PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Topical Questions - 13 October 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

My No. 1 priority is to get Britain building again: we will build, baby, build. That means putting Britain on a path to end the moral stain of homelessness and rough sleeping that doubled under the previous Conservative Government; growing our economy with good, secure jobs and rising incomes in every region of Britain; and putting the key to home ownership in the hands of more people across our country. Under the Conservatives, the British dream of home ownership became a nightmare and out of reach, but with this Labour Government, it will become a reality once more.

My constituents in Oldham East and Saddleworth were delighted to learn that Oldham has received a £20 million award from the Pride in Place programme. Will the Secretary of State expand on the transformational change that the award will mean to places like Oldham, where Government support was decimated under the Conservatives? In particular, what difference will be made by local people having a say in how the money will be spent?

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, for her work in supporting disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Oldham and her strong support for the Pride in Place programme, which offers a significant amount of long-term flexible funding and support to areas like Oldham. Best of all, it is local people who will take the decisions about what the investment needs to look like to make a real difference to their high streets, public services and public transport, so that they can take back pride in the place they belong.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Nobody but nobody believes that 1.5 million homes will be built under this Government. Although the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), spent a lot of time at the Dispatch Box, she did not answer the question about whether the Treasury will be asked to scrap stamp duty. We know that 2.8 million people said that they would consider downsizing if stamp duty were abolished, freeing up family homes of all sizes. She would not answer, so I ask the Secretary of State directly: will he ask the Treasury to scrap stamp duty—yes or no?

I know that the right hon. Gentleman was a strong supporter of Liz Truss when she stood for leadership of the Conservative party, but surely he cannot have forgotten what she did: she made multibillion pound unfunded spending commitments that crashed the economy, and sent wages down and prices, mortgages and rents skyrocketing. The last thing this country needs is tens of billions of pounds of more unfunded commitments, crashing the economy again and destroying people’s dreams of home ownership—

Order. There are lots of Back Benchers who wish to speak and this is topical questions. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I asked for a simple yes or no, but the right hon. Gentleman struggled to give that. The truth is that we have outlined exactly where the money could come from and we have made it clear that if those on the Labour Front Bench have the guts to take on their Back Benchers, they will have the support of Conservative Members in making the expenditure cuts that are needed. The London School of Economics has estimated that £16,000 of economic activity comes with every house purchase, so if he will not agree to cutting stamp duty, will he at least agree to not putting up property taxes?

I have to say again that the right hon. Gentleman’s devotion to Trussonomics is admirable, particularly given that we have already seen it fail once. We heard from the shadow Chancellor that the Conservatives would put up income tax if they won the general election. They put it up to the highest level since the second world war; we are not going there.

It is important that we get that right, and we will have further discussions about it shortly. I might disagree with my hon. Friend on the importance of Pride in Place, which will turn around some of the decline created by the Conservative party.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

In June, the Department made the welcome announcement of legislation to allow proxy voting and remote attendance, which will help to drive up the diversity of councillors across the country, but the Government have not yet set out a timeline. Will the Minister advise the House on when a timeline will be shared, and whether the Government have considered including the changes in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill?

The Government are committed to an election Bill, which will be coming in due course—very shortly, I imagine—and I am sure the hon. Member will be able to explore those issues further at that time.

I am sorry to learn about the loss of social rented homes in that instance. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to reinvigorating council house building, and I direct her attention to the five-point plan that we published in July to deliver a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing.

Local government reorganisation will create opportunities to improve public services, efficiency and clarity. The final proposals from councils in Essex were submitted by 26 September, and we anticipate launching a statutory consultation in November. I am sure we will discuss the right hon. Gentleman’s points in detail over the weeks and months to come.

As I iterated earlier, we want to see more empty homes brought back into use in Sheffield and across the country. As we outlined in the English devolution White Paper, we intend to strengthen the ability of local authorities such as Sheffield city council to take over the management of vacant residential premises.

We in Leicestershire have three, if not four, plans for our reorganisation, with no agreement. We also have a county council run by Reform, which has already had not one but two reshuffles, losing its cabinet leads for social services and finance. While 70% of its budget is spent on social services and special educational needs and disabilities, what assurances can the Government give me that my constituents will get those services, and that those services will be protected, when there already seems to be chaos in the council?

As I mentioned some moments ago, reorganisation creates an opportunity for simpler and clearer local services. I look forward to working with Members across the House to get it right, particularly in tackling some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

My hon. Friend is completely right to raise this issue. That is why we are giving local communities greater powers to control the proliferation of gambling and vape shops. It is also why, through our Pride in Place programme, we are giving communities the funding and tools they need to shape their local high streets, so that those communities can have the shops they want in their place.

My constituent Steve Dally was charged £70,000 by Liberal Democrat-controlled Waverley borough council for the apparent crime of building a home extension. I met the Housing Minister earlier this year to talk about abuse of the community infrastructure levy. Could he update the House on his plans to stop it?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I agree that we have seen unintended consequences of the 2010 CIL regulations—they have unfairly penalised some homeowners. I can only reiterate the commitments I gave him during that meeting. In principle, we are committed to finding a solution to this issue, and I am more than happy to meet him again and update him on the steps we have taken in the interim.

We absolutely need to make housing affordable. One of the primary ways in which we can do that is to build more homes of all tenures, which is precisely what we are committed to doing. We can also boost the supply of social and affordable housing, which our social and affordable housing programme—worth £39 billion over 10 years—will do.

Winter is coming, and nearly 3 million households are living in fuel poverty, which is an absolute scandal. The long-awaited warm homes plan cannot come soon enough, but given that previous piecemeal programmes prioritised private profit and left us without the changes that our constituents so desperately need, will the Secretary of State commit to funding a public body to co-ordinate, monitor and evaluate a nationwide programme of home insulation to hold cowboy builders—cowboy contractors—to account and deliver energy savings for all?

I will refer the hon. Lady’s comments about the warm homes plan to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. If she wishes to write to me with details of any particular cowboy builders, I would be more than happy to read what she has to say.

It is great that we are transforming leasehold properties, but many leaseholders are now stuck in a gap with their freeholders when it comes to betterment. If they want to green their homes through new roofs, new insulation and electric vehicle charging, they have to pay a huge extra cost. Will the Minister and, if necessary, Ministers from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero meet me and my constituents to discuss this issue? There is a real gap when it comes to achieving green improvements.

I would be more than happy to do so.

In April, the Government described their decision to approve a major scheme to unlock over 8,500 homes next to Cambridge North station after six years in planning as “nationally significant”. Just four months later, the Government scrapped the whole thing. How is that consistent with the Secretary of State’s announcement that he will back getting Britain building?

I am afraid that I am unclear about which particular site the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. Again, if he wishes to write to me, I would be more than happy to engage with him on the particulars of that case.

Cornwall’s economic potential is vast. Cornish renewable energy and critical minerals can power the UK’s transition away from a fossil fuel-based economy, but economic development funding through the shared prosperity fund has come to an end. Can the Secretary of State reassure the people of Cornwall that our economic growth will not be limited by the fact that Cornwall cannot and will not join a mayoral combined authority?

We recognise the uniqueness of Cornwall. We are committed to working with the local authority to ensure that we unlock the economic opportunities in the area and build on its existing devolution deal.

The Secretary of State and the other Ministers on the Front Bench have to great fanfare today talked about responsible governance, but Basildon council and its Labour leader have repeatedly failed to meet basic housing standards. Worse than that, its leader has gone live on social media to admit to counting postal votes and using that information to influence a recent by-election. When he is held to account, will Ministers agree to throwing him out of their party?

I am unclear about the exact details of what the hon. Member is raising, but if he would like to write to me or the Secretary of State providing details, we will make sure that he receives a swift response.

South Shore in my constituency is one of the most deprived areas in the country. It has just been named by the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods, which outlined 34 mission-critical neighbourhoods, as No. 1 for hyper-local need. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can improve South Shore in Blackpool?

I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his concerns.

What commitment can the Minister give to my constituents in Thurmaston, Syston, Queniborough and nearby villages who wish to remain in the county of Leicestershire and have services provided in Leicestershire that they will not against their wishes be absorbed into the city of Leicester, as advocated by Labour’s city mayor in the context of local government reorganisation?

I responded to the right hon. Member’s colleague from Leicestershire, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), just a moment ago, and I refer him to that answer. We have a process under way, and I will be engaging with colleagues right across the House on it. If the right hon. Member would like to get in touch with me directly, I would be happy to receive his representations.

I am pleased that Everton East in my constituency will receive £20 million in Pride in Place funding. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Pride in Place programme not only talks about devolution, but delivers it?

My hon. Friend is completely right. We had a decade and a half of decline and neglect under the last Government. This Government are getting to grips with it. I thank my hon. Friend for her enthusiasm and for working together to make this impact and to drive the change we want to see across our communities.

The Government have now delayed their decision on local government reorganisation in Surrey. Can the Minister assure me that the Government are using this delay to protect my constituents in Esher and Walton from the Tory debt of neighbouring councils with which they might be grouped? Will the planned elections in May go ahead?

As I have said a number of times on different aspects of this policy, the process is under way. If the hon. Member would like to write to me directly, I will make sure that she receives a response.

I know that Ministers do not comment on ongoing planning applications, but may I draw the Minister’s attention to an inconsistency? Currently, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is changing its guidance on heather burning on deep peat because of climate change concerns, but there has not been a concurrent change to planning guidance on building on peat. Will the Minister agree to look at that, so that my constituents can be sure that any developments are safe and take account of climate implications?

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that matter to my attention. He is right that I cannot comment on individual planning applications, but I will certainly look into the matter. I wonder whether he would write to me with further details in that regard.

Do the Government accept that it is possible to bring in elected mayors and new strategic authorities without forcibly merging county and district councils in unwanted, cumbersome and remote unitary authorities?

There are two processes going ahead: the devolution process, driven by economic imperatives to unlock the growth prospects across the country; and the reorganisation process, which is being done to ensure that we have more streamlined and effective public services. We are doing those in tandem, because the last Government failed to get a grip of local government structures and the funding pressures across the piece. We are getting on with it and we are driving it forward. Both processes are being driven with huge collaboration from local authorities across the country.

I thank the Secretary of State for taking the decision to invest £20 million through the Pride in Place scheme in my constituency. For 14 years, two communities—Woodrow and Greenlands —have been forgotten, while inequalities in health, jobs and skills have risen. Does the Minister agree that the right people to decide where that £20 million will go are those who know their communities best?

I thank my hon. Friend for his enthusiasm. He is absolutely right: we are putting right the neglect and decline that we saw after 14 years, where communities had been held back because the last Government failed to invest. We are putting communities at the very heart, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to unlock the potential to change our places.

Residents of Rutland overwhelmingly want to join Stamford, but the council is pressing ahead with an unwanted Leicestershire merger; residents of South Kesteven do not want to join a mega Lincolnshire council, but are being pushed towards it; and in Leicestershire my constituents do not want a Leicester city takeover. What reassurance will the Government give that democracy will not die under these reforms, and that local people’s voices will be heard?

I can certainly confirm that democracy will not die. I know that officials in the Department will have heard what the hon. Lady has said, and I will accept her question as representations on the issue of local government.

In my kind and inclusive city of York, those who are putting up flags and expressing support for them have been emboldened to perpetrate racism and intimidate communities. They have beaten people up and hung a death threat on our city wall. What further support can the Government give my local authority to enable it to get those flags down, given that even contractors are being intimidated?

The flag is something that we must reclaim, and reclaim proudly. We know that in some communities flags are being used to intimidate and divide, and we are working with local authorities throughout the country to ensure that they have the support that they need to make those judgment calls, but I return to the fact that the flag is ours, we need to reclaim it, and we need to stand up against those who want to divide our communities across the country.

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was never intended to be used by local authorities as an addendum to planning enforcement. The Secretary of State may well have seen recent media reports about this issue. Will he undertake to look into it and to issue guidance to local authorities, explaining that while they have many tools at their disposal, the Proceeds of Crime Act is not one of them?

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, and I am happy to arrange a meeting with the appropriate Minister so that he can share his concerns and we can come to a resolution.