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
The Foreign Secretary and I represent communities 15 miles apart—decent, hard-working people who are finding life very tough at the moment. In that context, how would he justify to working people and pensioners spending £6 billion on foreign aid while freezing the tax-free personal allowance and cutting the state pension? <em>[Interruption.]</em>
It is bad enough that dangerous criminals are being released early, but my constituents are frankly terrified that <span id="182" class="column-number" data-column-number="182"></span>these prisoners are being released without tags—the world has gone mad, Minister. Will this Government commit not to release prisoners without tags?
Will the Minister please tell the House how many people who should be wearing an electronic tag are wandering around our communities with no electronic device fitted at all? That should be a simple question.
The Lord Chancellor recently addressed Napo’s conference—I was listening in, as I was speaking afterwards—and <span id="184" class="column-number" data-column-number="184"></span>he told probation officers, “Without you, our criminal justice system does not work.” However, Napo is presently balloting its members on strike action following failed negotiations with the Government for a pay rise after decades of pay stagnation. Does the Minister agree that technology cannot replace dedicated probation officers and that they need the proper pay, proper conditions and proper workloads to be able to do their jobs properly?
<Question HRSContentId="{DD1F9CCE-9FA8-49B6-AEA1-63222486910E}">7. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{F6CFA1D8-9C48-479A-A71E-A3CBB05EF429}">What support his Department is providing to Afghan women and girls. </QuestionText></Question>
During Evidence Week, I met Dr Sara Polo to discuss violence against women and girls in conflict areas, including Afghanistan. Although many aspects of the national action plan on women, peace and security are encouraging, academics such as Dr Polo have pointed out that there are areas for improvement, such as including victims of non-sexual violence in NAP initiatives. What discussions has the Minister had with academics about the NAP, and how can academics engage further?
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) talked about the impact on children, but there is also a significant impact on reproductive facilities, which means that there are more miscarriages and more children dying at birth. Effectively, it is the erasing of the next generation in Gaza. That must surely constitute a war crime. How are the Government working with international partners to ensure the future of Gaza, given the threat of there being no children?
The issue of electronic monitoring does not concern only those on early release. Michele, a victim of domestic abuse, has a restraining order against her ex-partner until 2036 that the police say he is regularly breaching. Ten days after his release, she contacted me for the fourth time to say that he still did not have a tag. As we went into half term, she said: “I’ve not left my house all week. The children can’t go out in half term. We don’t feel safe.” The liaison officers know that a breach is going to happen again, and family members are now staying with her, one at a time, to make sure she is not alone. I totally understand the January deadline—there are a lot of people to deal with—but will the Minister make a commitment that serial victims of domestic abuse will be prioritised so that children do not have to look over their shoulder?
Although this Bill is specifically about the remediation of cladding, this issue goes further. Building control is typically undertaken or at least instructed by the local <span id="231" class="column-number" data-column-number="231"></span>planning authority, and is now instructed and employed by the developers. When my constituents Trisha and Ray moved into their new build in Wimborne, they found that the structural issues in their property had not been independently signed off. They have now found that no one has access to the structural drawings of their building other than the inspector, so when they had problems with their roof, the council had no details, they could not access details and they could not check compliance. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for the protection of residents, an ethical wall needs to be created between developers and inspectors, with proper enforcement and mandatory Housing Ombudsman Service membership for developers?
We support closing this gap. Given that the test is an issue of the Home Secretary’s judgment, rather than of a conviction, and that it applies to past conduct, it would be helpful if the Minister can give reassurances. Given how serious and huge the power will be, some sort of reporting mechanism will help us to understand how often it might be used and how many people fall under it.
I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we have published a report on accountability for Daesh war crimes. Included in that report was the fact that the UK Government use their powers to strip citizenship more than almost any other country in the world, and in a way that has often been described as not particularly transparent. Could I press the Minister to go further on the reporting mechanisms that we need to see if we have this new clause and also existing Government citizenship stripping?
The hon. Lady is being incredibly generous with her time, as ever. She will recall that the Defence Secretary told families last weekend to be ready for potential shocks that might come our way. Does she agree that, given what she was just saying, the UK as a whole needs to be far more ready to become food secure? Only 60% of the food that we eat here is produced across our four <span id="111WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="111WH"></span>nations. Is it not the job of all four Governments in this country—the three devolved ones and the UK Government—to ensure that we have farm payment schemes that encourage the production of food, so that we can become food secure?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
It is on a matter relating to one of the questions.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Foreign Office questions earlier today, the Minister for International Development, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill), answered a question from the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). I have informed both Members that I would be mentioning them. They spoke about the matter of returning Eritrean asylum seekers to Eritrea, and of conversations between the Foreign Office and the Eritrean Government. At no point during their exchange was it remarked upon that Eritrea is widely regarded as the North Korea of Africa, and that under its murderous dictator, Isaias Afwerki, it has become the fifth most dangerous place on planet Earth to be a Christian or a member of any other minority faith. What can we do to ensure that the Minister and her officials are aware of these facts and come before the House to explain the extent of these conversations with the Eritrean regime, given that it would be an act of extreme wickedness to return any asylum seeker from Eritrea to Eritrea?
It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on getting this debate. It is brilliant that we are sitting here this morning and recognising the production and serving of cask ale as intangible cultural heritage. Intangible cultural heritage is about the traditions and skills that are passed down through the generations that have shaped our communities. The UK’s cultural heritage is a national treasure. Our creative and tourism industries contribute billions of pounds to the economy. The latest research from Historic England is very clear: the heritage sector contributed £15 billion to the economy in 2022. Pubs are at the heart of our communities. They provide much, much more than somewhere to have a pint—and in my case, a good old-fashioned Somerset ploughman’s with a decent chunk of Cheddar cheese. I am not a drinker, but I do appreciate hugely the people who work in the industry in my part of Somerset. It would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to mention some of the cask ale producers in my part of Somerset. They include Butcombe brewery, which is located a little outside my constituency, but has three pubs within it. There is Badgworth Brewhouse and the Cross brewery, which is based at the White Hart Inn in Cross near Axbridge, which I had the pleasure of opening a short number of months ago. Cheddar Ales is probably known across the nation because it is stocked so frequently in many of our supermarkets, as well as our best pubs, and we have the Bason Bridge Brewing Company and the Beer Shed. Several of those locations are places where I have run my surgeries in the past, and I thank the publicans for the support that they have offered. Pubs bring people together and help tackle isolation, which is particularly key in a very rural area like mine. They carry a lot of history and help our culture. Brewers and pubs are struggling. When a pub closes, community cohesion is weakened significantly, so we need to make sure we support the tradition. I ask the Government to make sure that they listen to people and communities, uphold the traditions and ensure they are supported so that they can continue and be shared for generations to come.<span id="67WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="67WH"></span> At a time when cask ale faces challenges, the Government should consider how its cultural significance and the skills associated with its production can be supported and recognised. The craft sector alone contributes thousands of jobs every year and over £400 million annually. Cask ale represents one of Britain’s most distinctive brewing traditions. Unlike filtered or pasteurised beers, it is a living product that continues to mature and develop flavour after it has left the brewery. The beer undergoes secondary fermentation in the vessel from which it is served, and each brewery’s unique yeast, creating natural carbonisation and complexity, cannot be replicated through industrial processes. It is unique. It involves a high level of skill both in brewing and in the cellar. I am aware that the Government were asked to recognise the production and serving of cask ale as an intangible cultural heritage under e-petition 716686, which closed on 1 October 2025 and had a marvellous 41,026 signatures. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said it would welcome a submission from the cask ale community to the UK inventory. Cask ale would be included if the submission met the criteria. The United Kingdom ratified the 2003 UNESCO convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage on 7 March 2024. We became the 183rd state to join UNESCO’s convention, which came into force on 7 June 2024. UNESCO’s convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage recognises traditional craftsmanship, oral traditions and expressions, social practices, festive events, knowledge and practices related to nature and the universe. To this end, the UK Government launched their public consultation in January 2024 on the creation of a new register, on to which communities across the country could nominate their most cherished local traditions. In 2016, UNESCO inscribed beer culture in Belgium on the representative list of intangible cultural heritage of humanity. We Lib Dems would like some of that, please, Minister. As passionate supporters of craft beer and brewers and the publicans who pull the pints, I would be delighted if the Minister could recognise the passion, love, commitment and contribution to the community of good brewing and good beer—enjoyed so often, as I said, with a ploughman’s—and back the campaign.
I applaud what the Secretary of State is doing. However, would it not be sensible to stop the business of fire engineers, paid for by the building owners, using PAS 9980 to sign off dangerous cladding as acceptable, so that assessments confirm that buildings meet building regulations?
<Question HRSContentId="{DF9D756E-BBD1-4147-9DF5-9D8345DE7918}">T6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{D1B27F33-428F-4DB4-B655-1BBF05662D6A}"></QuestionText>Canada is now part of the EU’s €150 billion fund to rearm Europe while British firms are stuck on third country terms. Will the Minister prioritise joining that fund as part of a wider growth and defence partnership so that British firms can compete on equal terms with European firms?</Question>
The hon. Member is making a most informed speech. In North Norfolk I have heard from several families whose children cannot get, or have struggled to get, access to specialist settings. Children must travel further from home in rural areas, which is tougher for them and increases the transport bill. Does the hon. Member agree we need to do much more to ensure that children and families in rural communities can access specialist support when they need it?
To go back to the Minister’s point about partnership working, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) talked about health visitors, rurality, schools, transport and the impact on work—those are five Departments. In a previous life, she and I met and discussed the need to shake things up in Westminster and rewire Government so that it works for people and not within silos. Does she agree that this is a classic example of how the Government need to change the way they work so that they can serve humans and not processes?
I start by adding my voice to the tributes paid by the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) to the victims and survivors of the Grenfell disaster. I will not forget waking up that morning and seeing that appalling tragedy unfolding on our television screens; many people across London will have felt the same. I welcome the Government’s attempts to ensure that such a tragedy does not happen again, but it is almost unbelievable that nine years later we are debating this particular bit of legislation in our collective effort to ensure that buildings can be made safe. Like the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022, the Bill is a step in the right direction, but—again—it does not go far enough. As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who is no longer in her place, has raised repeatedly, the PAS 9980 regime, which allows a fire engineer chosen and paid for by the building owner to declare dangerous cladding tolerable and decide that no work is required, will remain in place. Would hon. Members in this House feel reassured if a fire engineer paid for by a building’s owner declared the cladding in their block of flats to be “tolerable”? The anger that followed the Grenfell disaster was directed towards those in power who repeated the sentiments that officials had known about the dangers posed by unsafe cladding but did not care enough to act. Much of the feeling was that the people in Grenfell and others who lived in council housing did not matter enough for serious action to be taken to prevent such a disaster. That speaks to a wider issue that we in the House all need to work to address: accessibility to safe and secure housing. New high-rise homes must be built with materials that do not burn. If combustible cladding is considered too dangerous for new high-rise homes, what reassurances does that provide to people living in “tolerable” levels of danger? That should not be our benchmark. All Londoners should be entitled to housing of a standard that is higher than tolerable.<span id="244" class="column-number" data-column-number="244"></span> In March 2026, the Government announced a new package of support for house building in London, which provided temporary relief from developer levies. However, BusinessLDN has highlighted that the costs associated with the community infrastructure levy relief included in the package would be offset in effect by the additional costs from the building safety levy in more than a third of cases. I welcome the Government’s intent to remediate building safety defects via the building safety levy, but the two policies seem to contradict each other. Just this morning, a headline in the <em>Financial Times</em><em> </em>read, “Labour's housebuilding target effectively dead’. We should not be deciding between building houses and building safe housing. If the Government’s assessment is that housing developments are being stalled in London due to costs, does more need to be done to incentivise developments following the introduction of the building safety levy? I would be grateful if in winding up the Minister could reflect on what the Bill’s measures on manufacturers and developers of construction products providing some of the costs towards remediating cladding mean for the building safety levy and the particular stress that is placing on house building in London.
The Foreign Secretary mentions people running the risk of the full force of the sanctions regime, given the new powers that the Government have to sanction companies funding and building illegal settlements. The E1 tenders will open on 19 November. Will he commit to sanctioning those companies bidding before that date, not once the bulldozers arrive?
Firms such as Thales in Templecombe, Needles and Pins Aerospace in Somerton and Leonardo in Yeovil are at the heart of a Somerset aerospace and advanced engineering sector, yet Britain remains outside the SAFE defence fund. Will the Minister commit to securing UK participation in SAFE and any successor fund on fair terms so that our defence firms and the communities that depend on them are not left behind?
I thank my fellow co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on farming for giving way. The bottom line is that SEND provision in rural areas is only as good as a child’s ability to reach it. Would the hon. Member agree?
The Government are right to talk about national resilience and preparedness—about where we keep our torches, among other things. I do not wish to catastrophise, but national resilience starts with something fundamental: producing food. That means supporting our farmers. Does the Minister agree that if food is not being produced, this country will quickly discover how fragile resilience really is?
Before I speak about the Bill and wider issues in the construction industry, let me say that my thoughts and prayers are with the loved ones of the 72 people who lost their lives in the Grenfell fire. Earlier today the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee was carrying out a review of fire and rescue services, and, unsurprisingly, building safety and Grenfell were covered., I appreciate that the Bill focuses on building and construction practices—among other issues—and not really on fire services, but I was surprised and disappointed to hear earlier today from the head of His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services that it had not been consulted about it at all. Firefighters put their lives in danger to cope with and tackle the failures in the construction industry, and I hope that the Minister will agree to consult the inspectorate on the Bill to ensure that any amendments are approved by it. That would also give the inspectorate an opportunity to suggest amendments.<span id="235" class="column-number" data-column-number="235"></span> My constituency of Woking has been plagued by three big building safety and construction issues. In 2023, 100 residents of the Eastgate building in Woking were evacuated from their homes after structural defects were found. To this day, Eastgate stands empty—a visual reminder of how our building safety system has failed. Southern Housing, which manages Eastgate, says that it is structurally unsafe, and Barratt, which built it, says that it is safe. After the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and I became involved last year, independent testing was carried out, and I am grateful to the Government for supporting me in that effort. The new testing on the building was completed many months ago, but the results have still not been released. There is no way that both sides can be right in that situation. I do not know what they are hiding, but this needs to be resolved immediately. Residents deserve to know what is going on. Either residents need to be allowed back in, or the developer needs to rebuild Eastgate and pay compensation. Will the Minister meet me and force the results of the testing to be released? Sadly, Woking’s building safety issues and construction failures go beyond our homes. The Victoria Square development, which is a new shopping centre with residential towers and a hotel, was built by Sir Robert McAlpine several years ago. It was due to open in October 2020, but following problems with broken cladding fixtures on the Hilton hotel, it finally opened four years after that. The main A road that goes through Woking town centre had to repeatedly close due to the cladding failures, and this caused significant financial losses to local businesses and residents. Thankfully, the road has now reopened, and the cladding panels have been properly secured. Under the common law on negligence, purely economic losses are not recoverable. The formerly Conservative-run borough council could have ensured that this was covered through contract law, but it did not do so. Why is that not standard practice for building projects? Will the Minister amend the Bill, so that any losses consequent on dangerous cladding failures, such as those experienced by businesses and residents in Woking, are paid for by developers like Sir Robert McAlpine? There is one final building safety issue in Woking that I wish to speak about, and it involves the estate where I grew up. Lakeview in Goldsworth Park is made up of mainly four-storey maisonettes. Woking borough council recently discovered that the cladding is dangerous, and quickly took steps to make it as safe as possible. The council created a plan for a comprehensive refurbishment and a long-term solution to the cladding problems on the estate. I congratulate and thank the council, especially the portfolio holder for housing, Councillor Ian Johnson, and the strategic director for housing, Louise Strongitharm, for their tireless work on this issue. Although we are getting the right result in Lakeview, what happened on my old estate shows why we as a country need to take building safety much more seriously, and need to agree to legislative changes. Most properties in Lakeview are council homes, but there are almost 100 privately owned leasehold properties in the area. Leaseholders will be charged for the refurbishment but, quite rightly, not for the cladding works. That construction work and refurbishment is planned to start in early January. If it was a private development, leaseholders would slowly pay into a sinking fund, but local authorities <span id="236" class="column-number" data-column-number="236"></span>are banned from running such a fund. Will the Minister not only lift the ban on local authorities having a sinking fund, but mandate them to have one, so that what happened to leaseholders in Lakeview does not happen again? Those three examples from Woking show that this Bill does not go far or fast enough, and it is not fit for purpose. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) said, we will not support it, but we will propose more amendments, to ensure that we genuinely tackle all the building safety issues facing Woking and constituencies across the country.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Clause 35 will allow nominated public authorities to make reasonable <span id="391" class="column-number" data-column-number="391"></span>and conclusive grounds decisions in relation to children. That has been welcomed by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, who notes, as the Minister did, that this has “been successfully piloted and has demonstrated stronger identification and support where local authority partners such as social care workers can contribute to decision-making.” My party consequently supports clause 35.
Under section 61 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, a person is entitled to a minimum 30-day recovery period from the day on which they receive a positive reasonable grounds decision. Clause 37 amends section 61 so that, in the event that a person receives a negative conclusive grounds decision within the 30-day period, the recovery period and its associated protections come to an end. It also makes similar provision enabling an equivalent outcome with regard to any additional recovery period under section 62. This cliff edge risks placing vulnerable people in the way of future harm. A report published by the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre, led by the University of Oxford, describes the overturn rate of negative NRM decisions as extremely high. Such decisions are not perfect, and removing the recovery period for those with a negative decision means that people who have been trafficked will, in many cases, face being left without protection. The statistics are stark. Since 2023, the proportion of reconsidered decisions that turn positive has been higher than the proportion of initial positive decisions at the reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds stages. At the reasonable grounds stage, positive outcomes after reconsideration ran between 62% and 82% between 2021 and 2025, while initial positive rates fell as low as 53% in 2024. Between January 2021 and June 2025, of those won a reconsideration of a negative reasonable grounds decision, 646—or 70% of that group—went on to get a positive conclusive grounds decision, too. I ask the Minister to reflect on those figures and explain why she wants to continue with this cliff edge. I call upon the Government not to pursue clause stand part.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak to my own amendment 104, as well as amendment 9, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I agree with the Opposition that amendment 104 is about seeking clarity from the Government around how a rural area would be designated. I welcome the Government amendments tabled since the publication of the Bill that hand more power to local authorities to determine the designation. Amendment 104 would provide some certainty regarding what classification could be used in that determination. What decision-making process would the Minister use to arrive at a designation whereby he has the power to make regulations for a rural area? On amendment 9, as a party we believe that social housing is a crucial element of a settled society and protecting that stock is a must. That is why we support the overall objectives of the Bill, but we seek to go further than what the Government have currently legislated for by ensuring that community-led housing is included in the prohibition on losing stock to the private market. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, who represents west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, has tabled amendment 9.
No, it wasn’t.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for speaking to amendment 104. In the light of Government amendment 13 and the commitments we have just had from the Front Bench, I would be happy not to press my amendment to a vote.
On amendment 98 and the consultation, have the right hon. Member and the Opposition considered whether, if a local authority felt it had not been consulted, that would open up a legal route to delay the allocation of capital financing and therefore slow down the growth of house building?
I beg to move amendment 102, in clause 12, page 11, line 24, at end insert— “(1A) In the case of a dwelling— (a) in a designated rural area, or (b) with four bedrooms or more, condition D also applies.” <em>This amendment, along with Amendment 103, would require written consent from a local authority for the sale of certain social housing properties.</em>
Before I begin my remarks on amendment 102, I declare an interest: my wife works for a social housing provider. I apologise to the Committee for not declaring that before my earlier contribution. Amendment 102 is a simple amendment that would protect larger homes within social housing stock. It refers to designated rural areas, which the Committee covered during earlier consideration, but also to homes with four or more bedrooms. The reason for that is simple: of all our social housing stock, larger homes are the most precious commodity.<span id="38" class="column-number" data-column-number="38"></span> We know that the social housing market makes up 48% of properties that are considered overcrowded in the UK. If we look at Merton or Westminster council, for example, there is a 90 to 99-year wait for a three or more bed property; if we go north to Rochdale, about 550 families there were registered for a four-bed home, but only 14 became available in a year; if we go to Bath in the west of the country, an officer there said that, in principle, a family could be on the register for a four-bed for over 200 years, and added that four-beds are popular under right to buy but are also expensive to build. When you add those comments to our ambition to ensure that overcrowding impacts as few people as possible, making four-bed or larger homes exempt means that we protect the homes we really need. Amendment 101 is similar to a previous amendment, which went into more detail. It would make sure that each community land trust that provided social housing was also given notice of a sale. It would expand the remit of who is notified, so that if providers were willing to take up those social homes when they were being disposed of, we would retain them in some sort of community ownership.
The Government do not accept that there is a compelling case to extend the period to 12 weeks for rural areas, but an organisation may be looking to buy a property in an area of outstanding natural beauty or where there is no hard-wired infrastructure. Does the Minister not accept that more consideration needs to be given when taking on a social home in a rural area than in a well-developed town, and that someone in that situation should be given longer—on top of what the Government have already graciously accepted—to go through the sale and make sure they have all their ducks in a row and can convert the property however they might want to under restrictive planning laws?
I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington and appreciate the Minister’s commitment to go away and reflect on them. May I just add a plea? There is concern, when stock is being disposed of in local communities, that the community does not know what is going on. Having disposal notifications published online would not just allow the sector to know what is going on, but allow the local community to know what is going on with its housing stock.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. <em>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.</em> <em>Amendment proposed</em>: 99, in clause 12, page 11, line 35, at end insert— “(2A) Condition AA is that a copy of any notice given in relation to the relevant sale is published on the registered provider’s website.”—<em>(Mr Dillon.)</em> <em>Question put, </em>That the amendment be made.
My wife works for a social housing provider. Clause 12 Restriction on certain sales of social housing by private registered providers <em>Amendment proposed (this day)</em>: 2, in clause 12, page 12, line 5, at end insert— <em>“171AA Right of first refusal: local housing authorities</em> (1) This section applies where— (a) a sale notice has been given under section 171A in relation to a dwelling, and (b) the dwelling— (i) is let at social rent, or (ii) was previously transferred from a local housing authority. (2) During the period specified in section 171A(3), the local housing authority for the area in which the dwelling is situated may make an offer to acquire the dwelling. (3) Where an offer is made under subsection (2), the private registered provider must dispose of the dwelling to the local housing authority at existing use value for social housing. (4) A dwelling acquired under this section must be retained as social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of this Act. (5) Any dispute as to the existing use value for social housing shall be determined by an independent valuer appointed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. (6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of this section.”—<em>(Gideon Amos.)</em> <em>This amendment gives local housing authorities a right of first refusal to acquire social rent dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities at existing use value for social housing.</em><span id="50" class="column-number" data-column-number="50"></span> <em>Question again proposed, </em>That the amendment be made.
Yes. <em>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.</em>
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I would like to speak to amendments 100 and 7. Amendment 7, which in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington, really gets to the “what”: what is being offered for disposal, whether it is at social rent and what the energy performance <span id="53" class="column-number" data-column-number="53"></span>certificate rating is. Amendment 100 is a follow-up to that: the “why”. Why is a property being disposed of? Is it for financial viability? Is it because of the cost of retrofit? If we were to collate that data, the Government would be able to reflect on the success of this policy in later years.