theodi/ndl-core-corpus huggingface dataset:
debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_12
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-01)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_12

Jessica Toale:What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the 10-year infrastructure strategy on economic growth. \p Darren Jones: The 10-year infrastructure strategy is a key part of this Government’s growth mission, committing to a minimum of £725 billion of investment over the next 10 years in local transport, affordable homes, and modernising schools and hospitals in every part of the country. \p Jessica Toale: I was pleased to see that the creative and digital industries, financial services, and clean energy were all included as priority sectors in the Government’s industrial strategy. Those sectors have huge potential in my constituency of Bournemouth West. Focusing on the latter, as a fellow south-west MP, what assessment has the Minister made of the Dorset clean energy super cluster’s potential for growth, jobs and bringing people’s bills down, not just in Bournemouth West but across the region? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for championing the Dorset clean energy super cluster opportunity, which was announced by her council at the UK’s Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum only recently. Offshore wind, hydrogen, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage are frontier technologies and industries that are at the heart of our clean energy sector plan, and they will create opportunities in every part of the country, including in the south-west. \p Munira Wilson: The infrastructure plan reiterated the Government’s support for a third runway at Heathrow, a project that the Chancellor has repeatedly stated will be privately funded. However, given the vast amount of rail and road infrastructure that will be needed to support a bigger Heathrow, as well as the huge risk a private company would take on, which it would want underwritten by Government, could the Chief Secretary to the Treasury outline to the House how much taxpayer cash has been earmarked as needed to enable a bigger Heathrow? \p Darren Jones: The hon. Lady will know that we are waiting to receive detailed proposals from Heathrow for the development of the third runway. The Government will consider those proposals in due course and make further announcements when decisions have been taken.
debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_13
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-01)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_13

Andrew George:What steps she plans to take to close loopholes in the tax system. \p James Murray: The year before we came to power, the tax gap stood at £47 billion. That is unacceptable, which is why we announced the most ambitious-ever package of tax gap measures in the Budget, and went even further in the spring statement. We are now forecast to raise £7.5 billion from the tax gap in 2029-30, including by recruiting 5,500 more compliance officers, investing in better technology and closing loopholes. We will bring forward further measures to close the tax gap in the autumn Budget. \p Joe Powell: As the Minister is no doubt aware, an increasingly common issue on our high streets is phoenixing. That is where a shop unit continues to trade while cycling through multiple limited companies every few months, none of which pays corporation tax, VAT or business rates. Can the Minister encourage officials at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to walk along Whitehall, just a few hundred metres from this Chamber, and take a look at whether the series of Harry Potter-themed gift shops across London—which have been accused by “London Centric” of doing exactly that—are playing by the rules? Will they ensure that tax enforcement supports legitimate small businesses on our high streets? \p James Murray: My hon. Friend is a powerful campaigner and advocate for tackling those who do not play by the rules. While I am unable to comment on individual taxpayer affairs because of my position, I very much recognise the issue. We are determined to tackle this problem, and HMRC is working across Government on enforcement action, including work with Companies House and the Insolvency Service to tackle phoenixism. \p Andrew George: Does the Minister agree that instead of handing £500 million of taxpayers’ money to those who are entitled to small business rate relief, which is what has happened in Cornwall over the past 10 years, it would be far better to invest that money in desperately needed first homes for local families in desperate housing need, rather than give it to second home owners? Would he be prepared to meet me, so that we can establish a better method of achieving housing justice through tax policy? \p James Murray: I am happy to hear from the hon. Gentleman about how he will support our home-building plans in his constituency and across the country. We know that the most important thing to tackle the housing crisis is to support the reforms that this Government are making to the planning system to make sure we can build 1.5 million new homes and invest £39 billion in our 10-year affordable homes programme—the biggest in a generation.
debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_14
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-01)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_14

John Lamont:If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities. \p Rachel Reeves: The Government are delivering on the priorities of the British people. Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that the UK was the fastest-growing G7 nation in the first quarter of this year. Since the election, this Labour Government have brought £120 billion of private investment into our economy. There have been four interest rate cuts, lowering the cost of mortgages, and 384,000 new jobs—more than 1,000 jobs a day—since this Government were elected. Real wages increased more in the first 10 months of this Labour Government than they did in the first 10 years of the last Conservative Government, and we have a £1,400 pay rise for a full-time worker on the national living wage. That is the difference that this Government are making after 14 years of mismanagement by the Conservatives. \p John Lamont: The award-winning bookshop and deli Mainstreet Trading Company in St Boswells has been forced to reduce its operating hours because

“increases to employer national insurance mean that our operating cost base has increased significantly.”

What advice does the Chancellor have for small businesses suffering because of this Labour Government’s reckless decisions? \p Rachel Reeves: This Government increased the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, and that means 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance at all. Indeed, half of employers will either gain or see no change. It was also welcome that the Lloyds business barometer showed business confidence at a nine-year high, with a particular uptick in retail. I cannot comment on an individual business, but that is the system nationwide. \p Lindsay Hoyle: This is topicals; we have got to get going. Brian Leishman will set a good example.
debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_15
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-01)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_15

Brian Leishman:I want to ask about the £200 million national wealth fund commitment for Project Willow. How will it be accessed? What is the minimum and maximum amount that can be accessed by an applicant? If it is exclusively for businesses, will it be based on being positioned within the existing footprint of the Grangemouth site that is owned or operated by Petroineos or INEOS? \p James Murray: There is £200 million available, and the Government will look at all proposals for investing it. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Chancellor. \p Mel Stride: The winter fuel payment U-turn will cost £1.25 billion, and the welfare reform U-turn will cost £2.5 billion, all adding to Labour’s unfunded black hole. This is from a Chancellor who said that she would never make a spending commitment without explaining where the money was  coming from—yet another U-turn. The Chancellor has also said that her fiscal rules are iron-clad and non-negotiable. Can she reconfirm that commitment now, or are we heading for yet another U-turn? \p Rachel Reeves: I would take that a bit more seriously if the Conservatives were not voting against the welfare reforms this evening, and if they had not committed to fully reversing the winter fuel changes, which would cost a further £400 million that they cannot explain. I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions, because he always offers a useful lesson in what not to do. Even George Osborne now says that the shadow Chancellor has “no credible economic plan”. I will give the shadow Chancellor this: he knows a thing or two about welfare spending, because under his watch, the UK became the only country in the G7 with an unemployment rate stuck below pre-pandemic levels. Under his watch, the cost of working-age inactivity rose by £15.7 billion a year. \p Mel Stride: The House will note that the right hon. Lady did not categorically rule out the possibility of changing the fiscal rules in the autumn. Given that, will she at least confirm that she stands by her commitment not to raise the rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT in the autumn? Is it a yes, or is it another potential U-turn? \p Rachel Reeves: We made a commitment in our manifesto not to increase the key taxes that working people pay, and we stick by those commitments because, unlike the Conservative party, we stick by our manifesto.
debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_16
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-01)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_16

Joe Morris:Towns in my constituency, such as Prudhoe and Haltwhistle, have lost access to bank branches—Prudhoe lost its Lloyds branch in May—and Hexham is due to lose two branches in November. The closures have had a huge impact on customers and communities, but the guidance on banking hubs is often too restrictive. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss how we can support financial inclusion in Tyne valley, in the Hexham constituency and beyond? \p Emma Reynolds: We understand the importance of in-person banking, in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere, which is why we secured a commitment from the industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across the United Kingdom. I am leading the work on a financial inclusion strategy, which we will publish later in the year and which emphasises the importance of access to banking, and I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: More than 50% of local authorities are having to overspend on the dedicated schools grant to cover the rising costs of SEND services, and the increasing demand for inter-authority borrowing has pushed up interest rates. May I urge the Chancellor to consider, as a matter of urgency—even before the Government publish their White Paper on special educational needs and disabilities—introducing a concessionary interest rate, perhaps at the same level as the Public Works Loan Board rate, so that councils do  not have to raise council tax just to serve their interest payments and can spend the money on frontline services instead? \p Rachel Reeves: The hon. Lady, and other Members, will have seen the reference in the spending review to a real-terms uplift in schools spending in every single year of the current Parliament, as well as additional capital investment to help rebuild the schools whose roofs were literally crumbling under the last Conservative Government. My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary will publish a Green Paper on SEND reform in the autumn, and we have extended local authorities’ statutory override for SEND education for a further two years while we bring in those reforms. This Government want to ensure that mainstream schools are more inclusive for all children.
debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_17
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-01)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_17

Chris Hinchliff:In recent weeks Ministers have been arguing that vital support for the disabled is fiscally unsustainable because it is forecast to rise to £60.7 billion a year by 2029-30. What assessment has the Chancellor made of the fiscal sustainability of the 107 non-structural tax breaks that are currently costing HMRC £207 billion a year? \p Rachel Reeves: As my hon. Friend will know, in last year’s Budget we got rid of the non-dom tax status, increased capital gains tax, put VAT on private school fees and ended the loophole for private equity, as well as introducing further measures, in order to raise £40 billion. As a result, we are investing £300 billion more than would have been raised under the plans that we inherited from the Conservative party. Ours is the only country where— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. \p Rachel Reeves: Oh, all right—fine. \p Lindsay Hoyle: We have to get through these questions. I call Helen Morgan.
debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_18
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-01)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_18

Helen Morgan:Businesses and individuals in my constituency tell me that the single-biggest factor holding back growth in our rural area is poor public transport. Shropshire has been poorly served by the bus service improvement plan, and by the spending review’s focus on investment in city areas. How will the Chancellor improve public transport in rural areas to drive the growth that we so desperately need there? \p Rachel Reeves: We are increasing transport investment by 1.9% in real terms after HS2 in every year of the spending review period. We are also extending the bus fare cap, which is particularly beneficial to rural areas.
debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_19
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-01)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_19

Noah Law:I believe that redistribution should be core to everything that we do. It is core to the toughest decisions that we have had to make, and it is core to our efforts to achieve growth. Does the Chancellor agree that putting more pounds into the pockets of those with the lowest incomes is the best thing we can do to grow our economy? \p Darren Jones: The Government agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. At the end of the current Parliament, people will be better off as a consequence of the decisions that this Labour Government are making. We have already increased the national living wage by 6.7% to benefit 3 million people, while full-time workers are seeing an increase of about £1,400 a year in their wages.
debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_20
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-01)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_20

Peter Bedford:On Friday I had the privilege of visiting LOROS, Leicestershire’s much-respected palliative care charity. At full capacity it could offer 31 beds to local residents, but sadly, because of the measures that the Chancellor has introduced, such as the national insurance hike, it now operates only 18 beds. May I ask the Chancellor to look again at softening the impact of her measures, particularly on charities such as LOROS? \p Rachel Reeves: I am sure that the relevant Health Minister would be happy to meet representatives of the hospice. The Health Secretary set out the settlement for hospices at the end of last year to compensate financially for the increases in national insurance, but those increases in national insurance are funding the NHS, which helps fund our hospices. \p Frank McNally: This Government delivered a record real-terms settlement for Scotland at the spending review, so it was deeply concerning to hear from the Scottish Government last week that there is a £2.6 billion black hole in the public finances, which could see NHS spend reduce by 12%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the SNP’s long-standing record of fiscal mismanagement must end, and that Scottish Ministers must ensure that the funding gets to the struggling Scottish public services? \p Darren Jones: This Labour Government in Westminster are delivering for the people of Scotland. As a consequence of our spending review, Scotland will receive an average of £50.9 billion per year over this Parliament—the largest real-terms increase in funding since devolution began. The only reason there is a black hole in the budget in Scotland is because of the SNP Government, and the people of Scotland need a new direction with a Labour Government in Scotland.
debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_21
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-01)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_21

Vikki Slade:Representatives of a not-for-profit care company in my constituency feel that the Government are waging war on the care sector. I met residents and staff at a Sunday lunch at Magna care home, and the managers told me that they cannot recruit locally at all and that, because of the changes to social care visas, they are struggling to recruit internationally. I know the Government want to build our own workforce, but what are they planning to do to support organisations while we get the training in place, so that we do not see care homes going bust? \p Darren Jones: On behalf of the House, may I thank social care workers for the service they provide in all our constituencies? As a result of this Labour Government commitment’s to social workers and the social care system, we will have increased funding for social care by £4 billion by 2028-29 through the local government  settlements, and we will bring forward a fair pay agreement to make sure that there is a fair deal for those people serving our constituents on the frontline. \p Stella Creasy: The main beneficiaries of Brexit have been printers, because of all the extra paperwork that the previous Government created. The National Audit Office has estimated that their border arrangements have cost us £4.7 billion and rising, and the single trade window will add to the red tape. Does the Chancellor agree that the best way to reduce the paperwork requirements in the first place is to do a good deal with Europe, and will she update us on her progress on that? \p James Murray: My hon. Friend will have seen the Prime Minister’s work to reset relations with the EU. She mentions the single trade window, and it is the Government’s intention to deliver that. More widely, the Government are committed to minimising the administrative burdens and frictions experienced by businesses trading internationally.
debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_22
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-01)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-01b conversation_22

Jack Rankin:We all  know that there is a difference between welfare cuts and welfare reforms. These cuts were the maths of Treasury mandarins. It is the same thinking that saw winter fuel payments taken from pensioners. Now that the Government have U-turned on both of those, when will they finally back British farming and U-turn on the family farm tax? \p Rachel Reeves: The problem with the Conservatives is that they support all the funding, but they do not support any of the ways of funding it. Agricultural property relief means that estates worth more than £3 million will now be taxed at half the rate at which inheritance tax is usually charged. That can be repaid over a 10-year period, interest-free. I think that is the right and fair settlement, given the fiscal environment we face. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee. \p Meg Hillier: The Economic Secretary is reviewing the work of the Financial Ombudsman Service. We on the Treasury Committee recognise that there have been challenges with the service, but how will she make sure that the consumer voice is central to her review? \p Emma Reynolds: I have had meetings with Which? and other consumer representatives. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are reviewing FOS. We want to make sure that it is a simple, impartial dispute resolution service that quickly and effectively deals with complainants so that consumers can get a fair deal, but that financial services firms are not subject to a quasi-regulator in the way they are at the moment.
debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_1
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-20)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_1

Gregory Stafford:What plans she has to support councils with house building targets. \p Angela Rayner: The Government are supporting local planning authorities to facilitate the delivery of more high-quality, well-designed homes, but we know that capacity is a problem with councils and that is why we have also announced a £46 million package of investment to support capacity and capability in local planning authorities, including 300 new planners and support to local authorities with delivering their local plans and green belt reviews. We will also make changes to planning fees so that councils can recover the costs of planning applications. \p Gregory Stafford: In Waverley and East Hampshire, housing targets from this Government are doubling. When my constituents move into those homes when they are built, the infrastructure and services are simply not there. By “services”, I do not mean a phalanx of civil servants to help them move house; I mean the schools, play areas, supermarkets and road networks. Will the Secretary of State come to my constituency of Farnham and Bordon to see where we need that infrastructure, so that she can understand the implications that her housing targets have for my community? \p Angela Rayner: We know that we need infrastructure as part of our planning reforms and the mandatory housing targets that we have put forward, and this Government will make sure that that infrastructure is there. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it was his Government who allowed speculative housing developments, who failed to meet their housing targets and who left people without the houses they desperately needed. \p Jayne Kirkham: We have a number of schemes for social housing in Cornwall that rely on the affordable homes programme that ends in 2026. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there will not be a gap in the provision of funding so that the provision of those homes can continue? \p Angela Rayner: We have set out another £500 million for the affordable homes programme and we will set out further requirements as we get to the spending review. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Kevin Hollinrake: The increase in housing delivery that the Secretary of State is committed to requires a 50% uplift across the board in housing numbers, yet according to the House of Commons Library, urban and major conurbations have seen an increase of 17% while mainly rural areas are seeing an average increase of 115%. How is that fair? \p Angela Rayner: The shadow Secretary of State will know that our mandatory housing targets were based on affordability and were introduced to ensure that people are able to get the houses they desperately need. His Government removed the mandatory housing targets, we saw speculative development, and they failed, year on year, to deliver the housing that this country desperately needs. We are going to deliver the houses where they failed.
debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_3
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-20)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_3

Tim Farron:If she will make it her policy to introduce a new planning use class for second homes. \p Matthew Pennycook: The Government recognise that excessive concentrations of second homes impact on the availability and affordability of homes for local residents to buy and rent, as well as on local services. From April, councils will be able to charge a council tax premium of up to 100% on second homes but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we do not think this is enough. We are considering what additional powers we might give local authorities to enable them to better respond to the pressures they face. \p Tim Farron: I am encouraged by the Minister’s reply. Towns and communities in my constituency, such as Coniston, Hawkshead, Pooley Bridge and a whole range of other beautiful places, have so many second homes that up to 85% of properties are not lived in for most of the year, meaning that the very survival of those communities is under serious threat. The Government have done a number of things, including talking about  short-term lets being a separate category of planning use. However, will the Minister agree to look at also making second homes a separate category of planning use so that we can prevent these beautiful places from becoming ghost towns? \p Matthew Pennycook: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the previous Government consulted on making short-term lets a different use class, but did not consult on second homes becoming a use class. As part of our wider consideration about the additional powers we might give local authorities, I am more than happy to have a conversation with him. I understand that the pressures in his part of the world are particularly acute because of both second homes and short-term lets.
debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_4
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-20)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_4

Robin Swann:What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the UK shared prosperity fund on local communities in Northern Ireland. \p Alex Norris: The UK shared prosperity fund supports people, businesses and communities across Northern Ireland, and is an important part of this Government’s local growth funding. The Department is committed to evaluating the impact of the fund, including in Northern Ireland. The UKSPF evaluation strategy is a publicly available document setting out our approach, and the Department is committed to publishing ongoing evaluation findings, as they become available. \p Robin Swann: The voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland has said that the reduction in shared prosperity funding available in the next financial year, coupled with the increase in employer national insurance contributions, presents a perfect storm at a time when even more is being asked of it. Will the Minister agree to meet me, members of the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action and representatives of the voluntary and community sector to discuss those issues? \p Alex Norris: We inherited a situation in which the previous Government had not made any money available for that work. I have no doubt that the transition year creates significant challenges for local organisations. I have visited the hon. Gentleman in South Antrim before and met representatives of some organisations, and I would be delighted to do so again. \p Perran Moon: Meur ras, Mr Speaker. Cornwall’s allocation from the shared prosperity fund is good news and well needed. The Government are reworking the outcomes for the shared prosperity grants, and councils such as Cornwall are awaiting the memorandum of understanding for the grant before they can make agreements with providers. Ongoing schemes need certainty, as employees with three-month notice periods are relying on the contracts, and the old SPF scheme expires on 31 March. Will the Secretary of State confirm— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. That must obviously be connected to Northern Ireland when we look at it. \p Alex Norris: I know that local authorities from Northern Ireland to Cornwall are interested to know their allocations, information about which was made available to them in recent weeks, and that some have concerns about making spending commitments. The money is there and has been committed, but my officials are working—they have had conversations directly about Cornwall—to ensure that local authorities have the confidence to make those commitments, so that we do not see 90-day redundancy notices.
debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_5
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-20)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_5

Connor Naismith:What steps she is taking to support local authorities on using high street rental auctions to help regenerate town centres. \p Alex Norris: I am very excited that high street rental auctions are capturing the imagination of local communities and colleagues in this place. A common view for all of us is that vacant shops are a blight and that high street rental auctions are a great tool with which to tackle them. We are working with some early adopters, but I encourage all local authorities to come forward and be active in this space. As of 15 January, we have made a £1.5 million fund available to support the delivery of those powers across the country. \p Connor Naismith: Crewe town centre, in my constituency, is in desperate need of “new year, new me”. For too long, we simply have not had the tools at a local level to tackle the irresponsible, absent landlords presiding over empty shop units. For example, the old M&S unit is owned by an absent landlord who has left that crucial anchor unit in our town centre to go to rack and ruin. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can remove the obstacles to bringing that crucial unit back into use? \p Alex Norris: I am sad to hear about Crewe’s experience, but I know it is shared up and down the country. Crewe has a proud record in the retail space and I believe it can have that again, but as my hon. Friend says, the right tools and powers must be assembled to make that happen. I would be very happy to meet him. He is slightly unkind, because he knows that Crewe town centre was the site of my biggest personal and professional embarrassment, some 17 years ago. Provided I am still allowed back in, I will very gladly meet my hon. Friend. \p Gagan Mohindra: Rickmansworth high street in my constituency is a thriving hub for the community, supported by its fantastic local businesses. Having spoken to many of those dedicated business owners, I know the challenges they face. What steps is the Minister taking to support local authorities in delivering initiatives, such as high street rental auctions, to help high streets like the one in Rickmansworth? \p Alex Norris: We are aware that with new responsibilities for local authorities come new costs. Local authorities want to spend their money as effectively as possible, so we have made £1.5 million available, including to the hon. Gentleman’s local authority, to ensure that they have the capacity to make these powers a reality.
debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_7
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-20)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_7

Deirdre Costigan:What steps she has taken with Cabinet colleagues to increase the supply of affordable housing. \p Angela Rayner: Our plan for change sets out that the whole of the Government are committed to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. The previous Government failed to take social and in particular council housing seriously. I am determined to put right that wrong. We have already taken decisive steps, including an injection of £500 million into the affordable homes programme, our consultation on the rent settlement and reforms to right to buy. We will set out more details in the spending review. \p Deirdre Costigan: After 14 years of Conservative Government, Ealing council has thousands of families waiting for a council home and has an affordable housing programme that it does not have the money to deliver. A report from Southwark council released on Sunday found that 71% of councils will have to delay or cancel house building projects. Will the Secretary of State look at ways to finally make local councils’ housing budgets sustainable so that we can build the affordable homes that my constituents in Ealing Southall desperately need? \p Angela Rayner: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Since taking office, we have set out a series of measures to support councils to increase their capacity, confidence and motivation to invest in new homes. We are providing £450 million to councils to house some of the most vulnerable in society through the local authority housing fund, as well as injecting an additional £500 million into the affordable homes programme to deliver 5,000 new homes. We are helping councils borrow from the Public Works Loan Board at a reduced cost until the end of 2025-26. \p Graham Stuart: We need a steady supply of affordable homes as well as homes in the private rented sector. Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), it is easy to sound morally righteous while demanding ever higher standards, but if the housing market is wrecked, ultimately it will be the tenants who pay. Will the Secretary of State answer my hon. Friend’s question and tell us how she will ensure that the private rented sector remains investable so that tenants have somewhere to live? \p Angela Rayner: A balance has to be struck. People needs homes that are safe. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that they do not want to provide homes of a decent standard? The majority of landlords provide that decent homes standard, and it is a few who do not. Where they do not, they need to be held accountable.
debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_9
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-20)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_9

Clive Betts:If she will take steps to support social housing providers to fund houses made available under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. \p Matthew Pennycook: I recognise that social housing providers need support to build their capacity and make a greater contribution to affordable housing supply, including via section 106. To assist in that, we have proposed a new five-year social housing rent settlement and permitted councils to keep all their right-to-buy receipts. \p Clive Betts: I know that my hon. Friend is committed to increasing the provision of social housing. In the past few years, most social housing has been provided through section 106 agreements. According to the National Housing Federation, thousands of houses around the country are available but cannot be purchased under section 106 agreements because registered social landlords simply do not have the resources. I am sure that he is aware of that problem, but does he have any plans to deal with it and bring those houses, which are badly needed, back into use? \p Matthew Pennycook: The Government certainly recognise the ongoing challenge posed by the reduced appetite of registered providers of social housing to buy affordable homes delivered under section 106 agreements. As I hope my hon. Friend is aware, the Homes England section 106 affordable housing clearing service was launched back in December alongside the revised national planning policy framework, with the aim of supporting buyers and sellers of section 106 homes to find each other more effectively. We are calling on all developers with uncontracted section 106 affordable homes, as well as providers and local planning authorities, to engage proactively with that new service. We will consider what further measures may be necessary to address the problem, informed by data from that service. \p Ashley Fox: Private developers in my constituency have obligations to build social homes under section 106, and they are ready to do so. The difficulty they face is that there is no social landlord available to take those units. When I raised this issue with the Deputy Prime Minister in October, she said that she was aware of the problem and was working to tackle it. Will the Minister update the House on the progress made? \p Matthew Pennycook: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman heard my previous answer, but I have just made it clear that we acted on 12 December to establish a matching service. I would advise him to ask the developers whether they have taken advantage of that service. We want to learn lessons from the data that comes out of it to see whether we need to take further steps.  We think that the matching service will allow registered providers and developers trying to offload section 106 units to come together to see if agreements can be reached.
debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_10
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-20)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_10

Ian Roome:What plans her Department has for local government reorganisation in Devon. \p Jim McMahon: On 16 December, I wrote to all councils in two-tier areas and neighbouring smaller unitaries, including in Devon, to set out plans for a joint programme of devolution and local government reorganisation. Later this month, I intend to formally write out to those councils on the shortlist to ask for interim proposals by March and fuller proposals later in the year. We will confirm that as soon as possible, because we know it is important to have clarity. \p Ian Roome: Obviously, any reorganisation will impact council finances. My constituency of North Devon has coastal towns with real pockets of remote deprivation, isolation and poverty. Now that the Minister’s Department has cut the rural services delivery grant, what methodology will be used to ensure that local government funding does not overlook those areas? \p Jim McMahon: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is conflating two entirely separate issues. One is reorganisation, which will take money away from the back office and put it on the frontline where people can see the benefit of that investment, but to be absolutely clear on rural services, the provisional settlement that was laid out ensures that primarily rural councils get an average increase of 5%, and no council sees a net reduction in its income levels. That is our commitment to rural communities, and it is firm. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Vikki Slade: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving councillor on Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council.

Many councils have already undergone significant reorganisation, from moving to shared services right the way through to full unitarisation, and the costs of that have always been underestimated. Although transformation leads to lower long-term revenue costs, we know that councils everywhere are teetering on the edge, so finding funds to pay for reorganisation, transformation and redundancies will be problematic. The mayoral authorities add an extra complication, so can the Minister confirm that funding from central Government will be provided to fully cover both devolution and local government reorganisation, so that councils do not have to factor extra costs into their 2025-26 and 2026-27 budgets or risk reducing local services further? \p Jim McMahon: The Government are not requiring any area to reorganise. What we did was write out and invite proposals to be submitted, and I pay tribute to councillors across the country for the leadership they have shown in putting those proposals forward. Investment to support LGR or devolution will follow a bit later,  but to be clear, this is a bottom-up reorganisation being requested by local councils, and they have our full support in that process.
debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_13
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-20)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_13

Mary Glindon:What recent progress she has made on planning reform. \p Matthew Pennycook: In December 2024 we published a revised national planning policy framework, following extensive consultation. We are also making progress on developing our planning and infrastructure Bill, which will be introduced in the coming months. \p Mary Glindon: A constituent of mine is endeavouring to prevent her neighbour from building an extension that would affect the rights of access set out in her restrictive covenant. She was initially quoted £80,000 to £100,000 to take the neighbour to court. Such costs make civil law inaccessible to ordinary people. Will the Minister consider looking at ways that restrictive covenants can be brought into the planning process as a material consideration? \p Matthew Pennycook: I am sorry to learn of the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent. Legal restrictions on properties are not usually treated as material planning considerations; the planning process only addresses whether the development is acceptable in planning terms. Material considerations must relate to a planning purpose such as the character or use of the land. If my hon. Friend wishes to write to me with further details on this, I will endeavour to explore it further. \p Caroline Dinenage: In Gosport we are facing a massive increase in our housing numbers, and planners are putting in applications to build across the very last green spaces, in the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, which already has air quality issues and overstretched local infrastructure. We do have an abundance of disused military sites, however, so what priority is the Minister giving to encourage development on brownfield sites rather than eating up the last remaining green fields in areas such as Gosport, which are already overdeveloped? \p Matthew Pennycook: The Government have a “brownfield first” approach to development. We strengthened that approach in the recently revised national planning policy framework. We also published last year a brownfield passport working paper to explore further ways in which we might prioritise and accelerate the release of brownfield land. On plan making, we are asking local authorities to take a sequential approach—brownfield first, densify those brownfield sites if possible and work cross-boundary where possible, and only then explore grey belt release and greenfield release in extremis. We are in conversation with Departments across the board about how we can best optimise the use of public sector land across all Departments.
debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_14
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-20)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_14

Frank McNally:If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities. \p Angela Rayner: No one in Britain today should face the cold and indignity of having to sleep in a doorway, so the Minister for Homelessness and Democracy, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), has today announced the tripling of the rough sleeping winter pressures fund.  This will ensure that as many people as possible have access to a safe roof over their head and a warm bed to sleep in. \p Frank McNally: Safety experts have raised concerns about 95 high-rise blocks and nearly 300 other buildings in Scotland found to contain high pressure laminate panels. Shockingly, eight years on from Grenfell the Scottish Government have spent less than 10% of the £97 million received from the UK Government for dealing with cladding in 2020. Does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government have dragged their feet on this for far too long and must act now to make these buildings safe? \p Angela Rayner: I agree that remediation has been too slow. This Government are laser-focused on speeding up the remediation of dangerous buildings, and I encourage the Scottish Government, for which this is a devolved matter, to increase their efforts, as we are, to up the pace of remediation in Scotland. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Kevin Hollinrake: Does the Secretary of State agree that everyone should be treated equally and be seen to be treated equally before the law, including planning law? \p Angela Rayner: I do not know where the shadow Secretary of State is going with this, but yes, I think people should be treated equally. \p Kevin Hollinrake: Great. Why, then, is it that the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have all intervened in the planning application for the Chinese super-embassy, overriding the wishes and concerns of local residents, the local planning authority, the Metropolitan police, the security services and, most likely, the incoming US President? \p Angela Rayner: These are live issues, but the security of our country and nation always comes foremost, and that is always what this Government think of first.
debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_15
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-20)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_15

Marie Tidball:Constituents of mine in High Green were told that a social housing repair project for their home would take 12 weeks. The project has now been ongoing for 64 weeks, with contractors leaving the works in a disgraceful condition. I welcome the Government’s boost to the building of more social housing and the extra £350,000 of homelessness funding announced for Sheffield this week. How does the Minister plan to empower local authorities to ensure that contractors deliver social house building and repairs to a high standard and on time? \p Matthew Pennycook: All social housing tenants deserve to live in decent homes, to be treated with fairness and respect and to have their problems quickly resolved. Under the Regulator of Social Housing’s safety and quality standard, housing associations and councils must provide an effective, efficient and timely repair service for their homes, including setting timetables for completion and clearly communicating with residents. As my hon. Friend knows, we will also introduce Awaab’s law and a new decent homes standard to set the minimum quality that social homes must meet. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Vikki Slade: Recently, a 1-acre site in Corfe Mullen in my constituency was sold. It was a house surrounded by lots of beautiful gardens, and I think the House can see where this is going. The neighbours raised the alarm that the trees were going to be taken down. They flagged it with the council, which did not see a problem, and a week later, in the dead of night, the developers brought chainsaws and destroyed every bit of nature on the site. Will the Minister commit to bringing forward legislation to auto-protect trees above a particular size or age in their planning reforms, so that developers do not get away with environmental vandalism? \p Matthew Pennycook: Protections are already in place, but if the hon. Lady wishes to write to me with further details of that particular case, on which I do not have the full information to allow me to comment now, I will endeavour to look into the matter more carefully and to provide her with a full response.
debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_16
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-20)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-20b conversation_16

Sarah Owen:More than 600 households across Luton are living in temporary accommodation, with families scattered across hotels and bed and breakfasts waiting for homes to become available. The previous Government’s inaction on housing has made that painful wait even longer. It takes nearly a decade for a four-bedroom property to become available in Luton. Can the Secretary of State outline what steps she is taking to shorten waiting times and increase social housing stock for people in Luton North? \p Rushanara Ali: The Secretary of State is leading the charge in building 1.5 million homes to tackle the supply challenge that we face as a country, because of the housing crisis we inherited. We also announced £500 million for the affordable homes programme in the Budget and funding for homelessness services has gone up by £233 million, bringing the total to a billion pounds. I am pleased to say that Luton will receive more than £6.3 million. Furthermore, we are investing £210,000 in the emergency accommodation reduction pilot.