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 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I welcome the Minister’s statement. He will know very well that the “Protecting What Matters” strategy, which was announced to the House earlier this year, had some excellent proposals to strengthen community resilience. Will he update the House about progress on that strategy, and say exactly which proposals we have made progress on to date?
My hon. Friend is making a really strong speech about the need for this Bill. Does she agree that this action is long overdue? Residents in Crown Heights in my constituency have waited for years—far too long. They have been in financial uncertainty, and uncertainty about their safety, and they deserve a clear timeline of when their remediation works will be completed. Residents like those in Crown Heights will be served better in the future by action that will be delivered through this Bill.
T3. Dirty money fuels crime on our streets and conflict overseas, so I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to hosting an illicit finance summit next year. Getting this right really matters for our national security. Will the Minister use the extra time ahead of the summit to work with civil society and our international partners to ensure that the summit finally delivers the tough action we need so that we can turn the tide on the scourge of dirty money?
It is a pleasure, Sir Jeremy, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this important debate. If we track the history of council housing in Amber Valley, we see a story that I fear will sound all too familiar to other Members from across the House. It is a story of decline, neglect and short-sighted political choices, the consequences of which are still being felt today. In 1985, there were more than 5,000 council houses in Amber Valley. By 2003, just one remained. Why was that? During the period between 1985 and 2003, a Conservative-led borough council sold off virtually the entire stock. Make no mistake—it was not because the need for affordable housing had disappeared nor did it represent some great act of financial prudence. To add insult to injury, it is estimated that those houses were sold off to private ownership for only a ninth of their market value. Assets that had been built up over generations, which were paid for by local people and intended to provide secure and affordable homes, were effectively given away. When Labour took control of the borough council in 2023, it inherited not only a shortage of council homes but the legacy of decades in which the council’s capacity to deliver new homes had been hollowed out. It was not just the housing stock that was gone. As a result, the first task facing the new Labour-led borough council was to rebuild the council’s ability to build homes. It had to restore confidence, capacity and the mechanisms to deliver, before bricks could be laid and properties acquired. Council officers have reskilled themselves admirably, and since 2023, 32 council houses have been acquired, with plans to deliver a further 33 in the pipeline. Those numbers sound modest, but they represent the hard work of rebuilding a housing programme from almost nothing. More importantly, the council is now in a position to look beyond individual acquisitions towards larger-scale regeneration and house building. After years of stagnation, Amber Valley has adopted a local plan for the first time in two decades. It includes proposals that could deliver up to 180 new council homes on land around Aldreds Lane, and the council is also working closely with the East Midlands Mayor, Claire Ward, to unlock brownfield sites for future development. There is real momentum now. A Labour-led council has begun rebuilding the stock it had lost. With that in mind, will the Minister outline what support the Government will provide to councils such as Amber Valley that have demonstrated the ambition and the capacity to deliver new council housing, and will he outline how the Government will help authorities to scale up those ambitions so that more families can access the homes that they need?
The Isle of Axholme in my constituency is a big rural area. Many children have to travel long distances for EHCP assessments, but also to receive specialist support for special educational needs. At the Axholme school in Crowle, we have historically had a higher number of children with SEND than the national average. Of course, that is a concern, because I want to ensure that there is no postcode lottery when the SEND reforms are being made. Will the Minister absolutely and categorically reassure me that if someone lives in a rural community, they will get support equitable to that given anywhere else in the country?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Council housing saved my family’s life. Council housing gave me a life. Council housing meant that a once homeless lad got to be here to fight for everybody, to ensure that there is no homelessness in this country ever again. When we talk about council housing delivery, most people think about building from scratch, but there are other options. Buying and refurbing existing long-term empty houses and buildings means we can increase the housing stock at a lower cost and, crucially, we can do it faster. When we talk about housing, it is easy to think primarily about the housing market, the economic impacts, the cost of mortgages or rents, or the cost of living, but we are also talking about whether people have a permanent home or not. When we talk about homelessness, we often think first about rough sleeping. Yet homelessness takes many forms, and family homelessness cannot be overlooked. That is often not on the streets; it is whole families with children living on one mattress at a friend or relative’s house, as I did at 15 years old, or moving between a series of bed and breakfasts and other emergency—supposedly temporary—accommodation, which can last for years. Because it is not visible, and because we do not see the impact, we often do not treat it with the urgency it deserves. At the end of March this year, there were 177,530 children living in temporary accommodation in England. In Doncaster in 2025, we had more than 200 children living without a permanent roof over their heads. Perhaps even more concerning is that more than 22,000 families with children have been living in temporary accommodation for between two and five years. For some children, that could be the majority of their lives. There are 7,800 active households on the register in Doncaster right now. That insecurity of not having a place that is permanent can be devastating. It affects children’s education, their physical and mental health, their relationships and their opportunities later in life. A permanent home is about so much more than having somewhere to sleep; it is about having somewhere you belong. I can absolutely vouch for that, having had lived experience of it. There are more than 300,000 long-term empty homes across England. Acquiring long-term empty houses for social housing could deliver more than 8,000 additional social rented homes by June 2029, requiring 38% less Government grant per property than new build alternatives. That means more homes for the same level of investment, and families in them much more quickly. When we have families spending years in temporary accommodation, we cannot afford to overlook opportunities to deliver permanent homes much more quickly. It also makes sense financially: councils are spending billions each year on temporary accommodation, but investing in permanent housing can reduce our reliance on those arrangements. Ultimately, the success of our housing programmes must be measured not just by the number of homes delivered, but by the number of families who are able to leave homelessness behind and build secure, stable lives in the future. We need to deliver those homes, and we need to deliver them as fast as we possibly can.
Over three years, we have seen a devastating man-made humanitarian crisis unfold in Gaza. The UK is committed to improving humanitarian conditions in Palestine. We will provide £88 million in humanitarian and early recovery support this financial year to support the delivery of essential healthcare, clean water, sanitation and hygiene services. At the UN General Assembly last month, the UK, Jordan and Qatar co-hosted a meeting focused on driving action on humanitarian access and healthcare. We issued a call to action, urging the Government of Israel to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access throughout Gaza.
First of all, I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to this incredibly important topic. Reports that hundreds of Palestinian children are being detained—as he says, many of them are being mistreated—in Israeli military detention are horrifying. Children’s rights must be upheld, in accordance with international law. Children must only be detained in line with internationally agreed juvenile justice standards, and we call for an end to military detention where it is incompatible with those principles. We continue to call on Israel to grant the International Committee of the Red Cross immediate unrestricted access to all detention facilities, and we raised this issue with Israeli authorities in September.
Gaza remains one of the deadliest places on earth to deliver aid. We have seen countless incidents involving humanitarian personnel over the past three years. The UK is a member of the Australia-led ministerial group that developed the declaration for the protection of humanitarian personnel, and lobbied other states to join. A total of 132 states have now signed the declaration, and just last month the Foreign Secretary met Australia and others at the UN General Assembly to maintain momentum and drive collective action to address this fundamental issue.
The hon. Lady speaks passionately and powerfully about the exact reasons why we have declared the situation a moral emergency. On average, four people have died every day since the ceasefire, over 300 of them children, as she rightly says. The civilians and children of Palestine will continue to be an enormous priority for our bilateral engagement with the Israeli Government, whoever the Israeli people pick, but the humanitarian situation could not be more severe. She can be assured that we will continue to press upon the Israeli Government, once elected, the need for unfettered access.
We held an event at UNGA on precisely this matter. Maternal, newborn and child health will continue to be a priority for the UK Government. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the UK has acted fast to try to get sick children to the UK for treatment; a cross-Government taskforce supported 50 critically ill and injured children and their immediate families in leaving Gaza and receiving specialist support in NHS hospitals. As I am sure she will agree, however, that action is no substitute for ensuring that people can access their healthcare rights in the country where they live and were born, and where we hope to provide them with safety and security through a two-state solution in the end.
I begin by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy for children; pressure for children’s rights will always be welcome to me. I share UNICEF UK’s commitment to advancing the rights of children globally, and am personally committed to putting children’s rights at the heart of all the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s development work. I am proud that the UK Government are investing in essential services for children, as well as maternal and newborn health and nutrition, childhood vaccinations, foundational learning, ending child marriage, and supporting children’s care reform. I will continue to prioritise children’s needs and rights across our development portfolio, and look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on that.
As the hon. Member will appreciate, the money that we allocate for vaccination, and indeed the wider health portfolio, which was protected in our recent round of allocations, benefits children almost exclusively; the money that we spend on education also benefits children almost exclusively. There are other large parts of our portfolio, including humanitarian and climate action—I imagine that he shares our determination to achieve good outcomes in those areas—in which it is not possible or desirable to ringfence spending specifically for children, although children are outsized beneficiaries of that action. My job is to ensure that we get the maximum impact for every single pound of UK overseas development assistance. Some of it is specifically ringfenced for children, but much of it benefits their families and wider communities, too.
I would always be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. I commend her, other women and Members from across this House for all that they have done to draw attention to the horrifying, unspeakable situation facing Afghan women and girls. She will appreciate that there are sensitivities around the use of specific language in the international system, and I would want to be mindful of the views of other partner countries on this; however, I would be delighted, substantively, to meet my hon. Friend to see what we can do to advance the cause of Afghan women and girls, which is close to both our hearts.
As the hon. Member will appreciate, every time we enter into one of these negotiations across the whole of Government, our objective is to uphold the integrity and impact of our migration policies. The FCDO has responsibility for ensuring that our policy position is communicated forcefully bilaterally, and we will continue to do that. I have been in dialogue with the Eritrean ambassador to convey exactly the seriousness with which the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the wider British Government take this matter. There will be no resiling from the forcefulness with which we promote our policy that Eritrean returns are central to this Government, and we will pursue that until they are secured.
We do not currently have plans to expand UK Aid Match beyond the Disasters Emergency Committee funding appeals, which, as my hon. Friend rightly said, are focused on crises that require a large-scale rapid response. She is right, however, that the British public continue to care deeply about equality and the human rights of those overseas. The FCDO formally supports that through our women’s rights organisations programme, our grassroots sexual and reproductive health and rights programme and our LGBT+ rights programme. I would be delighted to talk to her and, indeed, any other hon. Members across the House about what more we can do to give life to the British public’s impulse towards deep solidarity on questions of equality.
My hon. Friend is right. Just yesterday, I attended an event in Parliament to mark the one-year anniversary of the fall of El Fasher. At that event, I heard testimony that I will never forget as long as I live. We heard about, and I spoke about, bloodshed so overwhelming that the ground was soaked with blood so deeply that it could be seen from space. That should be a matter of ongoing, daily outrage in our country. Last month, at UNGA, the Foreign Secretary and I met international partners to galvanise further action, including through an event focused on the devastating use of drones to terrorise civilians, alongside our UK-convened coalition for atrocity prevention. I am proud that just yesterday, the UK announced further sanctions against commanders suspected of involvement in the atrocities in Sudan.
We remain gravely concerned about the continued detention of Tundu Lissu, and we will continue to raise his case through ministerial channels and the British high commission. We note the UN working group opinion that his detention is arbitrary, unlawful and lacking in sufficient legal basis. We await the 6 November verdict and underline its significance for Tanzania’s democratic freedoms and the rule of law. I also take this opportunity to say that the UK remains firmly opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances in every country.
We absolutely welcome the fact-finding mission’s report. Indeed, we were the initiator of the fact-finding mission, and we remain a huge champion of its work.
Serco continues to be awarded lucrative Government contracts despite repeated failures, while probation officers have been pushed to breaking point. Will the Minister commit to bringing back in-house electronic tagging and probation services, as I proposed in my amendment to the Bill that became the Sentencing Act 2026, so that we are not rewarding private profit over public safety?
Time and again today, we have remembered all those who tragically died in the Grenfell fire all those years ago. We look back on that not only because they deserve our tribute, but because we all know in our hearts that it did not need to happen. It could have been avoided, and the warnings were there years before. As has been said a few times today, the fire happened nine years ago, and we still have not got things right. I cannot speak any more eloquently than my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) did. He spoke for only a few minutes, but he has campaigned relentlessly on behalf of his constituents for many hours, days and months—not only to make sure that we get the truth and learn from it, but to keep championing all those people who are still worried. Many feel trapped in homes in which they should be able to live safely and comfortably, but in which they cannot. I really welcome what the Government are doing today, and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and her Ministers. In 2024, the Secretary of State began the remediation acceleration plan, because it was taking way too long. Relevant legislation has been passed in this place before, but we see that it is not delivering. There are too many gaps, and I believe that this Bill is a great step forward. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying that she will add to it, and I am sure that she has been listening carefully to what has been said today and will continue to listen, not just to us in this place but to the people we represent. I know that she and her Ministers have been meeting people affected by this issue and representatives of End Our Cladding Scandal. One of the big champions in my constituency, Sophie Bichener, has been working in this area for years, and she has acknowledged those meetings. When we talk about examples in our constituencies, we sometimes think that MPs who represent big cities will have a lot, which might be true. I represent a new town, just like my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who represents another fine new town that is not far from Stevenage. We do not have as many examples as the House might think, but I want to highlight two. It does not matter that we do not have many, because those residents who have been trapped for so long really feel it. In Stevenage we have Monument Court and Vista Tower, and I want to relay a couple of my residents’ expressions of despair. One resident of Vista Tower said: “Since the Grenfell disaster we have been imprisoned in a property that we cannot sell, has no apparent value and has continuing yearly safety improvements. But worst of all, the owners of flats have no visibility as to when this nightmare will finish.” Another said: “I am living in a home that I know to be unsafe, with no clear timeline for when the necessary remediation work will be completed. The ongoing uncertainty is causing significant stress and anxiety, particularly as I have two young children whose safety and wellbeing are my priority. I am also facing increased insurance costs and am having to deplete my savings to cover the financial burden. I cannot sell my property because of the unresolved cladding issues, leaving me effectively trapped in a home that may be unsafe and unable to move forward with my life.” Those residents are just two examples of people trapped in their own homes, not knowing if they are safe after all these years. Residents in Vista Tower are now going through a second round of remedial works. They have been told that they are to be decanted, but for how long? We do not know. When is that going to happen? We do not know. Vista Tower itself has been the subject of many legal actions going on for years, and there seems no end to it. We have to give those residents the hope of an ending, so that they can get on with their lives, feel safe in their homes and, if they want to do so, move on and live elsewhere. I am pleased that the Bill takes us forward on some of those matters, but it has been very difficult for many Members to hear about some of the issues that have been raised today. We need to ensure that non-qualifying leaseholders, such as those living in Vista Tower and Monument Court, are not left with unaffordable bills to fix historical defects, such as the fire safety defects, so I am pleased to hear movement from the Secretary of State in that regard.
I thank the hon. Member for making a very sensible point. I am pleased that the Bill takes forward the idea of having independent actors to step in, which I would always welcome—the more of that, the better. We cannot have the developers or freeholders of these buildings essentially marking their own homework. We must ensure that buildings are reviewed holistically and made safe as a whole. As I have said, Vista Tower is facing a second round of intrusive works and the decanting of residents, so we need to ensure that such things can be avoided. That is why it is so important to have compliance plans and, more importantly, to ensure that residents are informed of and are able to influence and shape these plans. I welcome the moves in that regard. For Vista Tower, there have now been eight years of fighting, with no timeline for ending it. We must therefore make sure that remediation compliance plans guarantee access to assessments, work specifications, delivery timetables and completion evidence, with real and meaningful engagement for leaseholders, while also providing them with accessible routes to challenge decisions and raise concerns about their homes. In that way we can give leaseholders, but also the flats market as a whole, confidence that when work is required, it will be done properly and collaboratively. Today is a day of real progress—we are filling the gaps one by one—and I am pleased to hear that Ministers are listening. They should carry on listening to make sure that the Bill becomes an Act that finally gives people who are living in fear of the future and uncertain about what is going to happen to their home the release from all of that that they truly deserve.
I will start by singing the praises of what we have done in my constituency, because Labour’s record at Cannock Chase district council shows what can be achieved when a council is ambitious about providing the homes its residents need. After more than 30 years without building new council homes, the last Labour administration, which I was proud to be part of as deputy leader, got building again. It started with the most unglamorous of sites: old garage blocks that were becoming increasingly difficult to rent out, many of which had turned into magnets for antisocial behaviour and drug dealing. We turned them into new homes, filling some of the biggest gaps in our housing stock. We also partnered with Lovell Homes to redevelop the former Aelfgar school site in Rugeley, where 58 new homes have been delivered, including 29 council houses. The ribbon may have been cut under Reform, but the groundwork was done under Labour. That brings me to the Government’s plans to help councils do more, because in Cannock Chase a lack of ambition was never the problem, finding affordable finance was. That is why I welcome the extension of preferential public works loan board rates, which will help make the numbers stack up for councils looking to invest in new homes. I also welcome the council house building support fund because councils need the right people and expertise to develop schemes, build pipelines of projects and put together strong bids for funding. That is something that my council found that we often missed out on when councils of other similar sizes were getting funding awarded. I hope that my district council will make full use of that opportunity. I will also touch on empty homes, something that two constituents raised with me just last week. One is concerned about the number of green belt sites having to be released. The other, who is trying to get on to the housing ladder, very much welcomed the upcoming Your First Home scheme announced by the Prime Minister but felt that bringing empty homes back into use should also be part of the answer. I therefore welcome the Government’s boost to the powers that councils can use to tackle the issue of long-term empty properties. Again, I encourage Cannock Chase district council to make full use of them, including for two semi-detached houses on Poplar Street in Norton Canes that have stood empty for many years. I am also interested to hear from the Minister about whether there is scope to take the number of long-term empty homes into greater account when housing targets are calculated. Finally, I welcome the Government’s plans to tighten right to buy because we need to ensure that the council houses that we build remain available to people who need them well into the future. As we make it easier for councils to build again, I hope that we can gradually work towards ending right to buy altogether and protect that housing stock for the long term. That is ultimately what the debate is all about: making sure that people have access to a decent, secure and genuinely affordable home, whether that means building on a neglected garage site, regenerating a former school or bringing empty property back into use. Cannock Chase Labour has shown that councils can deliver, and I hope the Government’s measures will give more councils the means and confidence to do so in future.
I would like to take this opportunity, as I have not yet had one, to warmly welcome the Minister to his place. I know that he is covering tonight for the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), but I am sure that he will do a fantastic job. I know that in his role on early education, which is also an area of interest for me, he will be a steadfast champion and a fantastic member of this Government, so I welcome him. I first applied for this debate after a conversation I had at the West Chadsmoor NHS clinic back in June. I had gone there to talk to the team about the fantastic Pride in Place funding coming to our area and to meet some of the brilliant clinicians based there who specialise in areas such as child and adolescent mental health services, paediatric podiatry, occupational health and various forms of family support. As I am sure Members across the House will have experienced, I often leave a visit in my constituency with much more work than I walked in with, but that is of course what I was elected to do, and it is a pleasure to do that work. One of the conversations I had at West Chadsmoor raised an issue I felt needed to be brought to this House. It was about vulnerable children being placed in Staffordshire by local authorities elsewhere in the country and the problems that arise when the right people are not told that those children are coming. I heard from clinicians that increasingly they are coming across young people who have been placed in our area without Staffordshire county council being notified. Sadly, CAMHS staff sometimes encounter those children for the first time when they are in a serious mental health crisis. The doctors I spoke to described young people who might be self-harming or experiencing suicidal thoughts. These are children who will almost certainly have already experienced deep trauma, family breakdown and considerable instability. Then they are moved miles from home—sometimes hundreds of miles—and the support that they had, we hope, been receiving does not always follow them. The statutory requirement is for the responsible local authority to notify the host local authority when a child or young person in care is placed within its area. but I am hearing that this does not always happen and does not always include the relevant information regarding identified risks and support needs. Consideration should also be given to the suitability of the placement, such as the availability of local services. When a local authority decides to place a child in another part of the country, that child arrives with their own history, their own vulnerabilities and, often, an established package of support. Yet the authority responsible for receiving them may not even know they are there. The clinicians who want to do their best to replicate that support are sometimes left on the back foot. They may only discover the child when something has gone wrong and they come to them in a very bad way. That is not a sensible way to organise care for any child, let alone one who is already vulnerable, which is why, of course, the legal duty to inform exists. In my constituency, we have seen rapid growth in independent children’s homes in recent years, partly because of the relatively low property prices but also, as we know, because of a chronic lack of foster carers. As a former foster carer myself, I very much welcome the recruitment campaign that the Department launched last week.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He always has a kind word to say and a valuable contribution to make to any debate on any topic, which is quite impressive. He is absolutely right to highlight the fact that there are so many people in our country who would love to foster and have the attributes and the motivation to do so, but who simply cannot afford to because the costs they would have to meet exceed the payment they would get. We need to raise awareness of the fact that fostering is paid for—many people do not realise that—and we need to bring those stories to the House, as he has rightly done, to highlight the need to do far more to support our foster carers, who do an incredible amount.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who speaks from deep personal knowledge of this topic. She is right to highlight the experience of foster carers in her constituency, who all too often feel that the buck always stops with them and that there is never any let-up. It can be an incredibly challenging role—we are talking about some of the most vulnerable children in our society, who often have incredibly complex needs that present themselves in many different ways. It is the responsibility of our society as a whole to ensure that those children are well cared for, but we also need to ensure that our foster carers have the support and the wraparound care that is needed to succeed, because they play such an incredible role. When my husband and I were fostering, we were very fortunate to have that support from our county council, and we need to ensure that that support is available to everybody. Staffordshire is increasingly welcoming children who are placed in our county by local authorities elsewhere in the country, and I am very glad that our county is able to play that role in caring for vulnerable young people. The figures for Cannock Chase give us a sense of how the picture is changing. In 2025-26, five children’s homes opened and two closed, with a net increase of seven places. The county council told one of the councillors in my constituency that there are 19 homes for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and seven for children with learning difficulties. Because of the high level of EBD homes, the county council is even taking the step of asking potential providers not to set up new EBD homes in my constituency for the time being, despite the shortages we are all aware of. As more homes open, our local services clearly have a growing role in supporting children whose previous care arrangements may have been organised hundreds of miles away. I am proud that Staffordshire can provide care for those children, but I want to ensure that the local authorities placing them here are giving our services the information that they need early enough to plan properly. My point is not that Staffordshire should do less to support these children; it is that, if we are going to provide that care, we must have the communication and co-ordination needed to do it as well as possible. These children deserve more than a placement address; they deserve a joined-up package of care that follows them wherever they move to. The doctors I spoke to explained that, when Staffordshire county council receives the appropriate notification, CAMHS has a chance to contact the young person’s previous NHS trust, establish what support they have been receiving and work out how that support can be continued locally. That is the difference between planning for a child’s needs and reacting when those needs escalate. Without notification, that opportunity is taken away. The receiving services may not know about the child, may not have their clinical history and may not understand what treatment or support has been interrupted. It also means that GPs may not know that a young person has entered their area; diagnoses, risks and existing care plans may not accompany the placement; responsibility for GP registration, crisis support and ongoing care may remain unclear; services might respond without essential clinical and contextual information; and young people may experience avoidable crisis escalation—emergency department attendance and in-patient stays are all too common. Fragmented arrangements can undermine safeguarding and continuity of care. Commissioning of provision is carried out by local authorities, but if they are not aware of what has been commissioned from the home area, which can often include a comprehensive health package to sustain the placement, it is not hard to see where things can go wrong. In some cases, local services can end up duplicating already commissioned input, leading to double-funded provision. That complexity is compounded when multiple providers operate within one geographical area. In Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, there are multiple CAMHS providers, alongside specialist children in care health teams hosted by different organisations. Acute hospitals attended by young people may be managed by separate provider trusts, many of which do not have access to community health records that are held elsewhere. These organisational boundaries can create barriers to timely information sharing and co-ordinated care. Similarly, when children move between multiple out-of-area placements, information can become fragmented across different systems and accessing records held by external providers may not be possible. The issue is particularly relevant to my constituency and the wider Staffordshire area, where, as I mentioned earlier, we have seen an increase in the number of children’s homes in recent years. As that number grows, we need to be confident that the right safeguards, oversight and support are keeping pace. A children’s home is not simply a property with staff in it—it is a place where some of our most vulnerable children should receive the care, stability and specialist support that they really need. To give a tragic example of how badly things can go wrong, I will share one story from Cannock Chase. Last summer, a constituent in Hednesford raised concerns with me about the care being provided to a vulnerable young person in an independent children’s home very close to where he lived. That young person had clearly had an incredibly traumatic experience at a young age and had complex needs. The placement was intensive, to the point where the home accepted just one child at a time, supported by several staff, 24/7. However, the company responsible for that home clearly had no intention of following through on the promised support package, which was not put in place. I heard that CAMHS were not even contacted, despite the company having put in its bid that local CAMHS services in my area were good and dealt with looked-after children very well, and that it had already made preliminary inquiries with CAMHS. The promised two-on-one or three-on-one support was not followed through either, to the point where the young person was at one point left alone and was found by neighbours banging on doors, clearly in extreme distress and mental health crisis. I cannot independently verify every detail of that story and I do not want to prejudge any investigation that might take place. I have also visited excellent homes in my constituency, run by people who care deeply about providing the highest quality trauma-informed care, and I believe they are the majority. However, these concerns underline why we need effective oversight and clear accountability for the care being provided. This is not a narrow issue affecting only children in residential care or those in Staffordshire alone. It speaks to a wider challenge in how we co-ordinate support across local authority boundaries. Figures that I have seen show that in 2024, 45% of looked-after children were placed outside their home local authority, up from 40% in 2015. While 69% were placed within 20 miles of home, that proportion has fallen from 76% in 2015. The same challenges can affect kinship families. The 2024 annual survey by Kinship found that nearly a third of kinship families lived in a different local authority area from the one the child had lived in before coming into their care. Of those families, 57% reported difficulties accessing support as a result. These are different circumstances, but they point to the same question in my mind: when a child’s life crosses a local authority boundary, does the support they need follow them? Whether a child is living in a children’s home or being cared for by a grandparent, aunt, uncle or another family member, we must not allow administrative boundaries to become barriers to accessing the right support. That leaves me with four questions for the Minister, who as I said is standing in for the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington, who I know is doing a lot of work in this area. First, what steps are the Government taking to ensure local authorities meet their existing statutory duty to notify receiving authorities when placing children out of area, and to identify where that duty is not being met? Secondly, how are the Government working with health partners to improve the sharing of information when a child moves, so that their clinical history, existing treatment and crisis support arrangements can follow them and the services can plan ahead? Thirdly, how will the Government ensure that their regulatory and inspection framework provides effective oversight of children’s homes, so that the care and supervision children are promised is the care they actually receive? Finally, as the Government expand placement capacity and roll out regional care co-operatives—a very welcome development to my mind—how will they ensure that these reforms improve not just the availability of placements, but the co-ordination among local authorities, children’s homes and health services? I began by talking about the clinicians at West Chadsmoor NHS clinic, and I will end by returning to them. They see children who have already faced more disruption to their young lives than most of us can even imagine. They want to give those children the stability, understanding and care that they deserve, and the least we should expect of the system that supports them is that it gives those professionals the information and co-operation they need to do that. A child should not have to experience a crisis before the services around them realise that support has fallen away; a family should not have to become an expert in local government responsibilities before it can access help; and a local authority boundary should never become a barrier to a child’s wellbeing. I recognise that the Government are taking steps to address the shortage of placements. The £560 million investment in children’s homes and foster care, alongside the roll-out of regional care co-operatives, is intended to help to create more suitable places closer to where children live. That matters, because the best way to manage the challenges of out-of-area placements is, wherever possible, to avoid placing children so far away in the first place. When children do need to move, we must ensure that their care and support move with them. I welcome the steps that this Government are taking to increase placement capacity, strengthen the system and improve how services work together. The investment in children’s homes and foster care provides an opportunity for us to ensure that more children can be cared for closer to home. My ask is that, as this work progresses, we keep the experience of the child at its centre. That means pushing local authorities to share information, health services being able to plan ahead, and clear accountability for ensuring that the support a child needs is actually there. Every child in care deserves stability, safety and the chance to thrive, wherever they are placed. I look forward to working with the Minister to ensure that the Government’s reforms deliver those outcomes for children in Staffordshire and across the country.
It is good to hear that Ofsted is adapting and growing its inspection regime to reflect the fact that many children’s homes are opening, and the variation in practice seems quite large. Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister for children and families to look into whether Ofsted’s capacity to carry out inspections matches the growth in children’s homes in certain parts of the country, such as mine? We are seeing rapid growth in a short space of time. We need to make sure that the situation does not run away from us in those areas, and to avoid poorer practice in areas where there are not as many inspectors as we need.
About 13 million people have been displaced in Sudan, but they are far from safe. Earlier this month, a drone strike near one of the displacement centres in Blue Nile killed 31 people, mostly women and children. This is the world’s biggest humanitarian disaster. Where are the protests on the streets? Where is the round-the-clock media reporting? Where is the online coverage? Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to raise awareness of that catastrophe and how we can galvanise international action?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this debate on what is undoubtedly a crucial part of our national heritage, especially in the midlands. Cask ale has been part of British life for generations. The skills involved in brewing, conditioning, storing and serving it have been passed down over centuries. Recognising these traditions as intangible cultural heritage would be a fitting acknowledgment of their importance. It is about more than just the beer itself. Pubs are places central to community life. They are places where friendships are made and people come together, and are therefore significant in the fight to reduce loneliness in today’s world. In many rural communities, the village pub is one of the last remaining places where people of all ages and backgrounds can meet. Nowhere is that more apparent than in our local authority area of Derbyshire Dales, where we have around 132 pubs, equivalent to 18.5 pubs per 10,000 residents. Excluding some unusually small local authority areas, that gives us the highest number per capita in the country. Those pubs are enormously important to our visitor economy, supporting jobs not just behind the bar, but in brewing, farming, food production, distribution and hospitality. They encourage visitors to stay longer and spend more money in our local businesses. One excellent example is Thornbridge Brewery in Bakewell. Thornbridge produces some outstanding cask ales, which are enjoyed locally, across the country and internationally. Its riverside brewery and taproom employs more than 100 people, and the taproom is also an important events and live music space. As a former musician myself, I particularly welcome that. Pubs and breweries provide opportunities for emerging artists to perform, develop their skills and find an audience. Their contribution to our cultural life goes well beyond what is in the glass. I welcome the vital steps taken by the Government to support pubs and breweries, including reduced duty on qualifying draft beer and improving small producer relief, but there is more to do. At the autumn Budget in 2024, the Government announced that they would consult on improving access to pubs for smaller breweries, including through greater provision for guest beers. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the conclusions of that work, when it might be published and what measures are being considered to improve market access. As has been said, there is a useful example in Scotland, where the Scottish pubs code provides pub tenants with a route to request a guest beer agreement, allowing them to sell at least one beer of their choosing outside the usual supply arrangements. I encourage the Government to consider introducing a similar provision in England. It could give independent breweries greater access to the market, offer publicans more choice and allow customers to enjoy a wider range of locally produced ales. Recognising cask ale as intangible cultural heritage would be a positive step, but recognition should be accompanied by practical measures to safeguard the breweries, pubs and skilled workers who keep that heritage alive. Our pubs are not simply businesses; they are part of the fabric of our communities, our economy and our national identity. They are worth celebrating and protecting.
Regarding social landlords reassessing the use of their stock, does the Minister agree that there needs to be more focus on the needs of disabled members of our community? My constituent Keeley Callan came to see me on Friday. She is disabled, and I would argue she is actually disabled by the social housing system because she has been waiting for at least five years to move into her own accommodation. That is totally unacceptable, given her equal rights to housing in law. Will the Minister briefly reflect on that as he sums up?
On imports, the hon. Lady might be touching on one of the really important topics for the farming community, which is the huge power of the supermarket chains in setting prices. Farm-gate prices are clearly making it very difficult for farmers to earn the decent living that they so deserve. Does she agree that the Government should absolutely take on board some of the comments by Baroness Batters on that, and do everything they can to ensure that farmers get a fair price and that competition works not just in the interests of the supermarkets, but in those of our farmers?
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will he join me in praising Ben Brook, the chief fire officer in Warwickshire, and his firefighting and administrative teams for their brave efforts this summer? In July, there were 771 incidents, which is the highest number on record—double the rate in July 2021. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will do all they can to provide the fire service in Warwickshire with the resources it needs, and will offer help with reaching out to the public about the parts of his statement to do with their involvement in resilience?
I wish we did not have to be here debating this Bill today—first and foremost because we are doing so largely due to the Grenfell Tower fire, more than nine years ago. It is right that we again remember the 72 who lost their lives in an entirely avoidable fire, and recognise the suffering that the bereaved, survivors and Grenfell community in my constituency continue to endure. I place on record my thanks to the Prime Minister for his commitment, at Prime Minister’s questions two weeks ago, to work with me every day for justice for the victims. I also thank the Secretary of State for her determination to find solutions across Government that will implement the Grenfell inquiry recommendations and make necessary changes to how our state functions, including on building safety. Our hope and expectation is that those responsible will face the full force of the law by May next year, when the Crown Prosecution Service makes its charging decisions on the 20 organisations and 54 individuals passed to it by the Metropolitan police. While we wait, almost 10 years on, for justice through criminal accountability, we must also pursue justice through meaningful change in policies, laws and culture. That is how I approach the Bill. The second reason I wish we were not here is that I believe many of the provisions in the Bill should have been enacted a long time ago and, at very least, should have been part of the Building Safety Act 2022. How is it that, in a similar timeframe since Grenfell, the state of Victoria in Australia has completed works on 99% of the 1,600 buildings that needed remediation, while we have completed only 39% of 4,724 identified buildings? More have not even been assessed, which is something the Bill tries to address. In 2020, Victoria passed a law setting up a group that assessed all buildings over three storeys, identified those at risk using a common state-prescribed standard and then paid for the work via an up-front fund, in part capitalised by developer contributions.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Residents who raised concerns were ignored, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea made a decision to cut costs that resulted in the contract that ended up being a major contributory factor in what happened. I have not had the chance to say this on the record, but I am pleased that one of the individuals involved in that is no longer at the Barnet tenant management organisation. That decision was wrong, and it has been corrected. I am glad that that has been done. In short, in Victoria the government stepped in and put homeowners and residents first. In this country, the previous Government took a market-based approach that has comprehensively failed to deliver remediation in a timely way. Why? It is because, for too long, the British state has been too passive in the face of this problem, relying on private developers to come up with the answers while millions of people suffer the consequences. The British state’s response to the cladding scandal has exposed many of the weaknesses that this Government want to fix: unaccountable power, opaque ownership and a shirking of responsibility; penny-wise cost cutting that stores up massive costs in the future; and a lack of public control over the basics of life, including housing. I hope that the Bill will contribute to that effort by creating more jeopardy for those delaying remediation and more options to finally fix every building that needs it, but the work to make buildings safe must continue even while we debate the Bill. Existing powers such as remediation orders and remediation contribution orders can be useful tools if Ministers provide a hands-on grip on the crisis by co-ordinating local remediation plans, creating national standards and ensuring that tomorrow’s Budget continues to fund the Department to get the work moving now. We need belatedly to shift to a “fix first and fast” model based on risk, as the Secretary of State said, leveraging all existing avenues to get work started.
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. At the very least, there needs to be independent scrutiny of these assessments so that people can feel reassured that someone is checking whether they pass muster. It should be about the whole of the building being made safe—I think the Secretary of State referred to that. Cladding defects are an extremely important component, but there are internal fire defects that also need to be assessed, which have contributed to rising costs. I welcome the remediation backstop in the Bill that will give Homes England and local authorities the power to step in, but that should not only be a tool of last resort. It should be something that gets the system moving as quickly as possible, because leaseholders in particular have ended up shouldering the burden in recent years. To give one example—others have already spoken about leaseholders they represent—residents at Shaftesbury Place in Earl’s Court approached me in 2024 after receiving huge increases in their service charge, driven by a disputed fire risk assessment which led to a massive spike in insurance premiums for the building from £15,000 a year to £310,000. The following year it went to £375,000. For one leaseholder, their annual bill for the insurance went from £269 to £4,146. The landlord, Notting Hill Genesis, which is in a shared ownership scheme, told leaseholders that the insurance rise was linked to a fire risk assessment that it had commissioned, but residents disputed it alongside the classification of the building as high-rise. In fact, it had even miscalculated the number of storeys in the building when it did the assessment, which obviously undermined confidence in that assessment. The Building Safety Regulator later agreed and removed the building from the high-rise register. Until recently, several residents were still receiving legal threats about the non-payment of those charges, causing them huge worry and anxiety—let alone their concerns about the value of their investment in the shared ownership scheme.
My experience from this case corroborates what my hon. Friend says. I met the Association of British Insurers, and the scheme it introduced subsequently kicked in and has in the last year brought down the buildings insurance, but only by about half—certainly not to anywhere near what it used to be. I hope that Ministers can look at insurance when thinking about protecting leaseholders from higher costs. The end of the story for the building is that, following pressure from me and my team and from organisers in the building, Notting Hill Genesis has finally agreed to reimburse all the residents. It will repay the difference in the increase for the past several years. I thank Thomas, Hamid, Ian and all the other residents in that building for their work. That is just one example of what is happening in building after building across the country. I welcome the Bill in the sense that it is an opportunity to fix some of the flaws left by the previous Government and to create a better system, including through the register, a consistent approach to external walls in fire risk assessments, and by listening to campaigners across the country, such as End Our Cladding Scandal, who have helped to give a voice to those most affected. I know that they will have the ear of the Secretary of State and Ministers as the Bill continues its passage. Clearly, one element at the heart of the Bill is who should pay. I agree that it is high time that the construction product manufacturers who contributed to the cause of this crisis should pay towards resolving it. I really welcome part 5 of the Bill, which strengthens and extends provisions in the Building Safety Act on retrospective liability for cladding products, and the Secretary of State’s announcement today on the Government’s intention to go further. The Grenfell inquiry found that companies including Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex engaged in systematic dishonesty and deliberate manipulation of testing that misled buyers into thinking their products were safe. It is extraordinary that, aside from their payments into a civil settlement, these companies have not paid towards resolving a crisis of their making. In Arconic’s case, its civil settlement was overwhelmingly covered by its insurance and was dwarfed by the payment it made to its own shareholders in compensation. It is clearly not right that leaseholders, taxpayers and even the developer levy should shoulder the bulk of the costs, while companies such as Arconic do not. That is yet another reason that they should be nowhere near public contracts and supply chains, especially while criminal investigations are ongoing. I know the Secretary of State is committed to working across Government to use every procurement power the Government have to ensure that that is not happening, and I will fully support her in that goal. I also look forward to the new system of construction products regulation being implemented, with consistent safety standards and a single products regulator under the Building Safety Regulator; that will make a big difference. I am glad that protection from costs for leaseholders has been discussed in the Bill and the debate so far. They are not responsible for this crisis, yet they are the ones picking up the bill in far too many cases. I hope these new powers will give local remediation efforts such as the London Joint Remediation Partnership Board an extra tool to do the building-by-building analysis that cuts through the bureaucracy and delays to find a solution. I am sure that the communities who have enfranchised their buildings or exercised right to manage will be really pleased to hear the announcement today on ensuring that they are protected. We want more leaseholders to take control of their buildings, appoint their own agents and run their own affairs. We will see more in the leasehold Bill soon, and it is right that the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill should provide some consistency in protecting them, too. The building safety crisis has become one of the defining symbols of state failure in the past decade. The entirely avoidable tragedy of Grenfell and the loss of 72 lives should have been a catalyst to making buildings safe as quickly as possible and recovering the costs later. Of course, if we had listened to the coroner after the Lakanal House fire in 2009, not only may it have been possible to prevent the Grenfell fire, but we could have put a halt to new build flats across the country being constructed with cladding that was putting lives at risk. Judge Frances Kirkham said then that approved document B of the building regulations concerning external fire spread, fire-resisting properties and cladding panels should be reviewed. That simply did not happen in the way it should have done, as the public inquiry found. That missed opportunity is devastating for the Grenfell families but it is also devastating for everyone who bought a flat across the country in a building that could have been built or refurbished differently if that recommendation had been implemented. Think of the billions of pounds wasted that could have been invested in building more homes, including social and affordable homes. That is why I will continue to campaign for a national oversight mechanism to ensure that there is independent scrutiny of recommendations of inquests and inquiries, so that change actually happens. I am delighted that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister are supportive of that effort, and I hope we can now make rapid progress towards setting it up. The Prime Minister said something at the homelessness summit on Monday that really resonated with me: “names not numbers”. He was talking about how to best support people off the streets. We need a similar approach to this crisis. Behind every statistic is a family who are stuck, who cannot sell their home, who are worried about the value of their main asset and who have had to take on another job of chasing for answers about when the work will be finished, all while they suffer the anxiety of living in an unsafe building. I hope today marks a shift in approach under a Government who I know are absolutely committed to doing all they can to end this scandal once and for all. The new tools in this Bill will certainly help, and the ones announced at the Dispatch Box today will help even further. With the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the ministerial team providing the leadership that this crisis needs, I am sure we can right the wrongs of the previous approach and deliver the solutions that so many people across the country are crying out for.
Sir Jeremy, it is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship. Across the span of one of England’s largest constituencies, housing, or the lack of it, is one of the main drivers of people coming to my constituency surgeries. It is one of the main drivers of people in desperate need of a place to call home, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) has just movingly set out. It is an issue that needs to be taken far more seriously, not just in this place but across the country. The particular lack of access to affordable and social housing in some of our most rural communities is something that has escaped much of the national debate in recent years. Unfortunately, I must say that the Morpeth Conservatives, who run Northumberland county council, are currently engaged in what I can only describe as an ongoing misinformation exercise about the impact of trying to provide more housing. It is very clear to me that what is needed across Northumberland is appropriate development of the homes that are needed to allow people to build lives and communities, and to keep those communities together and functioning, but also to provide long-term stability to young people growing up in those communities, so that they know they will be able to have a life where they have grown up, should they wish to, rather than growing up with their noses pressed against the windows of communities that they will never be able to be part of because they cannot get a home there. I will not keep colleagues’ attention for too long, but the crucial thing, from where I stand, is delivering those homes in areas where people can have access to them, where they can be rented at a reasonable rate, and, crucially, ensuring that they are not removed from circulation but are accessible to local people, so that those people can work in the pubs, shops and businesses that keep the lifeblood of our communities moving. Without that, we will continue to see younger people forced out of rural communities, forced to leave their families and unable to care for their elderly relatives. That is something that comes up far too often—time and again—in my regular constituency surgeries.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this important debate on the delivery of council housing. I appreciate his passion for the subject following the debate that he brought forward last September on the provision of council housing. I also thank all Members for their rich contributions. They really reflect the challenges that exist across the country. Nearly 180,000 children are in temporary accommodation in this country, and over 1.3 million households are on local authority housing registers. Members across the House will agree that we cannot allow that to continue, because behind every one of those statistics is a person, a family and a child. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Housing Minister and the whole Government are clear on our resolve and intention to tackle the issue. We are also clear that councils have a leading role to play. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Government are committed to delivering the biggest council house building programme since the post-war period. That level of ambition is necessary because of the scale of the challenge that we are facing. This Government are removing barriers and backing councils to use all the levers at their disposal to deliver safe and decent homes at a scale not seen for decades. We have taken decisive steps to improve councils’ financial resources, capacity and capability to invest in new and existing homes, and the social and affordable homes programme funding is putting councils at the heart of that delivery. It is the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable homes in recent memory. Initial allocations under the programme were announced in August and, for the first time, three councils outside of London—Newcastle, Eastleigh and Cambridge—were awarded strategic partnership status. The Greater London Authority has also offered allocations of at least £6 billion to providers of social and affordable housing, with 60% going to local councils.
Leeds city council is ambitious for its city and is a key member of the West Yorkshire combined authority. It is doing a lot of work, not just on housing but on bringing forward brownfield sites through growth and infrastructure funding to make sure that, as many Members have said, housing goes alongside that wider community infrastructure. In addition to the funding that I have just mentioned, over £21 billion is still to allocate, which will be prioritised for social homes, particularly council homes. That reflects our commitment to increasing council house delivery. To further improve financial capacity, deliver new supply and invest in existing homes, we have committed to a 10-year social housing rent policy with a convergence mechanism. That gives councils much needed certainty on their income to enable them to increase and manage their housing portfolios efficiently and effectively.
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about the different approaches across the UK and how we can all learn from each other on what works, as well as learn from the areas where it perhaps did not go quite as planned. I will make sure that I pass his comments on to the Housing Minister to have conversations across Governments. We have also provided greater certainty on future costs associated with the decent homes standard and the minimum energy efficiency standards. We have allocated more than £1 billion through the warm homes social housing fund to improve the energy efficiency of social homes. Quality matters, as rightly outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury). In addition to revenue, we know how important borrowing and the capacity to borrow are for councils’ delivery plans. Since 2023, a preferential borrowing rate has been available from the Public Works Loan Board for council house building. This rate will be extended and we will be announcing more details in due course. We continue to work closely with councils and the wider sector to understand the remaining barriers to council house building and investment, including the impact of the housing revenue account debt and borrowing rates. We have also increased the threshold at which councils must open a housing revenue account from 200 homes to 1,000 homes. That is enabling small councils to deliver more homes without incurring additional operating costs. We have also heard from councils that workforce shortages, skills gaps and capacity pressures will constrain their abilities to build. That is why we are investing a further £46 million over the next three years through capacity to build funding, on top of the £17 million already invested since 2025. That will help councils develop an ambitious pipeline, strengthen specialist housing capacity and make the most of the Government’s wider investment in council house building. These gaps have been identified by Members in the debate today, including the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Joe Morris), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham). Finally, we are taking decisive action to reform the right-to-buy scheme, which has acted as a break on council confidence to invest in new social housing for too long. We are reforming the scheme to ensure that more homes are built than lost, while maintaining an important route for social housing tenants to own their own homes, which was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). My right hon. Friend the Housing Minister is at this very moment in the Bill Committee, debating the detail of our reforms. The Social Housing Bill builds on the reforms to cash discounts that we implemented in 2024 to ensure that more social homes are protected, while removing powerful disincentives to build. Notably, we are tightening the eligibility requirements and exempting newly built social housing from the scheme for 35 years to ensure that homes are not sold before councils have recovered their investment.