of the significant advances is that bringing in mayors allows the creation of a mayoral development corporation, which can bring together those disparate sites and make them much more attractive to developers. I look forward to hearing more from the Chancellor and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about that type of work as the whole mayoral scheme moves forward in the new year. The support for home ownership, and the support for new council houses, is warmly welcome in my area. We have high house prices, and many people are struggling to get on the housing ladder. The growth of businesses in the Thames valley is partly due to the inward movement of people from across the rest of the UK and around the world, so housing is needed, and these are two important measures to support home ownership and ensure that there are homes for people to rent. Finally, I warmly welcome the measures to support entrepreneurship, which I hope will significantly support our tech entrepreneurs. Some 300,000 people in Berkshire work in tech or telecoms, and they are driving growth in our county, across southern England and, indeed, across the country as a whole. We have benefited from a number of key infrastructure projects, particularly the Elizabeth line. I look forward to many others in the future, including the western rail link to Heathrow, but the help to support entrepreneurs is important. I warmly welcome that and commend the Treasury for its work. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; it has been a pleasure to speak today.
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend’s point about Pride in Place. I commend his efforts with the Pride in Place board. I have done something similar in my constituency. Our Pride in Place Farnley East board is giving money to Farnley Falcons. The club is at the heart of our community, bringing in young people from across the constituency and further afield. Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging all those with Pride in Place boards to give some money to local rugby league clubs?