Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 General Committees

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. This statutory instrument was laid before the House on 14 May 2026.

The order makes a small but important change to existing arrangements that govern significant financial decisions made by councils during local government reorganisation, including those on land disposals and contracts. The Government’s programme of reform, as set out in the English devolution White Paper, will move power out of Westminster and strengthen the foundations of local government. A key part of that programme is local government reorganisation, replacing two-tier councils with single-tier councils that are simpler, clearer and more accountable to the communities that they serve.

The Government’s long-term aim is to create local government structures that make it easier for residents to understand what group is responsible for local services and decisions, while enabling more strategic choices that support growth and improve public services. To meet that ambition, the transition must be orderly and legally sound, and must properly protect the public interest. Existing councils must continue to discharge their functions while new councils are being established, and decisions taken during that period should not undermine the position of the successor councils.

For that reason, the framework includes safeguards, which are set out in section 24 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Those provisions allow the Secretary of State to issue directions that control certain land disposals and significant contractual commitments. Where a decision could have implications for the successor council, councils may, in certain situations, be required to secure consent before proceeding. In practice, that consent will usually come from the relevant shadow council. Those controls ensure that major financial decisions taken during the transition will not adversely affect successor councils. Specific consent will be required for larger decisions, while general consent can be used to enable day-to-day activity to continue.

The order, made under section 29 of the 2007 Act, makes a targeted change to the way that those safeguards apply. As the framework currently operates, councils may need to take account of previous land disposals and contractual dealings when assessing whether the relevant financial thresholds have been reached. The starting point of that aggregation period has remained fixed at 31 December 2006, which could require authorities to examine almost 20 years of historical activity. That was not the intention of the policy. The controls were intended to focus on recent and relevant activity in the period leading up to reorganisation, rather than to create unnecessary retrospective burdens.

The order updates the beginning of the aggregation period to 31 March 2025, to ensure that the framework captures relevant activity without requiring unnecessarily extensive historical analysis, while leaving the underlying safeguards on disposals of land and contractual dealings unchanged. The Committee should note that the order does not represent a change of policy, and does not alter the underlying safeguards.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am a little unclear on the implications of what the Minister just said. If, for example, Barratt Redrow and the Jockey Club submitted a planning application, under the new national planning policy framework, to flatten Kempton Park racecourse to build 2,000 homes on that land, would no one be able to consider what had happened in retrospect? Would they be allowed to consider only what happened under this Government’s current NPPF?

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman asked about a specific example, which sounds like it relates to a specific concern.

[Lincoln Jopp]

indicated assent.

[Alison McGovern]

He is nodding, which is helpful. In that case, I will write directly to him about that important local issue. I am not overly concerned that the example the hon. Gentleman raised is engaged by this change, but I will write to him to confirm that, because it sounds like an important issue in his constituency.

The clarification in the order is designed to make sure that the existing safeguards operate as intended and can be applied with greater consistency across councils. The order preserves the balance between enabling councils that are due to be abolished to continue to operate effectively, and protecting successor councils, residents and taxpayers’ money.

Although the amendment in the order was first identified through engagement with Surrey, it has been tested more widely with local government representatives, including engagement with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Department’s local government reorganisation advisory group, which brings together senior officers and experts from across local government. It is therefore not a measure designed only for Surrey, but an update that will apply across the local government reorganisation programme.

This statutory instrument supports a legally robust transition by reducing uncertainty in the operation of the framework and promoting consistent application across the reorganisation programme. It makes a small but necessary technical change to ensure that the safeguards that govern significant financial decisions during transition work as intended, thereby supporting the whole local government reorganisation programme.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank members of the Committee for their contributions to this debate. Before concluding, I want to address some of the points raised.

The shadow Minister asked about disputes between councils. I want to be explicit that councils remain responsible for their decisions during the transition and must act in line with their legal duties. We expect councils to act transparently and have regard to their fiduciary duties and wider public responsibilities when taking such decisions as local authorities do week in, week out—and local authority officers know that. Decisions regarding ongoing service delivery and the medium-term financial strategies of existing councils should not compromise the future sustainability of new councils—I say that just for clarity.

We have published an explanatory note to councils undergoing reorganisation about financial decisions before reorganisation and we continue to work with councils to support orderly and effective transitions. However, decisions on individual assets are the responsibility of local authorities. I will happily circulate the explanatory note to members of the Committee if that would aid them. The officials in my Department are in touch with councils on a regular basis. This framework tries to create safeguards to make sure that significant actions taken during transition do not adversely affect successor authorities.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Alison McGovern]

I will do so in a moment.

The shadow Minister makes a very reasonable point on councils in receipt of exceptional financial support and the disposal of assets. He knows that the number of councils in EFS is a great concern of mine. We liaise with those local authorities week in, week out to do all we can to support them. It serves none of us to have exceptional financial support become normalised, and we are in touch with them.

[Alison McGovern]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne and the hon. Lady in a moment once I finish responding to the shadow Minister.

On arm’s length management organisations and academies, this depends on the specifics of the contract and the transfer that has taken place. Again, we are working actively with councils. On the value of sites and the issue that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned with developers being able to garner extra value from their sites, we have provided councils with checklists and much information about things that they should be wary of. Nevertheless, I thank him for raising it. I will double check that it is on the checklist.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am so grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am also conscious of the Chair’s prohibition on stretching the envelope and referring only to the Minister’s own words. She said that the purpose of this whole procedure today was to make local government reorganisation easier for residents to understand and for a safe, orderly and effective transition. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne for his expertise in this area.

The Minister and I have privately discussed the powers of shadow unitary authorities and their ability to propose name changes: in my case to the “West Surrey”, and if I had my way, “and South Middlesex”, unitary authority. Would she like to put on record the fact that, if the newly elected shadow unitary authority makes a proposal with a majority for the renaming of that unitary authority, she would be bound to accept it?

[The Chair]

Order. That is way beyond the scope of the order before the Committee, but if the Minister wants to comment on it, I will allow her to do so.

Local Government Reorganisation

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), the Minister referred to the importance of local identities. As she knows, in the local government reorganisation, my Spelthorne constituency will be subsumed into something called “West Surrey”. I am very much looking forward to meeting her on 22 April to make representations about why it should be called “West Surrey and South Middlesex”, to take account of Spelthorne’s special circumstances. If she is to commission her officials to do any research work in advance of that meeting, may I recommend a book called “The Real Counties of Britain”, written by Mr Russell Grant, which would set the context for our discussion perfectly?

[Alison McGovern]

By reading such a book, I hope that I might be able to see the future! [Laughter.] I thank the hon. Gentleman for meeting me, and for allowing us this pre-meeting so that we can make best use of the time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend for his effective and committed campaign. We are clear that local areas should be given the power to shape their high streets. When businesses such as gambling shops and casinos are working against what communities want, it is right that the council takes action. The Secretary of State and I are committed to working with my hon. Friend on this issue.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Last year, 88,000 new homes were meant to be started in London, but instead, 5,891 were started. That shortfall has a direct impact on rents in my Spelthorne constituency. Will the Secretary of State say why he is allowing Sadiq Khan to run circles around him?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government have recognised openly that there is a perfect storm when it comes to house building in London. That is precisely why we are consulting on an emergency package. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the consultation closed just weeks ago and he does not have long to wait before we come forward with next steps.

Local Government Reorganisation

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I have announced additional funding. It is very unfair to describe it as a drop in the ocean, because it goes a long way towards supporting councils that need to go through local government reorganisation to remove anomalies, such as that people in two-tier areas have one council that is responsible for leaves above a drain and another that is responsible for leaves below a drain. If residents do not know which council to contact, it is very difficult for them to seek improvements in the services they are using, which is why it is so important that we continue with this process.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He mentioned Surrey, and he will know that my constituency is going to be in a unitary authority called West Surrey. I have received a huge number of representations from constituents who would like the Secretary of State to consider calling that unitary authority West Surrey and South Middlesex, to take account of the fact that Spelthorne has been in Middlesex for 1,000 years and has never really thought of itself as being in Surrey. Will the Secretary of State meet me, so that I can make further representations on my constituents’ behalf?

[Steve Reed]

I am always happy to consider proposals made by the hon. Gentleman, and I will ensure that he gets an appropriate meeting on the point that he has raised, either with me or one of my fellow Ministers.

Local Government Finance

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

Before I begin, I notify the House that the local government finance report has been updated with small corrections on pages 7 and 13. These corrections have been passed on to the House in the proper way ahead of today’s debate. Like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its careful consideration of these reports.

I believe in local government, because I have lived it. As a councillor and as a council leader, I saw the difference that councils make to people’s lives. Local government is the part of our democracy that is closest to people and the things that they care about the most—their family, their community and their home town.

Labour took office after 14 years of ideological cuts imposed on local government. The Tories devolved the blame for their failure in national government by imposing £16 billion of cuts on councils and local communities. Even worse, they targeted the worst of those cuts deliberately on our poorest communities. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), was filmed standing in a leafy garden in Tunbridge Wells boasting about how the Conservatives had stripped away funding from struggling towns so that they could play politics with public money.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Has the Secretary of State made an analysis of the division of Pride in Place funding between Labour and Reform seats versus Liberal Democrat and Conservative seats?

[Steve Reed]

I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to stand up and apologise to the House for what his Government did in diverting money away from the poorest communities. I am very disappointed that he did not take that opportunity, and I suspect that I am not the only one—perhaps he will take the opportunity later on. I remind him and his colleagues that under the Tories, only three in 10 councils received funding that aligned with deprivation; with this Government, the number is more than nine in every 10.

Local people were forced to pay a staggeringly high price for Tory venality. High streets were hollowed out and boarded up. The number of people sleeping rough on our streets doubled. The number of families stuck in temporary accommodation doubled. There were more potholes on our roads than craters on the moon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

Well, the easy answer to that is that it has not been; it is still there.

Above all, this settlement is about fairness, because this Government reject the Tory belief that our poorest communities should be left to sink with less funding and worse public services than other parts of the country. That approach pulled our country apart; and, in doing so, was profoundly unpatriotic. Our settlement reflects a council’s ability to raise income locally, and it reflects the fact that it costs more to deliver services in different parts of the country, retaining rurality funding for social care, because we recognise that workers in those areas have to travel longer distances. We have used the most up-to-date data on deprivation to make sure funding accurately follows need.

We are introducing changes gradually over the period of the settlement so councils have time to adapt, and we are protecting councils’ income, including from business rates growth. Today’s settlement is a milestone in returning councils to a sustainable financial footing, and in restoring fairness to local government funding.

[Lincoln Jopp]

rose—

[Steve Reed]

I will give way one last time.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am incredibly grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He calls it a milestone; I call it a millstone. He talks about fairness. Stanwell in my Spelthorne constituency hits the markers for the double deprivation criteria that would qualify for the Pride in Place funding, but that is diluted by the more affluent areas in my constituency. How is it fair to the people of Stanwell that they do not qualify for Pride in Place funding just because they are surrounded by more affluent areas? Rather than helping, is the Secretary of State not just going to engineer the continuation of pockets of deprivation?

[Steve Reed]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood how it works. An area does not get diluted. The scheme looks at super-output areas on a very small level so we can ensure that the funding goes to those areas with the highest levels of deprivation. I would be happy to write to him about the process if it would help him to better understand how it works.

For the vast majority of councils, increases in council tax will be restricted to 3%, and 2% for the adult social care precept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I am happy to join the right hon. Gentleman in again condemning the role that the Liberal Democrats played, but if he was the sane voice in the Government at the time, I hope he will forgive me for being—slightly—even more concerned about what was going on.

One of the understated problems resulting from the austerity that Harrow has suffered has been the decline in the quality of vital local services. Children’s services were rated inadequate by Ofsted just last year, and immediate improvement was required in eight areas. They included leadership stability, particularly relating to management and oversight of staff and social workers; the

“quality of support, advice and guidance for care leavers”;

the “quality of help” for children who were homeless; the

“quality and consistency in the response”

when care leavers went missing; and the consistency of staffing to support children. Some of the most vulnerable children in my community and across Harrow more generally have been let down by Harrow council. Two years earlier, the Conservative councillors who led Harrow council had driven through major cuts to children’s services of over £2.5 million. Astonishingly, the current Conservative leadership locally is proposing another round of major cuts to children’s services.

One particular case in my constituency stands out. At a nursery, parents reported significant bruising on their child, in what looked like the shape of a child’s footprint. The matter was referred to social services. The parents were arrested and went to court, and the child was taken into emergency foster care. Eventually, the case against the parents was rightly dropped when the court accepted that the original bruising was caused by a child’s foot. In the meantime, during supervised contact that was arranged by Harrow social services, the parents found extensive injuries on the child and reported them to the social worker. Given the scale of the injuries, there should have been a serious investigation at the time, but there was not. In the nearly three years since, the council has struggled to get answers to its questions, and the parents inevitably remain profoundly affected by what has happened to their child, and by what they have been put through as a family. I wish I could say that was an isolated case, but it is not. Although I welcome the additional funding that the council will get, which it will be able to put into social care for young people, there are other measures that I hope the Secretary of State will consider further down the line.

It is not just children’s services that have been affected; the Care Quality Commission has said that adult social care run by Harrow council requires improvement. That certainly did not come as a huge surprise to many carers, elderly people and other vulnerable adults in Harrow. Just last year, the council was ordered to pay compensation to an elderly resident with dementia and her family. The resident needed medical help after she was neglected and let down by the care home in which she had been placed by Harrow council.

Since 2022, Harrow has become the third most expensive council in London for council tax, behind Tory-run Croydon and Liberal Democrat-led Kingston upon Thames. Harrow’s Conservative councillors have put up council tax by the maximum possible every year they have been in power, and they plan to continue doing so—a 20% rise in council tax since 2022, despite their promises to freeze it.

Council tenants have been hit with the maximum rent increases allowable in each of the past four years, while leaseholders’ service charges have rocketed. Astonishingly, some leaseholders in properties owned by Harrow council are expecting to see their service charges rise by 70% this year. One family, currently paying £2,000 annually, have been sent a bill for £3,400 for next year. Those rates are simply unacceptable in the midst of a cost of living crisis, and I hope the council will review them urgently.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Does the hon. Member believe that people who promise not to raise council tax should not raise council tax?

[Gareth Thomas]

Conservative councillors in Harrow promised not to raise council tax but duly did so. I hope the hon. Gentleman will join me in urging the shadow Secretary of State to ask the leader of the council to explain to the people of Harrow why he reneged on his promise.

Regeneration should be an opportunity to build more affordable and social housing, and to help tackle the housing crisis that we face in communities like mine. It should surely involve local communities, create opportunities for them to come together, and provide for key local services. Instead, the completion of the redevelopment of the Grange Farm estate has been delayed multiple times—again, a product of the lack of funding and poor leadership locally.

[Gareth Thomas]

I would certainly welcome the news that the Conservative councillors in Harrow responsible for housing were looking at councils that are committed to building more council homes, like those in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

The failure to complete the redevelopment means that residents have had to put up with mice, damp and substandard accommodation for too long on the Grange Farm estate. On other regeneration schemes in Wealdstone, plans for affordable housing have been axed, no new council housing that had not already been planned by the previous council has been built, and a primary school that was due to be provided has been axed. Developers are not being held properly to account, and a major opportunity to lift the quality of life in the borough has been missed.

A consistent complaint that I have heard from constituents of mine is that they find it very difficult to get to see anyone at the council. They do not know where to go to meet council staff to sort out problems and discuss issues in their neighbourhood. Shortly after the local Conservative party took over running Harrow council, it closed Harrow’s civic centre. It was due to be replaced by a smaller set of council offices in Wealdstone, on what is currently the Peel Road car park. That would have given Harrow residents access to council staff, and helped increase the number of people using businesses on the local high street. It would have freed up council-owned land for much-needed affordable housing and for new workspaces, retail and commercial spaces, as well as a new primary school, a new library, a new park for residents to enjoy and a new town square. However, the civic centre remains closed—derelict and boarded up—and major decisions on regeneration have been delayed or cancelled. No new set of accessible council offices is planned, and no one knows when, or indeed if, new promised housing will go ahead. Instead, local Conservative councillors have spent thousands of pounds doing up their council offices, yet members of the public are not allowed in.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

As the hon. Gentleman should know, changes to the London plan were part of the package that I announced with the Mayor of London, because this Government are prepared to work with the Mayor of London to get the homes built. The previous Government wanted to hobble the Mayor of London so that he could not get the homes built, in order that they could score silly little political points rather than giving people the homes that they need to live in. The previous Government were happy to sit back and watch homelessness double over 14 years. We are not: we are going to build the homes that this country needs, including in London.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

3. What recent progress his Department has made on delivering 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

This Government inherited a housing crisis, with the sector flatlining nationally since 2023. In October, the Mayor of London and I launched a joint package to speed up house building in London. In December, the Minister for Housing and Planning launched a consultation on reforms to the national planning policy framework to increase housing supply, including moving to a default “yes” to applications near railway stations. All of that will increase house building and help us to achieve our targets during this Parliament.

[Lincoln Jopp]

In my Spelthorne constituency, as a result of action taken by the independent, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green-led borough council, we have not had a local plan for a couple of years. It was finally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 25 November, but there has been a planning wild west in Spelthorne for the last couple of years, which I am keen to bring to an end. Will the Secretary of State use his good offices to influence the planning inspector to try to turn around this local plan as soon as possible?

[Steve Reed]

I certainly urge all local authorities to ensure that they have a local plan in place. When we came into government, two thirds of local authorities did not have a plan, but they need one to help developers know what they can build and where, and to speed up house building, which we all want to see.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I am considering the issues that Hillingdon is facing, which are really serious and important, and I will be in touch with my hon. Friend soon so that we can discuss them extensively.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Is Surrey going to get a mayor?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are working with all areas to ensure that we are devolving power, whether to strategic authorities or mayors, to make sure that they can grip the economic opportunities and unlock the growth that we did not see under the last Government, but that this Government absolutely want to deliver.

Draft Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council (Housing and Regeneration Functions) Regulations 2025

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 General Committees

[Jim McMahon]

In a sense, these are legacy agreements made under the previous Government that we are keen to honour. We know that councils worked in good faith when preparing their devolution agreements with the previous Government, and we want to ensure that—notwithstanding the transition period following the English devolution and community empowerment Bill—we can honour those arrangements as much as possible. It is accepted that we are in a period of significant transition for local government in England, both in reorganisation and the creation of new combined authorities in these areas, but we do not think that is a reason in itself to hold back powers.

If the point comes when these areas receive a mayoral strategic authority, as it will be known under the new Bill—the Houses of Parliament need to go through the process of confirming that position—the powers will be conferred, alongside a range of other powers, which would be quite normal. I should say that nothing will be presented to Parliament in the English devolution Bill that cuts across what we now consider to be the foundational agreements that are in place. We would encourage willing local authorities to collaborate and come together, even if that is without a mayor being in place, so that further powers can be devolved to current local authorities.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a Surrey Member of Parliament, and my constituency of Spelthorne is the northernmost borough of Surrey. Can I just confirm whether the changes that we are making today still require Spelthorne borough council to give permission for compulsory purchase, when we have handed those powers to Surrey county council?

[Jim McMahon]

I can check that particular point about the role of district councils in authorising. It may be that we follow up with officials on that point. I would also add that areas in Surrey are part of the accelerated timetable for local reorganisation, and we are now out to consult on the final proposals that have met the statutory test that we set out. We are in that statutory process and that will move to shadow elections for the new unitary authorities as early as May next year. At that point, there will be a transfer of power and responsibilities across to the new unitary councils, and at that point we will consider new SIs that transfer the powers from the existing council structures to the new unitary councils as they come into force. It may well be that, later, there is a devolution agreement set across that bigger geography that we then return to as part of a second SI. We are in a period of transition, and it will take time. We did not believe that it would be right not to fulfil the agreement of the previous Government with the councils that have acted in good faith, notwithstanding those transitional arrangements.

That brings me back to the statutory tests. It is our belief that the economic, the social and environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people who live or work in the relevant areas will be met. I thank local leaders and their councils for their hard work in the Government’s critical mission to widen and deepen devolution in their areas. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith]

There was a real range of questions there. We are bringing forward legislation that affects England and Wales, but I can assure the hon. Member that we are in talks with officials in the Scottish Parliament on that very issue. I also assure her that we will be bringing this legislation forward very soon, and that there will be a proper opportunity for that pre-legislative scrutiny, which I know she will want to take part in.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

2. Whether she plans to take steps with Cabinet colleagues to develop a strategy to improve educational outcomes for boys.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

9. Whether she plans to take steps with Cabinet colleagues to develop a strategy to improve educational outcomes for boys.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)]

Attainment for boys is, on average, lower than for girls. This Government are determined to understand and address the drivers behind that. We are focused on driving educational excellence everywhere, for every child in every school, and my schools White Paper in the autumn will set out our vision for a system that delivers on excellence for everyone.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Recent research by the Centre for Social Justice showed that at key stage 1, key stage 2, GCSEs, A-levels and T-levels, boys are underperforming girls. We simply cannot allow half a generation not to be allowed to reach their full potential. As part of her approach, will the Secretary of State consider looking at whether boys might need to be taught somewhat differently from girls?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this area and the constructive way in which he is approaching an important topic. I, too, have looked at the research from the Centre for Social Justice, which provides some important pointers. Through the schools White Paper, we will consider all the ways we can better support boys and young men as one group. We know that the performance of free school meals-eligible white British boys is particularly low; that is something we inherited from the Conservatives.

Chinese Embassy Development

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will take the two aspects of the hon. Lady’s question in turn, if I may. We will be vigilant against the full range of hybrid, cyber, space and other threats from state and non-state actors, including those emanating from China. On her specific question about the planning application, all the representations made to the Planning Inspectorate as part of that public inquiry are publicly available for hon. Members to see. Ministers, when they come to make a decision on the basis of the inspector’s reports and recommendations, will do so taking into account material planning considerations.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Is the planning officer who is considering this case cleared to receive top-secret information?

[Matthew Pennycook]

A planning inspector is assessing the case as part of a public inquiry. Although I recognise why the hon. Gentleman has asked the question, I am afraid it would not be appropriate for me to comment on national security matters.