Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,575 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
The Bill claims to be about social housing, and yet it says almost nothing about the people who rely on it most. Supported housing services some of the most vulnerable residents in the sector: the elderly, people with disabilities and people who have faced incredible hardship. New clause 28 would ensure that there is a strategy to support those groups through effective stock management, rather than leaving them without representation in the Bill. The new clause would also require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy within 12 months and lay it before Parliament. It would examine the barriers to delivery, how supported housing fits within wider stock management, and long-term demand. That is not a monumental task, but it can produce effective outcomes. If the Minister believes in delivering for vulnerable residents, he should have no reason to refuse.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
We will press new clause 28 to a Division, but I will let the cat out of the bag now and say that we agree with the Minister on the other new clauses. When the time comes, we will not press them. <em>Question put,</em> That the clause be read a Second time.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Social housing exists to serve communities, yet too many families who have lived, worked and raised children in an area find themselves overlooked when homes are allocated. That is wrong and unjust, which is why my new clause 31 would require allocation schemes in England and Wales to give additional preference to people with a local connection. Local authorities would consider current residents’ employment and family ties. There is nothing exclusionary about supporting local people who contribute to, live in and work in their community. New clause 31 would also give armed forces personnel the respect and priority that they deserve. Through their service, our servicemen and servicewomen often find themselves posted far from home, sometimes in unsafe and unstable places, to protect Britain, British values and those in need internationally. We have a responsibility to protect them when they return home. I believe that service personnel should not lose their local connection because of their service, and that is why I tabled new clause 31.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I have heard the Minister. There was much in what he said, but I respectfully decline his offer. We will press new clause 31 to a vote.<span id="161" class="column-number" data-column-number="161"></span> <em>Question put,</em> That the clause be read a Second time.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
Social housing is not abundant in this country, as we all know. It is a limited resource, and it is funded by the British taxpayer. The Opposition laid out in our alternative King’s Speech the stark and unfair reality of the British social housing system’s priorities. Too many struggling British families are far down the 1.34 million-strong waiting list for social housing. However, 72% of those who identify as Somalian in England and Wales live in social housing.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I come back to a point that I made earlier: if social housing were in abundant supply, there would be no need for this new clause, but it is not, nor will it be any time soon. The question is how British taxpayers’ money should be prioritised. I will come on to that in more detail in a moment. As I was saying, 72% of Somalis, 41% of Jamaicans and 34% of Bangladeshis live in social housing. Until recently, the First Lady of Sierra Leone was also living in a British-funded council house. We believe that those who are not British citizens should not be able to access social housing while British citizens sit on the waiting list. A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government response to a written parliamentary question revealed that every year around 33,000 new social tenancies go to households in which the lead tenant is not a UK national. At the same time, the Government are spending £4 billion a year on the affordable homes programme to build 30,000 new social homes—money that comes from British taxpayers. This means that the equivalent of the entire affordable homes programme budget is going to house non-nationals, and British taxpayers are footing the bill. New clause 32 is about creating a fairer system for British citizens and British taxpayers. It is not about exclusion, but about prioritisation, ensuring that British citizens are at the front of the queue for social housing in the country of which they are a citizen. It is not about race; it is about legal status.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I said a moment ago, the point of the new clauses is prioritisation: how we prioritise the use of British taxpayers’ funding. We believe that making Britain your home should be earned by working, paying tax and integrating. New clause 32 emphasises these points without making them exclusive to one race, religion or creed. That was quite deliberate. I urge colleagues to support the new clause. Turning to new clause 37, confidence in an already strained system is never helped when people with significant overseas wealth or status slip through the system unchecked. Current rules do not give sufficient support to local authorities to assist in dealing with applicants who hold senior public office abroad or who are closely related to those who do. The new clause is proportionate and practical. It would allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance on such applications, including on disclosure requirements, the verification of overseas assets and the position of anyone subject to UK sanctions. Local authorities would be required to have regard to it, and Parliament would see it laid before it takes effect. New clause 37 would give councils the vital tools to protect public trust, ensure that homes go to those in genuine need, and make the system fair. I turn to new clause 43. One of the greatest pressures on the social housing system is the waiting list, with 1.34 million vulnerable people and families facing a seemingly immovable backlog ahead of them. It is essential that all social, economic and physical pressures on the system are identified and addressed, and one of those is net migration. As I said a moment ago, every year about 33,000 new social tenancies go to households in which the lead tenant is not a British citizen—the source for that is a written answer from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. At the same time, the Government are spending £4 billion a year on the affordable homes programme to build 30,000 new social homes. That means that the equivalent of the entire affordable homes programme is going to house non-British nationals, and British taxpayers are paying for that. It is clearly necessary to look into exactly how that pressure is suppressing the efficiency of the social housing system, and inhibiting its ability to help British families in need. New clause 43 would require the publication of estimates of social housing demand arising from net migration, because with that data the Government and local authorities would be better informed when making decisions regarding the allocation of stock, and there would be better determined decisions around housing those in need. It is vital that we do not ignore an issue simply because some people find it uncomfortable to discuss. New clause 43 does not alienate anybody, nor does it take away anyone’s rights to a social home. It is a simple, <span id="164" class="column-number" data-column-number="164"></span>straightforward requirement that would leave decision makers better informed about the greatest pressures on an already strained system.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
Will the hon. Member please point out where the new clause mentions where someone is born?
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
The new clause is clearly written. It is not about where somebody was born, and we are very precise in what we have said on that. There is no reference to where someone is born in the new clause, for a clear reason. It is about who is or is not a British citizen, and therefore who should or should not benefit from British taxpayers’ contributions. That is precisely what the new clause is about. I said in my speech that it has nothing to do with race, religion, place of birth or creed; it is about who is or is not a British citizen. That is the point of the new clause.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
Will the hon. Gentleman please point to where in the new clause it says that it is retrospective?
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
We had a bit of a spat about this on Second Reading. The first Duke of Wellington was a British citizen, so the new clause would not exclude him. The hon. Gentleman is making a completely nonsensical argument. Go back and read some history.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I will push new clause 32 to a vote. <em>Question put,</em> That the clause be read a Second time.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Antisocial behaviour blights lives. I am sure that we all find our inboxes filled with examples of it. Behind every statistic is a family afraid to use its own stairwell, an elderly resident who stops going out after dark or a child who cannot sleep because of the noise next door. <span id="173" class="column-number" data-column-number="173"></span>Conservative Members believe that when a community protection notice has been issued against a social tenant or someone living in or regularly visiting a social home, the landlord should be required to carry out a tenancy review. That is what new clause 33 would ensure. This is a measured proposal; it does not dictate an outcome. However, it would ensure that landlords looked at the problem and acted. Guidance would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Responsible tenants should not suffer because the system looks the other way. I encourage colleagues to support new clause 33.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I do feel somewhat reassured, but we are still going to press new clause 33 to a Division. <em>Question put, </em>That the clause be read a Second time.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. House building in this country is paralysed by the layering and complexity of a range of cumbersome regulations and taxes. According to the Home Builders Federation, at present house builders already face more than £7,000 in taxes and levies, including £2,000 in landfill tax, £2,320 from the forthcoming building safety levy, £2,055 in other taxes, and £985 from inflationary increases on existing charges such as section 106 agreements. Moreover, developers face over £23,000 in regulatory costs, including £7,780 from building regulations, £5,700 from biodiversity net gain, and £10,200 in costs linked to the future homes and buildings standards. That is not the end. Under this Government’s watch, house builders have seen material and labour costs reach heights of £37,000, alongside costs of up to £7,000 in additional potential site-specific elements such as nutrient mitigation requirements. We all heard what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement yesterday, but that was about no new building regulations, not looking at those that have exacerbated the problem. The cumulative impact of policy, taxation and regulatory pressures on home building means that it is so costly to build that, for many companies, it no longer makes economic sense to do so, not least when it comes to costlier and less profitable social housing. That is why I have tabled new clause 35, which would require a review of the regulatory requirements on social housing delivery. That would force the Government to confront the reality of these barriers, and work to identify the conditions preventing a renewed upspringing of social home sites.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
The Minister is right that we have had extended debates on the issue. He is tempting me to reveal our manifesto pledges before the election, but we are not going to do that. He is right that we will be making some recommendations about which regulations we think need to be refined or thought about again. I will decline his invitation, and we will press new clause 35 to a vote. <em>Question put</em>, That the clause be read a Second time.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
This group is about transparency, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon has just explained. New clause 14 would provide for regular statistics on asylum appeals, and new clause 22 for a report on decision making. If Committee members care—or dare—to cast their minds back a few weeks, we Conservatives pressed for appeals statistics under clause 3, so we have some sympathy for both new clauses. Amendment 62, however, would stop the new appeals body starting until the report is laid, which I fear is a delaying tactic. We cannot support it. New clause 57, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), asks for the figure that matters most: how many people have been removed every month after failed asylum claims, as well as when they arrived and why they were removed. Monthly figures linked to date of arrival would allow the House to see whether refusal leads to removal. If removals are rising, the Government can of course take credit for it. If not, Parliament can use that data to hold the Government to account. Will the Government publish monthly figures on removals of failed asylum seekers, with their date of arrival? How many people whose claims and appeals have been finally refused are living in the UK today? I commend new clause 57, which I intend to push to a vote, to the Committee.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
New clause 15 would amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to prevent information about people identified as potential victims of modern slavery from being shared for the purposes of immigration enforcement or removal. We oppose it. The Conservatives’ borders plan to remove every year 150,000 people who have no right to be here, and to deport all foreign criminals, relies on the Home Office knowing who they are. A legal firewall, as has been proposed, around one of the main routes by which people come to the attention of the authorities would obstruct that. It would also invite abuse. The Committee has heard how modern slavery referrals have been made late in the process, after detention and removal directions, in order to delay removal. New clause 15 would make a referral not just a source of delay but a shield from enforcement altogether. Genuine victims deserve protection, and the referral process exists to provide it. However, being referred should not make someone invisible to the immigration system. We fear that the new clause would facilitate <span id="504" class="column-number" data-column-number="504"></span>that. What proportion of referrals in the past year were made after the person had been detained or served with removal directions?
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
New clause 16 would require the Government to set a deadline and a road map for implementing their own immigration White Paper of May 2025, including the rules on settlement—that has come up in previous sittings of this Committee. Unusually—I do not say this very often—I find myself with some sympathy for the Liberal Democrats in relation to this particular clause. I emphasise that I will not say that too often. The White Paper promised earned settlement and a 10-year route, but by my calculation we are 17 months on and only one element—a higher English requirement—has been pursued. It is worth noting that the Government’s weakening of that testing requirement will render it practically pointless. In March, the Home Secretary said that she would change the law in the autumn. On Thursday, the Minister told the Committee that the Government’s approach to settlement is “currently undergoing a lot of discussion”.<span id="vol_col338" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="338" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="518D7475-F5E1-495D-84F4-12471A7EB7B7"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, </em>22 October 2026; c. 338.]</span> We heard earlier a reference to the “media frenzy”. That is not delivery. Our new clause 49 would put a 10-year qualifying period into law today. Our borders plan goes further still, but whatever our differences on the content, the public are entitled to know when the Government’s promises will be kept. I ask the Minister again: when will the earned settlement rules be laid before Parliament?
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
New clause 18 would require the Government to exercise the break clause in the asylum accommodation contract as soon as reasonably practicable. As we just heard, the public’s anger about hotels and their costs is entirely justified; £2.1 billion was spent on hotels in 2024-25 alone. The hon. Member for Wimbledon has made the case for triggering the break clause, but breaking the contract does not by itself reduce the number of people who need accommodating. Demand must be reduced at source. Basically, fewer people in the system would mean fewer beds needed. I know that the Government are planning to reduce dependency on hotels, but I ask the Minister: how many hotels are in use today? How many people are in them, and what is the daily cost? When will the last one close? Have the Government assessed the cost of exercising the break clause under new clause 18?
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
New clause 19 would create what is sometimes called, as the hon. Member just called it, a humanitarian travel permit: a free visa with at least six months’ leave for anyone, anywhere in the world, who intends to claim asylum in the UK and has a realistic prospect of success. That would potentially open up access a huge number of claimants and we oppose it. The new clause would create an uncapped route to come here to claim asylum with no limit on the numbers and no fee. The judgment of a “realistic prospect of success” would itself generate applications, reviews and litigation. Safe and legal routes should be decided by Parliament, capped, and targeted at those we choose to help. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will not introduce such a scheme.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
The new clause would require legislation within six months to secure full compliance with the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and we oppose it. The shadow Attorney General conducted a review for our party and concluded that withdrawing from the trafficking convention and amending the Modern Slavery Act would be prudent, because modern slavery claims—sometimes genuine, but too often not—have become one of the main ways of delaying removal and deportation, including of foreign criminals.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Part 5 of the Bill, which we support, tries to correct some of the ways the system has been stretched. New clause 21 would undo that by entrenching the convention more deeply into our domestic laws. It would make it harder, not easier, to remove people with no right to be here.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Again, I will attempt to be brief. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, new clause 23 would build a legal firewall so that personal information about victims, witnesses and people who report crime cannot be used for immigration purposes. To achieve our ambitions of removing 150,000 people a year who have no right to be here, the Home Office needs to know who and where they are. The police are one of the most important sources of that information. A blanket firewall, as has been described, would cut it off and apply whoever the person is and whatever their history.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
<Question HRSContentId="{98E9921B-46EB-4093-AA99-CEDD97273F8F}">T8. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{4A775404-F49A-4FB3-A897-08889346DC25}"></QuestionText>I think it is fair to say that there is disappointment on both sides of the House, following Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway’s open-access application being rejected because of concerns about capacity and reliability on the west coast main line. Is the Secretary of State confident that nationalising Avanti will result in the punctuality improvements and extra pathways needed to accommodate new services, which I hope can result in WSMR stopping at Aldridge railway station?</Question>
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The village of Isham in my constituency is sandwiched between Wellingborough and Kettering, and for 40 years it has been battling to get a bypass. The situation has now got worse because of a huge development of warehousing, yet the bypass has been refused funding. May I invite the Minister to <span id="434" class="column-number" data-column-number="434"></span>Isham, where I would give him a warm welcome? It is only when people see it for themselves that they can understand how desperately we need this bypass.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
We are blessed with charities up and down the country doing amazing work. I was pleased to host a dinner in Parliament to launch a new charity that is based in Northamptonshire in my constituency. It is called Living Like Linda, inspired by <span id="451" class="column-number" data-column-number="451"></span>the incredible Linda Williamson, who now helps other people going through long-term chemotherapy to enjoy days out and social experiences, allowing them to forget about their treatment for a few hours. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to both Linda and her husband Andy for the amazing work that they have done, as well as to all other charities, up and down the country, that help people who need it most?
- Hansard source
Passenger Rail Services
May I constructively suggest a way in which the Secretary of State could help three Cabinet colleagues—the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary, who is building a major reservoir in my constituency; the Housing Secretary, who has big plans within Cambridgeshire; and the Chancellor, who often talks about the Oxford-Cambridge arc? Securing a light rail link to the reservoir will shape the public response to it, but the Department for Transport currently does not seem to be involved at all with the other Departments. I do not expect her to be familiar with the scheme—it is primarily for one of her colleagues—but could she write to me setting out what her Department might do to help those other Departments deliver on their aims?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Will the Leader of the House raise with the Home Secretary the very real concerns of residents in Fenland about the proposed asylum centre in Leverington? The area was excluded by the previous Conservative Government as unsuitable for such accommodation. The council, on the basis of legal advice, has raised a number of objections, and the Home Office has missed its own deadline to give a decision by 16 October. The site is not suitable for the proposed asylum centre, and I would be grateful if he could raise that point with the Home Secretary.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
After more than two years, the Minister has come to the Chamber today to say that all options are still on the table. He cannot say what the timeline is for Cambridgeshire, yet he also said from the Dispatch Box that his priority is getting resources to the frontline. I am not surprised that the Secretary of State, who is in her place, has decided to duck making this statement and has passed it to the Minister, but will he answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)? What has been the total cost to local authorities and the Government of this process so far, given that we have arrived at a situation today where all options are on the table?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
As the Defence Secretary is talking about defence spending, could I just point him to paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 on page 31 of the Red Book? I am sure that one of his Treasury colleagues will have a copy. He will see that £10.3 billion of that spending is funded by reprioritisation, alongside £4.7 billion, £3 billion of which is from capital cuts elsewhere and £1.7 billion from the reserve. He will, of course, get the £1.7 billion from the reserve, but has he been told by the Treasury where that £3 billion of capital savings is coming from? How much of it, if any, is coming from his Department? Can he assure the House that the Government are on track on the more than £10 billion of efficiencies, given that the Institute for Government and many others say that it is highly unlikely to be delivered?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
The Defence Secretary opened today’s debate by praising the former Prime Minister and former Chancellor. That may come as a surprise to them both, given that earlier this year the Defence Secretary resigned from the Government, saying in his resignation letter that he could not serve alongside them because of the lack of direction and the drift. It is less than a year since Labour Members cheered and waved their Order Papers at the Budget from the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), and it is striking how much continuity there is today with measures that they cheered yesterday, despite being so unhappy with the previous Chancellor. To illustrate that, I will highlight certain phrases and words we hear from Labour Members on a regular basis, starting with perhaps the most frequent, which is the need to have no austerity. An “end to austerity” is a constant refrain—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I see those on the Front Bench nodding. They might be surprised to see that the OBR report states on pages 21 and 115 that there is an £11 billion shortfall from the year after next for all Departments, other than protected Departments such as Health. The Government have already said that they want to commit to Defence. I do not think the party that stands saying “24 hours to save the NHS” will cut funding to the health service going into an election, but perhaps that is its policy. If not, according to the OBR, Labour will be cutting funding for unprotected Departments by 2.6% in those final three years. There is a paradox about that: only last week, the Defence Secretary came to the House to say that there is urgency in national resilience, yet Departments like the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which would deliver that national resilience, will be the same unprotected ones facing cuts, so Labour Members are cheering a Budget in which there is austerity baked in—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> They shake their heads. Labour Members may have been told by the Labour Whips, “Do not worry—the spending review will fix that”, but having run a spending review, I know that a spending review allocates the funds but does not decide on the quantum. They may have been told, “Do not worry, there will be a election”—maybe there will—but yesterday the Prime Minister was saying the opposite. Either they <span id="513" class="column-number" data-column-number="513"></span>believe a Budget that has austerity baked in, they think the spending review will fix it, or they do not believe the Prime Minister and think an election will avoid the issue entirely. But it is an odd position for Members who come to the Chamber talking about an end to austerity to then be cheering a Budget where that austerity is in the Red Book numbers. The second paradox is that Labour Members talk about breathing space. There are policy areas that show continuity with last year’s Budget: the 2p on property income tax is a repeat of last year’s 2p increase—4p in all—with both measures starting at the same time, in April next year. The OBR makes it clear that that will lead to fewer people entering the rental market, fewer landlords and prices going up. The Budget includes a bank tax, again repeating a trick of the former Chancellor, who thought, “If I tax employers with national insurance, it will not go through into a jobs’ tax”, so we have a bank tax on the basis that that will be more palatable. But do not take my word for it: <em>The Times</em> leader on 16 October said it will be a tax on growth, and one of Labour’s favourite advisers, Lord O’Neill, said it will “hobble” growth.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
Of course it will be bearable for the chief executive because he will not take it from his bonus—he will take it by adding it to the mortgage rates and the loan rates that he charges the hon. Member’s constituents. Does the hon. Member honestly believe that the bankers will take that tax from their own bonuses, or does he think they will pass it on to constituents and consumers? That is exactly what <em>The Times</em>, Lord O'Neill and many others have commented: it is a displaced cost that adds to the constraints on businesses. This Government talk about wanting growth in every postcode, but making it harder for businesses to access capital will make it harder for them to expand. As with the measures imposed on landlords, this approach continues that taken by the previous Government. There is a lack of consistency in the proposals, even measured against those announced in the Labour conference last month. As the Minister pointed out, at the conference the Chancellor talked about how he was aghast at the idea of debt. Well, the OBR document makes it clear that the Budget measures are adding £8 billion of debt this year alone, on top of the £11 billion of additional debt that flows from interest rates and inflation. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Again, a Government who say that they want to reduce debt have a Budget that is adding to debt in a way that will further constrain the growth in every postcode. Unfortunately I have run out of time, but I suspect that in a few months’ time, as with the last Budget that Labour Members cheered, once the detail becomes more known and they see how it goes against many of the equities that they say that they stand for, we will find this Budget disowned in exactly the same way as the last one.<span id="514" class="column-number" data-column-number="514"></span>
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Economic Secretary has just said at the Dispatch Box that the welfare bill will come down. The BBC has been reporting, following the Chancellor saying the same thing this morning, that No. 10 and the Treasury have informed the media that that is not the case, and the welfare bill will not be coming down. How do we ensure that the House gets the true position, because it is rather hard to keep up when the message keeps changing?
- Hansard source
Active Travel
May I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, relating to the sad loss of Sue Holt? During my time as the leader of our delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I found Sue to be always there, always cheerful and always helpful, as did the whole of the delegation that I was privileged to lead. We shall miss her dreadfully. Let me also support your other remarks, Mr Speaker. During my time as an acting Deputy Speaker, I leaned very heavily on the wise advice of Tom Goldsmith. I wish him every happiness in whatever he chooses to do next. I am sure the whole House will associate itself with the support for active travel in general and for cycling in particular, but there is a downside. The growth in the number of cyclists has led to a clear growth in the number of cycling offences, with cyclists on pavements, crashing through red traffic lights and cycling at night without any lights at all. Does the Minister have any information about prosecutions relating to those offences?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The figures underpinning the business case for National Grid’s ludicrously environmentally damaging Sea Link project have been shown to have been fiddled together in cloud cuckoo land. The Energy Secretary is due to issue her determination on the planning inspector’s inquiry into that scheme imminently. Will the Leader of the House, with his usual courtesy, seek to ensure that that announcement is made on the Floor of the House, and not slipped out in a written answer on a non-sitting Friday?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
The Minister is a genial sort of fellow, and I want to believe him when he says that he wants to proceed by consensus. Will he accept that there is no consensus at all on splitting the New Forest and putting the Waterside under the control of Labour-dominated Southampton? Well over 30,000 people signed the petition to keep the forest together, and it was handed in at Downing Street on the very day that the Government rightly withdrew the plan for Hampshire.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
The Defence Secretary, who opened the debate for the Government, is undoubtedly a versatile and an entertaining politician, but he did himself a little less than full justice in being so casually dismissive of the remarks made by the Labour Chairman of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who, for the record, I have found to be thoughtful, knowledgeable and patriotic. He deserves to be listened to, just as his predecessors in the role, including me, were listened to with, I believe, respect by Conservative Governments, even when we were criticising them. Criticise them we did. As long ago as June 2018, the Defence Committee published a report entitled “Beyond 2 per cent”—that is HC 818, for those nerds interested in looking it up—which called for a level of defence expenditure approaching the figure of 3% of GDP, which the United Kingdom still maintained as late as the mid-1990s. The mid-1990s were six years or so after the fall of the Berlin wall, and when Government Members keep saying, as the Chancellor said yesterday and as the Defence Secretary repeatedly said today, although he did not take interventions on it, that they are proud to be part of a Government who are behind the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, the question we need to ask is this: how much do they think this country spent on defence during the cold war? When the cold war was over, the threat diminished. The threat is now high—as high as it ever was during the cold war. During the 1980s, as I have said many times, we spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP, calculated by today’s method of calculation, on defence. In June 2025, the Hague summit declaration called for NATO members to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035, consisting of 3.5% on core expenditure and 1.5% on wider defence-related items. We are already beginning to hear how the 3.5%, or even the 3%, will be made up by creative accounting. Let us bear in mind that 3.5% is to be on core defence. The creative accounting elements, if they are lucky, may deserve to be included in the 5%, but that is it.