Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026
<em>indicated dissent.</em>
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,575 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026
I was formerly a commercial property lawyer, so I want to bring up a practical point about enforcement. The ambition behind the regulations—to make sure that everybody, including tenants, has the information that they need—is positive, but the practical reality is that if they cannot be enforced properly, it will cause problems and delays in the rental sector. I advocate for a pause—that is essential. If information needs to be gathered and uploaded for potentially up to 10,000 properties—an extremely large number—it will probably take a year or more to get that information up. Have we thought through the knock-on impacts? I encourage exercising caution, having seen the practical reality of being on the other side when I was a lawyer back in the day.
- Hansard source
Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026
Will the Minister give way one more time?
- Hansard source
Higher Education Funding
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for tabling this important debate and all Members for their contributions this morning. I have to say that I did not expect to hear quite so much agreement for Margaret Thatcher’s education policies this morning. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for their positivity about that. Let me pick up on the points made by the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey). Although I think we are the same age, he started at Southampton University a year after me, but we have many mutual friends from our time at university. It is worth noting that the changes we experienced as the first cohort that had to pay fees and take on a loan were due entirely to the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, which was snuck through by the new Labour Government and then conveniently forgotten about, in a time where social media did not exist. I dread to think of the furore if today’s students realised that that was going to happen to them, but I for one, aged 16, thought I was going to university for free, but by the age of 18 that was not the case.
- Hansard source
Higher Education Funding
I am going to make some progress. I do not want to burst the bubble of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), but Plymouth has also had dentistry offered as a subject. Unfortunately, only about 5% of the students are from Plymouth and nearly all of them leave the area, so although we absolutely need more dentistry students, so far that has not quite been the mechanism to solve the crisis that we hope it will be—although that is a debate for another time. To respond to the topic of the debate, let me put it on record that the Opposition recognise the enormous value and significance of the UK’s university sector in terms of its economic and societal contribution. The National Centre for Universities and Businesses argues that the UK’s universities are “one of our greatest strategic assets. They educate the future workforce, conduct world leading research, and act as anchor institutions in their regions—supporting businesses, driving innovation, and powering local growth.” Economically, universities contribute around £265 billion to the UK economy and support more than 800,000 jobs. The return on investment is also staggering. For every £1 of public money invested in the higher education sector across the country, £14 is put back into the economy. In addition, there is no doubt that universities are some of the most critical engines of growth and prosperity at the regional level. As the proud Member of Parliament <span id="153WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="153WH"></span>for South West Devon, I know the huge role that the sector plays across the south-west. We have 10 universities with more than 200,000 students between them, employing more than 31,000 people and contributing £7.8 billion of gross output. Plymouth Marjon University, Arts University Plymouth and the University of Plymouth are certainly playing their part. I am meeting the vice-chancellor of Plymouth University tomorrow to discuss this very topic. Although I unfortunately cannot add any more today, I know that he wants to talk to me about the struggles that the university is facing. Notwithstanding this vital economic contribution, it would be wrong to look at universities purely in terms of their economic output. Universities help to shape the society we all live in. They equip young people with the skills needed to navigate an increasingly fractured society. They teach young people to think critically and outside the box, skills that I believe will be essential in a Britain where communities are more divided than ever and the spectre of the AI revolution looms over us all. It is beyond clear that universities will play a central role in Britain for decades to come. That is our view, but we are not blind to the big challenges facing the sector. It is no secret that real and imminent challenges face the UK’s university sector. A May 2026 report from the Education Committee went so far as to claim that the sector faces a financial crisis that poses a real risk of institutional insolvency. The report laid bare the terrible state of some universities’ finances, with the Office for Students fearing that 24 providers could face insolvency within the next 12 months. Against this uncertain backdrop, universities are being forced to close courses and sell buildings to cut costs and make efficiencies. The difficulties facing universities are explained well in the Policy Exchange report, “Tarnished Towers”. It argues that high inflation, pension pressures and a reduction in international student numbers have created a perfect storm for our universities. It all seems to be compounded by a lack of action from the Government thus far. A Universities UK report from February 2026 found that Government policy decisions will “lead to an estimated £3.7 billion reduction in funding to higher education providers in England from 2024-25 to 2029-30.” Its analysis shows the impact of Government immigration policy, but also the damaging shock that the sector received through increased pension and employment costs. In 2020, Keir Starmer made scrapping university tuition fees the centrepiece of his leadership campaign. Indeed, in June 2023, the previous Education Secretary even had the audacity to claim that graduates would pay less under a Labour Government. Students right across the country felt betrayed and let down by the Government’s broken promises when the previous Education Secretary announced in November 2024 that Labour would push up tuition fees for students. In that debate, the shadow Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), said that she would be willing to work with the Government to support universities and students. His Majesty’s Opposition are yet to be invited to work constructively with the Government on that—indeed, we have heard very little at all from the Government about what they want to do. I hope the Minister can shed some light on the Government’s plans to support our university sector.<span id="154WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="154WH"></span> The new Education Secretary has been keen to talk about her plans to reform technical education, but aside from providing a statement on that issue in the House, we have heard little else. She has not come to the House to clarify when the Government will bring forward the legislation they promised at the King’s Speech to support children with SEND and their families, or to talk about the challenges facing the university sector. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for securing this debate, as it gives His Majesty’s Opposition some time to ask the Minister, whom I respect very much, some important questions about higher education funding. First, can the Minister shed any light on how the Government intend to support the 24 institutions that the Office for Students claimed are at risk of insolvency in the 12 months from May 2026? Secondly, can she confirm whether the Government intend to make any changes to plan 2 student loans? Thirdly, can the Minister tell the Chamber whether she has had any meetings with institutions that might be facing significant financial uncertainty during the remainder of this academic year? Lastly, will the Government rule out pushing up student tuition fees again before the end of this Parliament? His Majesty’s Opposition, the higher education sector and, most importantly, students right across the country need answers to those important questions. Universities need them to begin to develop long-term financial plans, and students need to have certainty about their finances and about the stability of the institution they are studying at and the course they are taking. Regrettably, I hold little hope that the Government have answers to those questions, given the lack of focus that the new Education Secretary seems to have shown to higher education since coming into office. That is in stark contrast to the official Opposition: we have outlined detailed and fully costed plans to lower interest on plan 2 student loans and set out reforms to the university sector to ensure that the Government stop funding dead-end university courses. That is all part of our new deal for young people. I reiterate His Majesty’s Opposition’s firm belief in the strength and value of the UK’s higher education sector; it is indeed a huge strategic asset. However, we must be honest and recognise that it will face huge challenges over the next decade. The digital revolution means that universities need to rethink how they prepare students for the world of work, and they must be open to accepting that they must adapt to stay solvent in the new economic reality. The Government should be there to guide the sector through these turbulent headwinds, but we have seen little indication that they are. The new Education Secretary urgently needs to shed some light on what steps they will take to address some deeply concerning reports about the financial health of our institutions. The Budget is a little over an hour away; I hope that the Chancellor will set out steps to solve these problems, but I hold out little hope.
- Hansard source
Higher Education Funding
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. She mentioned accountability and democracy. As she knows, <span id="202WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="202WH"></span>the Government are currently taking the Representation of the People Bill through Parliament. The Bill rightly tries to encourage increased participation and accountability in our electoral system. Does she share my concern that the role of councillors is undermined by these planning changes, that local people will lose confidence in the democratic checks and balances of local government, and that we therefore may see turnout and participation go down?
- Hansard source
National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this debate, and I welcome the Minister to her position. I have serious concerns about this policy and agenda, and specifically about the future ability of residents to have a meaningful say in the development of their own communities. Now that I am no longer the shadow Housing Minister, I am happy that I can speak about these things in a much freer way than I possibly could at the Dispatch Box, although I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) will be absolutely excellent in his winding up. Like the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover)—he is my hon. Friend, actually—I have very fond memories of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee. I often found myself going home in the evening and thinking, “How could I have agreed so much with the Liberal Democrats?”, but I looked myself in the mirror, had a wash and got over it the next morning.<span id="207WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="207WH"></span> Planning decisions shape our towns and villages for generations to come. They determine where new homes are built, how much pressure is placed on roads, schools and healthcare services, and whether the character of our neighbourhoods is preserved. These decisions have real consequences for the people who live with them every day. It is therefore essential that local residents have a meaningful opportunity to influence them. I say to the Minister that my big concern, which we warned about on the Bill Committee, is that the Government seem ardent on taking those decisions and that influence away from local people. The Government’s proposed approach risks weakening the democratic safeguards that allow communities to have their voices heard. This policy represents a significant shift in the balance between professional planning officers and elected local representatives. One of the most concerning aspects of these reforms is the removal of existing arrangements that allow ward councillors to request committee consideration or that enable an application to be referred automatically when a specified number of objections has been received. Under the new scheme, the volume of objections cannot in itself justify referral to committee. Instead, applications must meet the national criteria, and the nominated officer and nominated councillor must agree that they should be referred. Let us consider what that means for residents who have legitimate concerns about a development in their neighbourhood. They may organise a petition, write detailed objections and encourage their neighbours to participate in the consultation process, yet the strength of their opposition will not in itself guarantee that elected councillors will debate the application in public. Residents retain the right to submit representations, but their ability to secure community scrutiny is restricted. That raises a question: what is the point of encouraging people to participate in local planning consultations if the system provides fewer opportunities for their elected representatives to consider their concerns publicly? If we allow this proposal to go ahead on Saturday, as I suspect it will, many people will ask why they should bother voting for their parish, borough or county councillor. Planning decisions are one of the most public-facing decisions that a councillor makes. Councillors live in their communities. If a housing development is being built round the corner, or if a pub is being closed so that it can be converted into something else, they know what should be referred to their planning committee. That local knowledge is being taken away, so that a faceless officer can make that decision instead. That is not accountable.
- Hansard source
National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions
I absolutely agree. Councils are going through a process to develop a local plan. Alongside officers, they will know which applications should be capable of being called in if a local plan is ratified. If <span id="208WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="208WH"></span>there is no local plan and there are small speculative developments happening across a whole constituency, that soon adds up. If the hon. Lady’s councillors are unable to play a massive part in shaping those developments and crafting those developments, it prompts the question: “What do they serve for?” That will be the question resounding across local government this afternoon. A national framework cannot be expected to capture every local nuance. Although the Government argue that the scheme will create greater consistency and allow committees to focus on significant applications, there is a risk that standardisation will come at the expense of local discretion. The desire for consistency should not prevent councils from responding to the particular needs and concerns of their residents. Minor delegations do not mean that planning decisions are any less important. Let me give the Minister an example from my constituency. The Pear Tree inn in Boorley Green is owned by a brewery that wanted to sell off a huge amount of the local play area and car park so that six houses could be built. Local councillors were dead against it. It is the only local pub in the area and is a very valued asset to the local community. Under this scheme, that proposal could not be referred by a ward councillor and could not be debated by ward councillors who represent the community. As the Member of Parliament, I could make a written representation but would not be able to go to a planning committee led by councillors to make that decision. That is fundamentally wrong. Under the current legislation, a parish councillor can submit the pub for consideration as an asset of community value. If an officer had been making that decision without a referral by a ward member, they would not have come to the same decision. Eastleigh borough council’s excellent decision to refuse planning permission was made by its ward councillors, who are elected by the people who live there. I am not against building new homes and nor am I arguing against the expertise of planning officers; I am arguing for development to take place alongside transparency, public participation and democratic accountability. If the Government want communities to support development, they must recognise that people are more likely to have confidence in decisions when they feel their voices have genuinely been heard. Finally, the Government have spoken hugely, including in today’s Budget, about devolution and empowering local people. The Minister will hear no argument against that from me—I hope her Department brings the mayoral elections for Hampshire forward to 2027. However, she cannot have it both ways; she cannot devolve to local people, while taking away some of the most retail decisions that councils and locally elected people make on behalf of those people—giving with one hand while taking with the other. That is a topsy-turvy world that will cause the Government huge issues, prompting resentment from local people about the public participation processes they are expected to undertake, particularly with mayoral elections. I appreciate that this is not all in the Minister’s brief, but I seriously ask her to report to the Department the strength of feeling that the Government are creating among locally elected councillors. They are not happy, and nor are we or, more importantly, the people we serve.
- Hansard source
National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions
The hon. Member will know, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) said, that a cross-party delegation of Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Greens on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee came up with sensible amendments to try to make sure there was a balance between efficiency in the planning system and the criteria under which officers could make more decisions, and still involving local councillors. Can the hon. Member elaborate on where the balance should be between councillors and planning officers?
- Hansard source
National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Another concern of mine is that, when looking at infrastructure such as healthcare facilities or larger-scale road networks, local councillors and MPs quite often work together to secure the funding from central Government and maybe a county council. Does he share my concern that in some of the larger schemes that will be decided by planning officers, the ability to get that multi-layered approach to funding will not be there, because there will not be the political will to do it?
- Hansard source
National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions
I thank the Minister for giving way and I will not intervene on her any further. She talks about giving people certainty, but this Government could have created certainty by standardising the planning system in favour of councillors making the decisions that they were sent to local councils to make. Does she agree that the reason the Government have not done that is because they have made a political decision to take that power away?
- Hansard source
Financial Statement and Budget Report
Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I remind hon. Members that copies of the Budget resolutions will be available to them from the Vote Office in Members’ Lobby at the end of the Chancellor’s statement and, of course, online. I also remind hon. Members that interventions are not taken during the Chancellor’s statement nor during the replies of the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the Liberal Democrats. I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
- Hansard source
Financial Statement and Budget Report
Order. Colleagues who are chuntering will need a lot of stamina as we have many hours to go. Let us keep the Chamber calm.
- Hansard source
Financial Statement and Budget Report
Order. Mr Bowie, you are sitting far too close to me to be that noisy.
- Hansard source
Financial Statement and Budget Report
Order. We have a long way to go. Dr Luke Evans, you will have to write yourself a prescription to calm down.
- Hansard source
Financial Statement and Budget Report
Order. Mr Cartlidge, I think you have spoken more words than the Chancellor during this statement—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Ms Atkins, do not lead that with a “More”. I call the Chancellor.
- Hansard source
Financial Statement and Budget Report
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Chancellor again, but Mr Holmes, just like last year, your voice is carrying far too heavily across the Chamber, and the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) promised me and his young daughter this morning, on the way to work, that he would behave—he has let himself down and his daughter down. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Order. I call the Chancellor.
- Hansard source
Financial Statement and Budget Report
Order. Mr Bhatti, there is no need for that.
- Hansard source
Financial Statement and Budget Report
We now come to the motion entitled “Income Tax (Charge)”. It is on this motion that the debate will take place today and on succeeding days. The questions on this motion and on the remaining motions will be put at the end of the Budget debate on Tuesday 3 November. I call the Chancellor to move the motion formally.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
I call the Leader of the official Opposition.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Order. I apologise for interrupting the Leader of the official Opposition, but if Members are leaving the Chamber, they should leave very quietly and very quickly.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Order. Ms Dawn Butler, Adam Jogee, and Mr Vince—what would your baby son say? Behave better than your child.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Order. I am not sure which side is the most noisy. The Defence Secretary will have to have a lie down in a dark room if he carries on like that.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Order. We have to showcase the best of ourselves. Our constituents are watching. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I really do not need any help. Ms Emily Darlington, you are normally so polite and so well behaved, but today is not a great day.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Order. Mr Gemmell, yowling for so long will be very bad for your throat, so simmer down.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Order. Whose phone is going off? Please fix your phone.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
I am surprised that the hon. Member failed to get the Chancellor to use the word “Harlow” multiple times during the Budget statement.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Order. As I said earlier in my introductory remarks, Sir Bernard, we do not intervene on Front-Bench speeches. The odd thing is that we went through this scenario this time last year. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> We did, we did—yet here we are again.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Order. Mr Gareth Snell, moving three rows back does not mean I cannot see you or hear you. Let us try to simmer down.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
I call Peter Kyle.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
I call the Chair of the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee, after which there will be a speaking limit of eight minutes.
- Hansard source
Engagements
May I also give my thanks to the Clerk of the House and convey to him, on behalf of those on my side of the House, our very, very best wishes for the future? There has been a bit of confusion this week, and I hope that the Prime Minister can clear it up. Does he or does he not want a referendum on rejoining the European Union?
- Hansard source
Engagements
It sounds as if the Prime Minister does not know whether he wants another EU referendum. I certainly do not. It is the Chancellor’s big week, and the Prime Minister popped up on telly and opened his mouth without engaging his brain, not for the first time. Can he explain why he decided, during Budget week, to reopen a debate on freedom of movement?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister keeps talking about our deal, but he is using our deal. He is using our Brexit freedoms to take VAT off energy bills. He used those Brexit freedoms just yesterday to scrap import taxes on hundreds of goods. What he should be saying is thank you. I asked the Prime Minister about freedom of movement. I do not think he has been talking to his Cabinet colleagues, because I will tell him who does not want a debate about freedom of movement: the Home Secretary—she has been very clear on that. The Business Secretary does not want it either. The Culture Secretary and I do not agree on much, but even she does not want the Prime Minister to restart this debate. What about his Back Benchers? Let’s have a show of hands—who wants free movement? I know the Prime Minister does not want to look behind him, but nobody raised their hand. There was someone else who did not want to reopen free movement: an ambitious candidate fighting a by-election earlier this year. He said “the last thing we should do right now is rerun those arguments.” Does the Prime Minister still agree with himself?
- Hansard source
Engagements
It sounds like the Prime Minister does not know if he agrees with himself or not. He wants to remind me about my words. I stand by my words. Where we make mistakes, we own up to them. Labour pretends that it never does anything wrong. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Yes, yes, yes. Indeed, that is the difference between him and me. He wants to remind me about what I said; I think it is worth reminding him what he said just this May about the Brexit referendum: “It’s going to undermine everything I’ve said about strengthening democracy if we don’t respect that vote.” But he does not respect that vote, does he?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I have said many times that, yes, it was, and the Prime Minister is using those freedoms today. He is using those very freedoms, but he does not want to admit that. He is the Prime Minister, not me. He wants to ask me questions. I am very happy to swap places with him, if that is what he wants. I am not talking about something that he might have said 10 years ago, although I can read out those quotes if he wants. I am talking about something that he said just a few months ago. The Prime Minister was not here for the 2017 Parliament, but many of us were. We do not want to go through that again. The country was paralysed—it was miserable, regardless of which side of the debate you were on. <em>[Interruption.] </em>It was, because Labour Members would not respect the result, and they are doing it again. Does the Prime Minister really think the country wants to reopen that debate?