Supporting High Streets

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. Hospitality is fundamental to social mobility. I would have thought that Government Members would be ashamed of a policy that means that those furthest away from the labour market—young people—are put off from trying to get their first job. Hospitality is essential to enabling them to join the labour market, and the Government have put blocks in the way of people who want a better life.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Let us be optimistic: we are here to celebrate our high streets, and perhaps all is not lost. The Chancellor could yet repent and reverse some of her most damaging policies, or adopt our policy of cutting business rates entirely for 250,000 high-street businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and insert

“recognises the need to rejuvenate high streets following 14 years of decline under the previous Administration; welcomes the Government’s action to restore Pride in Place backed by £5 billion to support 339 locations to empower communities to drive meaningful change in their local area, including high streets; supports local communities being given new powers to tackle vacancies, and prevent new betting and vape shops in their areas, including the ability to auction off persistently empty premises through High Street Rental Auctions; further welcomes the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that will ban upwards-only rent reviews in commercial leases, helping to create fairer rental conditions; endorses the Government’s support for property owners; also welcomes that from April 2026, eligible retail, hospitality, and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 will benefit from permanently lower business rates multipliers; welcomes the Plan for Small Businesses which supports high street small businesses as the backbone of local economies and which commits to cut the administrative burden of regulation for businesses by 25%; and further recognises that the Employment Rights Bill will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century, extending the protections that many small businesses already offer their workers to all.”

I will start with where I agree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). Our town and city centres are part of our identity and our sense of belonging. When they do not meet expectations—when shops are shut and footfall is down—that can dent pride in place, hold back the economy and leave our communities divided. Put simply, they are part of the nation’s barometer of whether we—all of us in this House—are doing a good job. That also means that, when our high streets prosper, the country can too. Retail and hospitality form the engine of our economy. Every pound spent on our high streets supports jobs, renewal and living standards.

But, after 14 years of decimating our high streets, I think the Conservatives have some cheek in raising this debate and pretending they have solutions. The shift to online and out-of-town retail left too many high streets with increased vacancy rates, and the Conservatives did absolutely nothing about it. Austerity and cuts to local government robbed our public realm of investment, and they did absolutely nothing about it. The harshest pain of all was felt because of the cost of living pressures resulting from Liz Truss—remember her?—and her catastrophic mini-Budget, which Conservative Members supported every step of the way.

Where the Conservatives oversaw neglect and decline—for which they should hang their heads in shame—this Labour Government believe that the best days of the nation’s high streets are ahead of us. But to reach them, we need the full force of Government to make that a reality. Only by raising household incomes and putting more money in people’s pockets can we boost the demand that our high streets need.

To the Conservative party, who pretend that there is a quick fix, I say this: you crashed the economy; do not forget that. You put jobs and livelihoods at risk; do not forget that. You oversaw 14 years of decline for our high streets and our district centres; this Labour Government are dealing with the mess that you left behind. So, quite frankly, we will take no lectures from the Conservatives.

[Graham Stuart]

Does the Minister regret the fact that unemployment has gone up every single month since Labour came to power, whereas, over the 14 years of the Conservative Government, 800 more people a day—4 million in total—came into work? Surely she must recognise those facts, away from her—albeit rather brilliant and fiery—rhetoric.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Any economist will tell us that there is always a lag. What we are now seeing are the consequences of the last party’s failures. We are fixing the mess; we are fixing the foundations in order to repair, and I will give examples of that.

Growth is our priority for the nation’s high streets, but we also recognise that, historically, the effects of that have not been equally felt. That is why we are giving communities greater control over their areas, so that they can drive the change that they want to see. In September, the Communities Secretary and I set out the Government’s Pride in Place programme and strategy. We will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support across the 244 places that need it the most—places that were neglected by the Conservatives. It will be up to new neighbourhood boards to decide how that is spent over the next decade, but each area will be encouraged to use the funding to build thriving public places.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

Does the hon. Lady understand the immediacy of the problem facing companies in the high street? She has mentioned energy costs, and she is quite right to do so, but why does the Liberal Democrat amendment suggest that changes should be made to reduce them “within a decade”?

[Sarah Olney]

The Liberal Democrat plan aims to halve energy bills within the decade by scrapping the link between gas and electricity prices. We have a positive plan to make a real difference to energy prices for households and businesses.

I wonder whether the Conservatives have really learned the lesson from their time in government. I listened with interest when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) asked the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), about how their plans for business rate cuts would impact on local government finances, and he had nothing to say. To me, that is an indicator that the Conservatives have not yet learned the lessons of the mini-Budget, and that they plan to repeat all those errors again if they ever get back into government.

However, many of the challenges that businesses face are being compounded by decisions taken by this Government, from their damaging national insurance rise to continued uncertainty about Ministers’ approach to the Employment Rights Bill. The economy is practically stagnant, with business confidence down and unemployment up. The Government must act more urgently to support our high streets, which are vital to our local economies and provide the jobs that so many rely on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

There are, dare I say, perhaps some bits missing, which mean it does not add up and we can’t put it all together—I don’t know where I am going with that, sorry! [Laughter.]

The training, hiring and retaining of a skilled workforce are issues affecting businesses across the country. The apprenticeship levy does not work and many businesses cannot get the funding they need to train staff, while hundreds of millions in funding goes unspent. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for the apprenticeship levy to be replaced with a wider skills and training levy, which would give businesses flexibility over how they spend their money to train their staff. We therefore welcome the Government’s intention to reform the levy and refocus it towards growth and skills, but we need faster progress and Skills England made into a properly independent body, with employers at its heart. However, we have concerns about moving funding away from level 7 apprenticeships, as we know this initiative increases social mobility. I will continue to ask the Minister if they will accelerate the announcement of the details of the new scheme, outlining exactly what training will be eligible so that businesses can plan with certainty and develop the workforce we need.

Perhaps the most obvious issue that has impacted our high streets over recent years is the last Government’s botched Brexit trade deal. Many business owners have highlighted the reams of red tape and trading forms that they must navigate to import goods from Europe or export them to the continent. This is valuable time taken away from the productive tasks involved in running a business, and Government policy has simply made life for managers far more difficult.

Meanwhile, unemployment has gone up and a range of sectors are facing acute labour shortages, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has highlighted on many occasions in this place. Many high vacancies are concentrated in high street sectors such as hospitality, retail, the arts and entertainment. Those are exactly the kinds of industries that young people visiting the UK for a few years might wish to work in. A youth mobility scheme would offer British businesses a real opportunity to address staffing shortages by welcoming young people from EU countries for a limited period, bringing fresh talent and energy to our workforce. I ask the Government to set out a timeline for when their announced youth experience scheme will be introduced.

However, the Liberal Democrats welcome the motion’s call to increase support for high business energy bills. I urge the Government to act with more urgency in addressing energy costs for businesses, including by accelerating the launch of the industrial competitiveness scheme, the consultation for which is not even due to be launched until the end of the year. The Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government to look closely at our proposals to break the link between gas and electricity prices, halving household bills within a decade and significantly cutting business energy costs over the same period.

[Graham Stuart]

I would fascinated to hear from the hon. Lady precisely how the energy market can separate gas from electricity prices. If she has a plan to do so, it would be lovely to hear it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

This motion is a masterclass in political gaslighting. It claims to support high streets, but proposes slashing public investment, scrapping workers’ rights and deregulating the very protections that keep our communities safe. It is not really a motion; it is a demolition notice for our high streets and our town centres. Neglect, not regulation, is the real threat to our high streets. Under the previous Tory Government, shoplifting rose by 71%, street theft increased by 59%, and violence against shop workers hit 2,000 incidents per day. This is the legacy of the Conservative party—a record of abandonment and inaction. The Conservatives let crime spiral and neighbourhood policing collapse. This Labour Government are reversing that damage.

Through the safer streets summer initiative, more than 500 towns, including my town of Stevenage, are seeing a surge in visible policing, targeted enforcement against shoplifting and antisocial behaviour, and bespoke local action plans to tackle violence against shop workers. This is not a short-term stunt; it is the first wave of Labour’s neighbourhood policing guarantee, backed by a £200 million investment this year alone. This Government will deliver 13,000 new officers and police community support officers by the end of this Parliament and £5 million for our pride in place programme, giving communities the power to reclaim boarded-up shops, save derelict pubs and block unwanted gambling and vape outlets. This means boots on the ground—not empty promises—restoring safety and confidence to our high streets.

This motion offers slogans about energy bills, but it is Labour that offers systemic reform. We are reforming the energy market to make it fairer and more transparent for businesses and accelerating clean, home-grown energy to reduce long-term costs and dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets. We are not capping chaos; we are ending it.

The Opposition attack the Employment Rights Bill—a Bill that bans the fire and rehire practices that caused the exploitation of so many workers under the previous Government, introduces bereavement leave for grieving parents after pregnancy loss, ends non-disclosure agreements that silence victims of harassment and discrimination, and lifts standards for thousands of my constituents in insecure work. The Opposition call it red tape; I call it basic decency. The Bill will reward decent employers by punishing the bad behaviour of others.

In their motion, the Opposition talk about protecting post offices, pubs and pharmacies, which we all want to do. But how dare they? How dare they preach about protecting post offices? The Conservative candidate in a by-election in the Roebuck ward of Stevenage sent out leaflets to my constituents falsely insinuating that the local post office was closing—this was scaremongering. I checked with the post office, and there was no threat of closure. It was part of a national campaign by the Conservatives, telling people, “Your local post office is being closed,” with no evidence behind it. It is merely a cynical attempt to mislead voters.

[Graham Stuart]

The previous Conservative Government had a national guarantee of 11,500 post offices, which this Labour Front Bench has put under review. That means that there is a threat to post offices across this country. That was highlighted. If anyone has gone further than that about a specific post office, that would obviously be wrong. The truth is that there is a threat to the post office network, and it is one instituted by the Labour Front Bench. Can the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that?

[Kevin Bonavia]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The point is that we, as politicians, have a duty to explain facts and base our arguments on evidence, which was not done in this case. I put it to all politicians and would-be politicians to base their arguments on facts.

This motion is a Trojan horse. It dresses up deregulation as a gift to our constituents while gutting the very foundations of our high streets—fairness and community power. If we accept the premise of this Tory motion, we are no better than a modern-day Troy.

Labour is rebuilding what the Conservatives hollowed out of our communities: safety, fairness, opportunity and, dare I say it, pride. We are putting power back in the hands of local people, bobbies back on the beat and dignity back in the workplace. Our high streets do not need hollow gestures; they need real change. Only this Labour Government are delivering it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

The point was well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) that there are people who benefit from the minimum wage and new rights, but thousands of jobs will never exist as a result of the measures. We have to be cognisant of that in this House. All those measures are incompatible with a thriving high street and any aspiration to bring down welfare spending, as they are all job killers.

[Graham Stuart]

We should be mindful that the last Labour Government, though they did not mean any ill, increased youth unemployment by 45%. That is the worst time for unemployment in life; at that point in life, it has a long-term, scarring, negative effect on people’s outcomes and opportunities, but the Government are doing the same again in the name of protecting workers. The people on the outside are the ones who pay the price.

[Jack Rankin]

My right hon. Friend is right, as always. The best way to back workers in this country is to back our small businesses, and our hospitality businesses in particular, which provide so many jobs to our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), whose passion I always admire, even if I rarely follow or agree with her arguments.

From the day you start your business until the day you pass it on, Labour simply sees a target to tax. Labour Members have shown that today. By contrast, Conservatives see a dream to back. Labour makes it harder to start a business, takes more from you as you grow, and leaves a tax bill for your children when you are gone. We on this side of the House back entrepreneurs. We give them the freedom to build, the tools to invest, and the chance to pass their success to the next generation. That is what our plan will deliver to get Britain working again.

Starting a business is a leap of faith, taken by someone with an idea and the determination to make it work. Conservatives understand that, because many of us have started and run our own businesses. Sadly, just one Cabinet Minister can say the same. I do not think that Labour Members detest enterprise and business; they just do not understand it, and see it as something that they must relentlessly tap. In 14 years under the Conservatives, the number of businesses grew by 1.1 million. We have built businesses, so we know what it takes to make them grow. This Government have not, and it shows.

I am sure that Members across the House love going into schools in their constituencies. The ones in Beverley and Holderness are brimming with budding entrepreneurs —young people full of ideas but lacking the tools to turn them into reality. Research by the Federation of Small Businesses found that, while 60% of young people want to own a business, only 16% ever will.

[Joe Robertson]

The British Retail Consortium has warned that £7 billion of costs have been put on to businesses because of national insurance contributions levied by this Government, and the Chancellor’s attitude was to say, “Well, the NHS is working.” Does she really think that the hospital budget should rest on the entrepreneurs in our constituencies?

[Graham Stuart]

We see it in speech after speech from Labour Members. Perhaps it is because of the careers they have had. They think the key to unlocking the high street, or indeed the wider economy, is public investment. It is not; it is about government getting out of the way. Of course we need a facilitating local and national government, but here are the fundamentals: it is not their money—the money of government—which businesses are allowed to have; and it is not their space, which businesses are allowed to occupy. It is our space—the people’s space—and government is there to facilitate and support, humbly. But humility is something that the Labour party never seems to display when it comes to dealing with business. All it ever does is seek to tax it.

[Jim McMahon]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect.

[Jim McMahon]

On the basis of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, he must support a rise in the national living wage. That is the purest form of a contract between the employer and the employee and, of course, that money goes straight back into the local economies in the towns that he speaks about.

[Graham Stuart]

Of course, we did lift the minimum wage by more than, I think, any other Government. But if we go too far and do what this Government did with young people—making them cost the same as older people, even though they have no experience—funnily enough, they do not get a job.

Of course, Government Members trumpet about the Employment Rights Bill: “Oh, we are providing all these rights for workers!” That is not much use if people are pushed out of the labour market. I thought the Labour party was supposed to care about the marginalised. Well, the marginalised are the people who are missing out—not your fat, union-backed workers getting vast pay at vast cost. Billions were spent paying off the union paymasters of the Labour Government, while young people are once again disadvantaged, and people who are far away from the labour market because of mental health or other issues are pushed further away from it.

Let me give the House an example from my constituency. It does not get much more rural or isolated than down in Kilnsea, just above Spurn point, and if you go to the Crown & Anchor there and speak to those publicans, you will hear that it is this Government, not 14 years of the Conservatives, who have increased their taxes, meaning that they are not taking on a young person—a young person who would have had their first chance. I know those guys are absolutely committed to finding people who are far away from the labour market, providing a nurturing environment and helping them get into work, but that dream is being killed by the Labour party.

I spoke to Viki Foster, careers leader at Withernsea high school, who shared how valuable the right business support in schools can be, and how much more schools could do if they had the resources to match. Our plan will launch business challenges in schools, introduce entrepreneur-led mentoring schemes and provide seed funding from government, so that we can unlock the potential of the next generation. There is a role for government, but it is in facilitating. We have got to make sure that government does not crush and oppress business, but supports it instead.

Starting a business is one thing, but keeping it going is another. Around 60% of businesses fail within the first three years. They need our support, because when Toll Gavel in Beverley or Market Place in Hedon thrive, that creates jobs, boosts spending and drives stronger growth for Britain.

Labour just does not seem to get it. From listening to the speeches today, there seems to be no limit to the amount of tax the Government think can be imposed on business—as long as it is channelled into public investment in their particular constituencies, they think that will grow the economy. They can come here to trumpet and name a vast number of public investments, but if the overall position is that young people are further away from the labour market than they were before, if entrepreneurs and people who would have had high-growth businesses are moving abroad, and if high net worth individuals are dissuaded from working hard in this country, or, worse still, move abroad, then all of us are poorer—our high streets in particular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mohindra]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The small businesses that I speak to say that they feel abandoned by this Government. They face high energy bills and rents, and poor footfall. They have been harmed by Labour’s decisions, and have ever-growing worries about the Budget later this month.

We already know that hospitality is struggling. One in five high street premises are empty, and 100,000 hospitality jobs have been lost since Labour’s Budget. Two thirds of those jobs lost were done by 18 to 24-year-olds. That is simply not sustainable. Business owners do not want that to happen, but they have no choice. A third of businesses are reducing their opening hours as they simply cannot afford to staff up. They include Kitchen Croxley in my constituency, which warned me that as a result of Labour’s policy changes, job losses are inevitable, if it is to keep its doors open.

Businesses of all sizes are affected. Hubs, a franchise owner in my constituency, made me aware that due to Labour’s national insurance contributions increases, his NICs amounted to £138,000 for April to September. He has been warned that his contributions could increase to over £275,000 for the business’s first full-year cycle. That franchise owner is creating 90 local jobs and filling a large high-street unit that sat unoccupied for over a year and a half. It simply seems unfair. Business owners are willing to contribute their fair share—they are investing significant amounts in our high streets—and they should not be penalised for trying to grow their business.

The spirits industry disproportionally faces the effects of these policies; it has contributed £676 million less in taxes than expected, despite the rise in alcohol duty. One business in Kings Langley, Fells, which employs over 70 people in the area and regularly supports charitable causes in the community, faces mounting costs and regulatory burdens. It urges a freeze in duty rates to mitigate the need for further price increases. We are talking about an industry that contributed over £75 billion to the UK economy in 2022, according to the Wine and Spirit Trade Association. Why are we stifling it?

This summer, I spent a week visiting pubs across South West Hertfordshire, to see how they are being affected by Labour’s decision making. I spoke with Nick, the manager of the Coach and Horses in Rickmansworth, who told me that the rises in the minimum wage and NICs have made staffing incredibly difficult. As I have said before, many businesses sympathise with the need to ensure job security and good working conditions. However, that comes at the cost of rising prices, which just pushes the issue on to customers. Rising prices lead to fewer people visiting pubs and putting their money back into the community.

[Graham Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor would do well to consider a draught beer duty relief? We brought one in when we were in government. It could be balanced up by taxes elsewhere. It would ensure that our locals were supported, instead of facing ever greater costs.

[Mr Mohindra]

My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Members on all sides of the House claim to support pubs, but our policy means that our position is a lot stronger than this Labour Government’s. As I have said before, where this Labour Government get it right, they will have our support. They should not be fearful of changing direction—I will not use the word “U-turn”, because they have done a few of them already. We will absolutely support them changing direction for the better.

Post offices remain critical to our high streets. They are a credible and trustworthy high-street brand, and a place where constituents regularly see a friendly face. I represent seven post offices in South West Hertfordshire and visit them regularly, including the one in Croxley Green, which I visited just two weeks ago. I have seen in person how busy postmasters serve the community. Many postmasters see their regulars frequently; they are often the first to see how their customers are doing.

Post offices have evolved to provide services that go beyond just post. Many now also provide banking services, owing to the closure of high-street banks. Danny, the postmaster at the Rickmansworth branch, is able to offer enhanced banking services. Without them, my constituents would be stuck waiting for unreliable buses to travel to their nearest bank, just to access their money.

In 2023, when we were in government, we extended the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme. We will reverse this Government’s decision not to support our high streets. When it comes to helping our high streets, I look forward to support from across the House, rather than political point scoring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Basically, Labour’s trade union paymasters seem to have written a large part of the Bill. In fact, we found a really rare thing today: one employer on the face of the earth who apparently supports the Bill was mentioned earlier, but of course, they were not British.

In my constituency in Stockton, almost every time I visit a small business owner, they tell me the same story: since the Chancellor’s Budget, they have had to let staff go or reduce their hours; they have had to put up prices, and some are now considering whether there is any future at all for their business. As the chief exec of UKHospitality has said, pubs, bars and restaurants are already closing earlier because of the jobs tax, and more than 200 leading hospitality businesses have written to the Chancellor to warn that her decisions will force companies to cut jobs and reconsider investment.

Too many businesses are closing. Too many jobs are being lost. Boarded-up high streets will eat away at the pride people can have in their communities and town centres. Throughout today’s debate, we have heard Labour MP after Labour MP—soon, I am sure, to be followed by the Minister—talk about the virtues of their Government’s policies. I have to ask them, have they seriously had a conversation with the small businesses on their local high street about the challenges they face?

We are now just a couple of weeks away from the Chancellor’s next Budget. She has the opportunity to change course, yet this morning we heard the same old story, with the Chancellor laying the groundwork for more tax rises—another nail in the coffin of our high streets, alongside people and businesses across the country. But we on the Conservative Benches have a clear plan for stronger high streets. First, we would abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. That would benefit a quarter of a million businesses—savings that would not only help them thrive, but could be reinvested in better premises, low prices, and more jobs. It would lift thousands of businesses out of business rates all together.

[Graham Stuart]

Is my hon. Friend as shocked as I am to find that the Liberal Democrats have joined their comrades in Labour in saying that not a penny can be saved from public expenditure, and instead more taxes must be imposed on businesses that are already struggling with the weight?

[Matt Vickers]

They need to go back on YouTube—we’ll encourage a bit of online interaction—and listen to that fantastic speech from the Leader of the Opposition about the £47 billion of savings that can be made, that will be supported by the public, and that can help us balance the books and save high street businesses.

Another issue facing businesses that has been highlighted by many hon. Members is the impact of energy bills. Britain has the highest electricity prices in the world. It does not have to be this way. The situation is making our high street businesses less competitive and stifling economic growth. That is why we would axe the carbon tax and scrap net zero subsidies to reduce the cost of electricity. That would of course benefit consumers, but also businesses; the average restaurant would save £5,100 a year.

The third point in relation to our plan for stronger high streets is stronger policing. Under this Labour Government, crime is on the rise in high streets across the country, eroding community trust and public safety. It is having a huge impact on our high streets. Indeed, just a few weeks ago I met Costa Coffee, a well-known high street chain. Despite its huge resources, its representatives told me that they face constant thefts, and even ram-raids to steal sandwiches and drinks—an unbelievable situation.

Even Greggs—one of the nation’s favourites, and mine—has had to start locking up its sandwiches, soft drinks and sausages rolls in some locations, because of prolific shoplifting. In fact, shoplifting has risen by 20% in this Labour Government’s first year in office. That is the highest figure since modern records began, but it is no surprise because police numbers are falling. There are 1,316 fewer police officers since this Labour Government came to power.

As part of our plan, we will hire 10,000 extra police officers backed by £800 million in funding. We will end Labour’s early release scheme to keep criminals behind bars, introduce intense police hotspot patrolling in areas to cover serious violent crime and robbery, and treble stop and search to take knives and weapons off our streets. We will also redirect resources to catch real criminals, abolishing non-crime hate incidents so that police can spend 60,000 more hours policing our streets and not our tweets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

I will return the compliment to my right hon. Friend before I disagree with him. This is the problem; there is a certain cheek to the Conservative party leaving us a burning building and then criticising us for reaching for the fire hose. We had to stabilise the public finances—and again, that is not abstract. The Conservatives have to learn the lesson—here comes the groan—from the Liz Truss Budget. They have to learn that lesson, because this is not abstract for businesses.

Returning to the issue of stripping out the costs of red tape, in March the Government pledged in our regulation action plan to cut the cost of regulatory burdens by 25%. At the regional investment summit last month, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Business Secretary made a great start on that, creating an additional £230 million of savings for businesses by changing the requirements on directors’ reports for businesses of any size.

[Graham Stuart]

As the Minister will be aware, according to the Government, that figure is less than 5% of the cost imposed on business by the Employment Rights Bill.

[Blair McDougall]

The cost of the Employment Rights Bill is around 0.4% of wage costs across the country, and the additional help that the Bill provides will have a huge impact on small businesses and high streets.

Many Members raised the issue of crime, but let me reassure the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who spoke of the character of local areas, and suggested that there should be greater local powers to control the spread of gambling shops. We intend to deal with that when time allows.

For 10 years we waited for a small business strategy, and in July we introduced one. We are taking action on late payments for businesses, on access to finance and on cutting red tape. Across this Government there is an urgency—it is there today, and I wish it had been there before—to support small businesses and help to get our high streets back on their feet.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I am aware of my hon. Friend’s work, and the work of Milton Keynes council and others in the city, to bring down the number of rough sleepers. We will take that whole-person approach in the homelessness strategy. I never knowingly avoid a meeting with an APPG, so I am sure that we will get that arranged shortly.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Reducing youth homelessness relies on having an effective, working housing market. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) understands that, and that is why she has pledged that a future Conservative Government will abolish stamp duty on primary residences. She has also said that she is happy for the idea to be stolen and adopted by other parties. It would reduce the cost of house buying in Beverley and Holderness by around £3,800—a real boost for young families trying to get on the housing ladder. Will the Minister say to the Secretary of State, and indeed the Chancellor, “Adopt this policy, and do it now”?

[Alison McGovern]

The party of Liz Truss just doesn’t learn, does it? The Conservatives are happy to make tax policy that is absolute fantasy. People need real homes to live in, not this kind of thing, and the Conservatives simply will not get a hearing until they look at their record and learn to say sorry.

Local Government Reform: Cambridgeshire

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered local government reform in Cambridgeshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Following the publication of the English devolution White Paper in December 2024, on 5 February Cambridgeshire and Peterborough’s district councils were invited to develop proposals for the introduction of unitary authorities within the county, expected to come into effect in April 2028. A detailed collective proposal for what the future unitary authorities in Cambridgeshire should look like is to be submitted to the Government by 28 November.

I applied for this debate to outline the sizeable concerns in Huntingdonshire about local government reorganisation. These concerns are potentially echoed across other areas of Cambridgeshire, and I encourage other MPs to whom I have spoken about the proposals also to voice their concerns.

Cambridgeshire residents have been presented with just three options on which to give their opinions. Proposal A is referred to as the north-west, south-east option, with Peterborough, Huntingdonshire and Fenland in the north, and Cambridge, East Cambridgeshire and South Cambridgeshire in the south. Proposal B is the north-south option, with Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire together, and then Peterborough combined with everywhere else—Huntingdonshire, Fenland and East Cambridgeshire. Proposal C is east-west, with Peterborough, East Cambridgeshire and Fenland in the west, and Cambridge, Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire in the east.

These proposals were apparently narrowed down from six options. However, these have not been published, and it is difficult to know, even as an MP, how they were decided and why the possibility of a breakdown by Westminster constituency, county division or district council ward was ruled out. My own Huntingdonshire district council stated that:

“We are taking an evidence-based approach. Inevitably, the different needs and local identities of our areas will have a significant impact on the preference of our own councils, and we must respect that”.

However, what evidence is there? The consultation by each of the district councils appears to be little more than a paper exercise. How are residents expected to feed back an informed decision regarding a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape the future of local government without any actual information on what the impact of expressing their preference might mean? Martin Hassall, the independent councillor for Buckden, Diddington and Southoe, said:

“The proposals are complex, poorly communicated, and offer little reassurance that the end result will mean better services or genuine value for money.”

In a written answer, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), said:

“We expect there to be wide engagement with local partners and stakeholders, residents, workforce and their representatives, and businesses on a proposal.”

But how can Cambridgeshire’s district councils credibly be expected to develop a robust proposal without realistically understanding the preferences of their residents? The only feedback prior to the final proposal being submitted is an engagement survey that bears little resemblance to the three options that have been put forward. They are in effect situating the estimate, having already decided one of three answers, and will tailor the results to fit.

How will the Government ensure that any decision reflects the wants and needs of local residents? Moreover, if the Government overrule the proposals submitted by the council, upon which evidence will they ensure that the voices of local people are considered?

The Huntingdonshire district council website says:

“All proposals will be assessed against all the criteria in the invitation. Decisions on the most appropriate option for each area will be judgements in the round, having regard to the statutory guidance and the available evidence. That evidence will include information provided by the councils as part of their proposals, representations received during the statutory consultation, and other relevant information available”.

A written answer to me on Friday said:

“a consultation could be launched in early 2026, likely closing at some point after the May local elections”.

Could the Minister clarify whether impacted residents across Cambridgeshire will have their say? If so, is the late May date the first opportunity they will have? If the statutory consultation is not until after next year’s local elections, can we assume that district council elections in Huntingdonshire will definitely go ahead?

The Government are in the process of botching this local government reorganisation with their hands-off approach. Every question to the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution has so far been met with a deflection to the relevant local authority, but this has left a situation where local authorities seem unsure of the detail, local residents have endless unanswered questions, and we are on the cusp of making enormous changes that will have a lasting impact on people’s lives, their prospects and their quality of life, all because nobody had bothered to think through the detail.

In March, a joint statement from council leaders across Cambridgeshire stated:

“We look forward to further discussions with each other and with government, and when the time is right, with residents, Members of Parliament and our partners”.

When will Members of Parliament be engaged on the initial proposal? I have not been engaged thus far, and I do not believe any of Cambridgeshire’s other MPs have been officially engaged either. What is the plan? I appreciate that is more of a rhetorical question than one for the Minister, but the point still stands. I am sure this debate will be watched by council leaders, and some of my questions are more for their benefit.

Last week, I wrote to each councillor in my Huntingdon constituency to seek their input on the potential impact of the changes, and hon. Members will hear a selection of quotes peppered throughout my speech. I was very pleased to receive a range of responses from across the political spectrum, with Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and independent councillors highlighting their concerns. Councillor Nathan Hunt, Liberal Democrat, Huntingdon East ward, said:

“throughout the process, communication from central government seems to have lacked required detail and has generally been poor”.

It is highly notable that, despite our political differences, the responses highlighted the same broad concerns: a rushed process, short timelines, lack of rigour, unclear criteria, poor communication, inadequate information, analysis and evidence, and no clear identification of what is best for residents.

The engagement survey currently in flight, led by East Cambridgeshire district council as communications lead, is not clearly signposted or easy to locate. It will be interesting to see once it closes whether there has been significant uptake. There has been no indication from Huntingdonshire district council of whether there is a minimum viable response rate. If sufficient responses are not received, will they be considered at all? Will that extend to the whole of Cambridgeshire and to other district councils? Prior to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority mayoral election in May, a booklet was sent to every household, so why has a similar effort not been made to engage residents with a posted survey? Most people have no idea that the local government reorganisation is happening, and that is as much the fault of the Government as of the local authority.

The engagement survey closes on Sunday 20 July, so in less than two weeks, residents in my constituency and across Cambridgeshire will have had what initially appears to be their only opportunity to influence the process, and it will have passed most of them by. The three shortlisted options were sadly published only as maps and with no additional information, and all local authorities published the same survey at the same time. To what extent will the Government take into account the results of the engagement survey from residents in each district council area? To what extent will the Government take into account the submission from the district councils regarding the preferred option? If the Government decide that they simply do not like the unitary structure proposed by the Cambridgeshire district councils, which criteria will they use to override them and impose their own solution?

It is inconceivable that residents are being asked to make a decision on the future structure of Cambridgeshire without any financial information. No information is publicly available that compares the finances of councils, and we have seen no information on council income, expenditure, debt or council tax.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend, not uncharacterist-ically, has made an excellent point and I entirely agree with her. As I said yesterday, the Minister has had a unique opportunity with this Bill—a detailed and potentially groundbreaking Bill—to fundamentally change the planning processes in this country for the better. He told us many times on the Bill Committee that he was reflecting on some of the genuine points and key concerns that Members from across the House brought to him. However, those reflections amounted to nothing. He consistently said that he would reflect on the genuine principles that we brought forward, but we have seen no changes in the legislation. We have seen no acceptance of our thoughts and no efforts to change this legislation to reflect the genuine concerns that so many of us brought to this place.

The Liberal Democrats tabled many amendments and new clauses. As the Minister knows, I very rarely praise the Liberal Democrats on the Floor of the House or in my constituency of Hamble Valley, and I am not likely to do so going forward. However, what I would say is that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and his colleague, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), tabled some really good and principled amendments that would have this improved this legislation, particularly on chalk streams and on some of our other concerns.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that Governments of all stripes tend not to accept amendments in this House, enormously to the frustration of colleagues from across the Chamber who put them forward. Will he join me in encouraging the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to take the opportunity to think again on some of the amendments if the Bill is delayed in the other place? All of us want to see more houses built, but in a way that works with communities. As my hon. Friend said, there is an opportunity here to do something historic, so let us make sure that when the Bill goes to the House of Lords—if that is what is required—the Government listen and act.

[Paul Holmes]

I have put it on the record, both here and in the Public Bill Committee, that I think this is a principled Minister who knows his stuff. Therefore, he should not be afraid to open his arms and embrace collective responsibility across the House to make sure that this legislation is better, and that it serves everybody in this country. He needs to make sure that the key principles that he wants to achieve are actually achievable. I say very strongly, as I did yesterday, that the key things that he wants to achieve, such as these housing numbers, will not be achieved through this legislation. He still has the opportunity to work with Members of all parties to make sure that this is a really important piece of legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend tempts me into the responsibilities of another Department, but I will get the relevant Minister from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to write to him to set out what measures are being put in place as part of the warm homes plan.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

In 2010, just 12% of homes had an EPC C rating or above, so those homes were too cold and had bills that were too high. It was 60% by 2024 when we left power. Will the Minister share with the House the ambition and give us a number for the percentage of homes that we should expect to have that basic EPC C rating by the end of this term, which I hope will be the only one the Minister has, so he should make a difference while he can? [Laughter.]

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

That’s a bit harsh.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

My hon. Friend is right. We have inherited record levels of homelessness and rough sleeping, but this Government are determined to take action and address those challenges. Through the third round of the local authority housing fund, we are providing councils with half a billion pounds to house some of the most vulnerable people in the country, and have announced an injection of £2 billion to deliver up to 18,000 new affordable social homes.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

T6. I am confident that the Secretary of State loves the pub as much as you and I do, Mr Speaker, but the jobs tax and the slashing of business rate relief have delivered a hammer blow to pubs such as the Barrel in Walkington, owned by Thwaites, and to hospitality businesses such as the Beverley Arms hotel. Has the Secretary of State made representations to the Chancellor ahead of Wednesday to ensure that more landlords are not forced to call last orders?

[Angela Rayner]

I might like a pint; and wouldn’t he like to know?

Residential Estate Management Companies

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I do not need to remind Members to bob if they wish to be called in the debate. We are busily counting how many there are. To get everybody in would effectively allow a little more than two minutes each. I do not want to go below that, because it becomes a bit meaningless. We will try to keep everything short, and it would help if interventions were minimised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. This issue comes up time and again in my postbag, particularly from residents in Wymondham town in South Norfolk.

My constituents have raised three clear and pressing concerns, which I hope the Minister will be able to address in his closing remarks. First, there is a glaring lack of accountability and transparency when it comes to estate management companies. Residents are often left with no clear route to challenge fees or demand better services. At a time when every penny counts, we cannot allow these companies to make up charges on a whim and profiteer at the expense of hard-working families.

Secondly, there is no effective legislation compelling developers to hand over services and responsibilities in a timely and orderly fashion, resulting in confusion, inconsistency, and, in many cases, residents caught in limbo. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, residents on these estates are paying twice: once through council tax, and again through ever-increasing estate management fees. In return, they often receive a poorer level of service than their neighbours who do not live on managed estates.

I recently sat down with Kevin, a constituent who lives on a Persimmon estate in Wymondham. Like many others, Kevin’s experience has been frustrating and, frankly, unacceptable. Some services on his estate have been adopted; others have not. The local highways remain unadopted, and the water and sewage infrastructure is still being managed by a private management company, because Anglian Water has not yet adopted it. Kevin and his neighbours are left paying for a system that does not work properly, and they are rightly asking: why? I want to put Kevin’s question directly to the Minister: why can developers not be made responsible for the upkeep of estates until full adoption by the relevant authorities is complete?

This is not just a question of regulation but a matter of fairness. If we believe in levelling up and supporting our families in every part of the country, we must act to ensure that residents are treated with respect, and to give them the services they pay for. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

If colleagues are able to speak for 90 seconds, that will be tremendous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I call the ever-succinct Rupa Huq.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. Residential estate management is a scandalous reality affecting thousands of people across the country. Residents are left to navigate this complex landscape alone, often forced to pay escalating and unchallengeable fees for services they did not agree to, provided by companies they cannot remove.

Stephen from Glastonbury is permanently tied, alongside his neighbours, to contracts with FirstPort that are written into the Land Registry. They are charged £560 annually for minimum maintenance of open spaces, with fees rising annually despite declining standards. The residents are billed for obscure services, and when questioned, FirstPort offers vague justifications and claims that costs are rising to meet expectations. Whose expectations? They are certainly not the expectations of residents.

Another constituent, Anne, moved into her flat on Cavalier Way in Wincanton a year ago, having budgeted for a manageable service charge of £750. Within the last few months, she has been hit, without any consultation whatever, with a shocking £7,000 invoice from RMG, the management company, to cover stairwell repairs. By labelling that cost as a budget, rather than a service charge, RMG seems to be attempting to sidestep the legal protections of section 20. When I met other residents of Cavalier Way last week, some told me that their costs were rising by a staggering 479% and that they simply do not have the means to pay those grossly inflated service charges.

The Liberal Democrats believe that that must change. We have long called for leasehold reform and the professionalisation of estate management so that homeowners can control their own properties.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I call Danny Beales.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Stuart, but I believe you have mistaken me for another ginger—there are a few of us in this Parliament.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Yes, I have. Apologies.

[Luke Myer]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship none the less, Mr Stuart, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this debate.

We are at the foothills of a historic era for housebuilding, but the question is: what happens after we build those houses? Residents across my constituency are being hit by the fleecehold stealth tax. They pay for services twice: once in council tax and again in estate charges. I recently heard from residents of the Ladgate Woods development, who were contacted by their property management company with an unexpected bill to cover their neighbours’ unpaid bills, despite already having paid their share in full. It cannot be right for responsible residents to be punished for doing the right thing.

Management firms are often faceless companies based miles away—or even abroad, as we have heard today—and they are completely unaccountable. Residents are left powerless, with no control, choice or clarity. There needs to be a clear pathway to the adoption of new developments by local councils, with a timeline for residents. To that end, I support the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern); I also take this opportunity to congratulate him on his recent engagement.

It is time that we ended the postcode lottery in which some homes are served by local councils, and others by firms that one would struggle to get on the phone. It is time we strengthened consumer protections for ordinary working families and put power back where it belongs: in the hands of residents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. With apologies to the five or six Back Benchers who have not been called, I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The housing numbers for London were cut by 20% by the Government, but again and again we find in Hansard the Secretary of State asserting that 1.5 million homes will be built during this Parliament in England. Why did the Chancellor tell us a few days ago that only 1.3 million will be built across the whole of the UK, and will the Secretary of State please confirm that the 1.5 million target has gone?

[Angela Rayner]

The Minister for Housing and Planning answered this question just a moment ago. Perhaps my Mancunian accent will help: the OBR scored the national planning policy framework changes that we have already made. That is where that figure came from. Our other plans, including the new homes accelerator programme, the money that we have invested since then, and the changes in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, mean that the number will increase, and we will meet our 1.5 million homes target. I do not think that I can put it much clearer than that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

To add to the responses I gave earlier, we intend to take action to provide leaseholders with the transparency of standardised service charge invoices, so that they can better challenge unreasonable rent hikes. We also need to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, including those such as FirstPort that, as is clear from the feeling in the House, are not performing the necessary services for their residents.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Welcome though the hundreds of millions of pounds extra for adult social care in the Budget were, can the Secretary of State confirm that the cost of rises in national insurance contributions and the minimum wage will run into the billions, and that local authorities will in fact be worse off than they were prior to the Budget in tackling social care? Can she confirm that—yes or no?

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

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?

[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.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is a perfect example of one of the unintended consequences that I do not believe have been put in deliberately but are something that we might see as a result of the Bill. Other issues include accidental landlords—those who did not intend to be landlords and are not large portfolio holders—and small landlords, and we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner about the challenge they face regarding economic drivers and the risk of the market shrinking. We talked a lot about that on Second Reading, but ultimately landlords are leaving the market, and if there are fewer homes for people to rent, we are in a worse situation.

I support new clause 20, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I believe a review of the Bill’s impact on the housing market after a year is important to ensure that we make it even better than it already is, and to address those unintended consequences. We can all agree that is important, given the challenges we have already heard about regarding the long housing waiting lists and the homelessness rife across our country. It is also important to listen to landlords.

In particular, I draw attention to some of the reasons why new clause 20 is so important. Plymouth Access to Housing, known as PATH, is a key player in tackling homelessness in my constituency, and it works especially with those who are harder to place into accommodation. It has rightly said that it supports the Bill in principle—as we have heard, the Opposition support large parts of it too—but in a buoyant private rental market. It is concerned that it is not buoyant, so there is already a challenge. That is why a review would be important. PATH also says that it has received funding in the past to support landlords to stay in the private rented sector. What plans does the Minister have, perhaps outside of this Bill, to ensure that such organisations, in which some Members present today have worked, might be able to mitigate the impact of some of those future challenges?

The South West Landlords Association, which I have mentioned, would benefit from new clause 20, because it would allow for an assessment of a provision that essentially amounts to a doubling of the amount of rent arrears that can be accrued and of the notice required for possession before a landlord can get somebody out of their property. Landlords are particularly concerned about that, for the financial reasons we have already set out. If they have to wait for three months of arrears and then another month’s notice before they can remove someone from their property when they have not been paying rent, that has a massive impact on small landlords, and on those accidental landlords in particular—that is nearly half a year of income they would lose. Ultimately, it is the luck of the draw. We do not know in advance how good tenants will be. If someone has an excellent tenant, it is not a problem, but with a bad tenant it is not so good.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that, fundamentally, the only way to secure the rights of tenants is to ensure the buoyant rental market that she is talking about, where landlords want to enter and invest in it? They are then competing for tenants in the market, which is the biggest and most powerful force of all. That will drive decent behaviour towards tenants, and without that, landlords cannot gain and retain tenants.

[Rebecca Smith]

I appreciate the point that my right hon. Friend makes. I agree that the market is important, but I also appreciate that there are some whom the market has failed. We have to find a situation where those who are not looked after by their landlords can receive support, but, as I have already said, my concern is that the Bill goes too far in the opposite direction.

[Graham Stuart]

With the freedom of being on the Back Benches, I can say that the last Conservative Government got this wrong. When they stopped landlords being able to offset the interest payments on the mortgage for that commercial asset against their income, it was one step among many that reduced the number of landlords coming into the market. Each step along the way, instead of seeking to strengthen the market, successive Governments—Conservative then, and the process is bound to be completed by Labour now—moved against landlords to make it a less and less investable asset. Ultimately, those who lose out most are tenants.

[Rebecca Smith]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that ultimately tenants are at risk of losing out if there are no properties left in the market. That leads me on to my next point and one of the other reasons why an assessment would be useful in the light of new clause 20. We heard in Committee that rural landlords are particularly concerned. According to the Country Land and Business Association, 44% of landlords are planning to sell in the next two years, and only 21% are planning to build new properties. When 90% of those planning to leave cite reforms to the private rented sector as a reason, we need an opportunity to reflect and to see the impact assessment.

Having set out some of my reasons for supporting new clause 20, I will turn briefly to new clause 15, which has been mentioned many times already. I appreciate why it has been tabled in the tragic circumstances that have been laid out. In the light of some conversations we had in Committee, I am interested to see who is in scope to be considered family for the purposes of that guarantor system. The new clause lists

“child…grandchild…parent…grandparent…sibling…niece or nephew…aunt or uncle…or, a cousin”.

That is a wide but—I think we would all agree—highly realistic view of what family is. However, in schedule 1 to the Bill, a landlord can only evict an existing tenant to house a parent, grandparent, sibling, child or grandchild.

I raised this matter with the Minister in Committee, and I know that he thinks tenants’ rights would be inhibited if we extended the definition of family, but I find it puzzling that a wide extended family is justified in new clause 15, but not in the determination of who lives in a property under schedule 1. Often, those family members may be vulnerable themselves and need somewhere to live. It is a niche point, but for the Government to say that someone cannot house their niece or nephew—or, in the light of new clause 15, their aunt, uncle or cousin—feels like an overreach of the state. We are slightly testing ownership rights and restricting trust and freedom in society as a result.