Local Government Reorganisation

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that the proposal we have accepted was put forward with cross-party support—the opposite of the claims of Opposition Members, who are trying to politicise a situation, when that played absolutely no part whatsoever in the decisions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that these proposals for Worcestershire will benefit his constituents in Redditch because they will attract more inward investment, which means more jobs for the future and more money in the pockets of people living in Redditch, as well as across the rest of the beautiful county of Worcestershire. I have announced additional funding for every area going through reorganisation to ensure that services—particularly those used by the most vulnerable—can safely transition to the new organisations that will be responsible for them from April 2028.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The dictionary definition of gerrymandering is the manipulation of boundaries to suit a particular party, and decision after decision after decision in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and many, many more have, surprisingly, been the local Labour party’s proposal. Is the Secretary of State aware that the decisions made around the local government reorganisation have directly contradicted the very criteria set by the Government and, as such, will result in multiple judicial reviews?

[Steve Reed]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of the proposals I have accepted have cross-party support. If he has been listening to these exchanges so far, but he will have noticed that not every single Labour Member supports every single decision that I am making, which rather contradicts the case that he is trying to make.

Local Government Reorganisation

Richard Tice Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important point. This is not just about constitutional niceties or the importance of councils to government in this country, crucial though they are; it is about having the right-sized authority to grow our towns and cities, and to give young people and everybody else in this country the opportunities they deserve.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

In a week’s time, we will have a new, unelected Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield. Can the Minister confirm whether the right hon. Member supports this local government reorganisation, or is he going to reorganise the reorganisation?

[Alison McGovern]

Last time I checked, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield had, in fact, been elected.

Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Richard Tice Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon]

The reporting in The Sunday Times was clearly concerning for all of us in the House. What I would say is that, as I set out in my statement earlier, there are a number of agencies that deal with the regulation, enforcement and potential legal action that may be necessary in cases that involve illegal behaviour. I will go no further than that, although my hon. Friend tempts me, but I will just say that I am sure those organisations will be paying very close attention to the media reports over the weekend.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Well, well, this desperate Labour Government will stop at nothing to stop the rise of Reform UK—from trying to cancel elections, to donations, to changing the voting system in Manchester. If the Government are truly concerned about undue influence, has the Minister discussed the proposals with the Cayman Islands hedge fund Quadrature, which was the largest donator to the Labour Government, giving £4 million in 2024, or with the eight companies that have donated half a million pounds? Sure enough, those companies have had almost £150 million of Government contracts since.

[Samantha Dixon]

Any political party that abides by the rules the Government are introducing will be able to flourish in our political system. Those that do not can expect to be held firmly to account.

Houses in Multiple Occupation

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lee Anderson]

I think it is a matter for local councils to decide. In my constituency, HMOs are a big problem, and I am glad that my council has used article 4 in some areas, although I would like to see it rolled out to the whole constituency.

We have druggies, criminals and other wrong’uns living—sometimes six in one small house—in streets that were once considered good places to live. The decent folk who can afford to leave those streets are leaving, in their droves, but the problem is that the investors—the landlords—then buy up their houses and turn them into HMOs. Other decent people, however, cannot afford to move, and have to stay and put up with a life of misery.

The problem is becoming worse and worse. Labour Front Benchers, and indeed Back Benchers, bang on about emptying the hotels that are full of illegal migrants, and no one wants a hotel full of illegal migrants in their area. Nobody wants young, fighting-age males—400 of them sometimes—from backward cultures that treat our women as second-class citizens roaming our streets, but the hotels are now being emptied. Where are these young men going to go? I will tell you where they are going to go: they are going to go into an HMO on a street near people in this Chamber; near my family, near my friends, near my neighbours. We have had enough of this. We have enough of our own home-grown nuisances in this country without importing even more to live in HMOs.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the proliferation of these houses in multiple occupation is leading to whole streets being transformed and communities being torn apart, with no sense of engagement from those occupying these HMOs, and it is leading to rubbish, mess, destitution, disruption and utter chaos in streets and whole communities?

[Lee Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I will put what I think he is trying to say more succinctly: the proliferation of these HMOs is turning some of our areas into ghettos.

I have seen in Ashfield that, because of HMOs being filled with young men, some young girls are frightened to walk the same streets. They have even changed their route to school. That is unacceptable. It is not right that, in 2026, young British girls are having to change the way they walk to school. It is not fair on our citizens. As I said, the illegal migrants who have been dispersed among our communities in HMOs are mostly young men from backward cultures. Some have medieval views towards our women and girls. Women and girls tell me they are more afraid now to walk our streets than they have ever been. Nobody deserves that.

To make matters even worse, this Government—and, to be fair, the previous Government—have allowed Serco to hoover up HMOs on seven-year deals and fill them full of illegal migrants, which means it is now even more difficult for British people to find accommodation. This has also led to a huge increase in rents in places like Ashfield. The increase in HMOs in places like Ashfield has meant that people who were born and bred there are becoming homeless in our own town. That is an absolute disgrace. Normal, hard-working people in Ashfield are being made homeless by companies and landlords seeking more profit as their homes are converted into HMOs.

In Ashfield, there are supposedly 110 asylum seekers living in this sort of accommodation at the taxpayer’s expense. It is shameful that we have had nurses kicked out of their HMO—nurses who work at my local hospital; the same hospital where I was born—to be replaced by illegal migrants, because Serco has taken over the contract. We are supposed to be here in this place to make people’s lives better, but we are making them worse.

There is a solution to all of this, because HMOs should not be a problem; it is the management of them that is the problem. I recently spoke to Richard Purseglove in my constituency, who runs Purseglove Property. He has housed thousands of people over the past 15 years in HMOs with zero antisocial incidents. He told me that, done properly, HMOs are convenient, affordable housing for nurses, key workers and single professionals. I agree with him: HMOs can be a good thing for people in need of housing—I think we all know that. The problem is that there is no regulation of HMO management.

HMO management is different from a standard let. When we let six unrelated people—normally men—live together with no checks in place, what could possibly go wrong? Well, there is plenty going wrong, and it is making the lives of my constituents a living hell. HMO owners cannot do Disclosure and Barring Service checks. They cannot use Clare’s law. They can ask potential tenants difficult questions, but the applicants have no obligation to answer truthfully.

What could we do to make HMOs in our communities more acceptable? Well, we could legislate, for one thing: introducing licensing for HMO managers and owners; and qualifications, training and accountability. Landlords and managers must also be held accountable for managing their properties, as well as for disruptive behaviour. That should be a condition of any licence granted.

We need vigorous background checks on all tenants. There should be a separate licensing agreement or a tier for agents housing higher-risk people—people with mental health problems, vulnerable adults and so on. There should be access for licensed HMO managers to proper safeguarding tools—as I said before, DBS checks and access to Clare’s law. There should be a statutory limit on how many HMOs can open up in one particular area. My last ask for the Minister is to stop placing illegal migrants in HMOs. Detain and deport for the sake of our young women and girls.

Local Government Reorganisation

Richard Tice Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Secretary of State conveniently forgot to mention that he has been caught red-handed trying to cancel elections, and that he has restored them only because of the legal action of Reform UK. I do not expect him to thank us, but could he at least do the decent and honourable thing and apologise for the confusion and chaos caused to hundreds of council officers across the country, apologise to some 5 million voters, and then resign?

[Steve Reed]

I will not make any apologies for listening to local leaders or for respecting legal advice. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for things that people should resign over, how about the decision to appoint as the leader of Reform UK in Wales a man who was a traitor to his country, and who is now serving 10 years in jail?

Local Government Reorganisation

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

Yes, we will apply that guidance. Of course, we will listen to all representations about proposals for reorganisation, including my hon. Friend’s proposals for Nottinghamshire.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

A year ago, the then Deputy Prime Minister assured us and promised us that none of the delays would be for more than a year, yet five of the current 29 that are going to be delayed are from last year, and 21 of the 29 are Labour-controlled councils. The Secretary of State is aware that we have a judicial review that is due to be heard in February. I obviously do not want him to comment on the case, but can he confirm that, as this Government believe in the rules-based order, they will adhere to and comply with the rulings of the judge?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I cannot comment on legal proceedings—it would be entirely inappropriate. I think the best response to his question is to quote the “new sheriff in town”, the right hon. Member for Newark, who is sitting directly in front of him and who took exactly the same decision in exactly the same circumstances. This is a direct quote from him:

“Elections in such circumstances risk confusing voters, and would be hard to justify when members could be elected to serve shortened terms.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 23WS-24WS.]

For once, he got it absolutely right.

Local Elections: Cancellation

Richard Tice Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Coming from an area with a unitary council and a combined authority that is taking steps to improve public transport and other things, I appreciate fully the points he makes and I will pass them on to the Minister for Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh).

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Only dictators cancel elections, as well as Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat councils, which are terrified of facing the wrath of the voters. We will be carrying out a judicial review of this appalling decision to cancel elections. Will the Minister confirm that if the noble judges rule in our favour that this is the wrong thing to do, the Government will abide by their ruling?

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman mentions a legal process that I am not at liberty to comment on in detail. We want elections to go ahead, unless there is a strong justification. That is what we have said and that is what we will stick to.

Local Government Reorganisation

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will write to him to confirm the response to it. Primarily, that is one for Norfolk. I am sure it may say things publicly, but I would be very happy to discuss with him the circumstances in his constituency, if he would like that.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Minister is doing a noble job of defending the absolutely indefensible cancellation of further elections, but where is the Secretary of State who just two days ago told this House, I am sure in good faith, that the elections would go ahead? The Minister needs to explain what has changed in the last 48 hours; otherwise, MPs are left with the regrettable conclusion that the Secretary of State inadvertently misled the House.

[Alison McGovern]

I am awfully sorry that I am not the person that the hon. Member wanted to see at the Dispatch Box today.

[Richard Tice]

Merry Christmas!

[Alison McGovern]

A merry Christmas to him, too! I feel disappointed that he is disappointed to see me here. In any case, as I have said to other Members, what has happened is that local councils have raised concerns with us, and we are attempting to get in touch with them—the letter is going to them today—so that they can say what the circumstances are in their boroughs. As we have discussed, if they wish for elections to go ahead, that is fine.

Electoral Resilience

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend speaks to a very real threat not just to our democracy, but to our national security, from foreign financial interference. We are all aware of bots and the role they seek to play in influencing the views of electors in elections. That is a function of foreign financial interference, and it will be in scope of the review.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The irony of hearing the Secretary of State talk about protecting democracy a week after cancelling mayoral elections will not be lost on millions of British voters. Nevertheless, we welcome the review, of course. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it will also cover the influence of the Chinese communist regime on the Labour party—a senior MP allegedly received hundreds of thousands of pounds of donations from a potential Chinese spy—as well as a Labour Government who gave away our valuable and strategic Chagos islands, a Labour Government who were responsible for the Chinese spy case collapse, and a Labour Government who are kowtowing to China over the mega-embassy?

[Steve Reed]

The leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), when asked to conduct an internal review into the Gill matter, of course refused to carry one out—although, to give him credit, he did say that he would welcome a review by the Government into these matters, so I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) does not welcome the review we are discussing today. To be clear: all potential sources of malign foreign financial interference are in scope for this review. If the review finds failings in any political party, I expect the leaders of other political parties, as I do my own party leader, to put the country first and their party second.

Building Safety Regulator

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. I suggest a time limit of five minutes. Mr Tice, do you wish to speak?

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

In due time.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Oh, I see. That is very gracious of you. We will have Mr Mike Reader then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I will do my very best, Sir Desmond, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Members for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) and for Northampton South (Mike Reader) on securing this important debate. The Building Safety Regulator has the potential to hinder dramatically the Government’s laudable regime of building more homes and more affordable homes. We all remember the horror of Grenfell, and having this entity is probably the right way forward, but there are certain key lessons that are rapidly being learned.

Hon. Members have spoken about some of the specific details, but I fear that the consequences of this issue are even greater than we may imagine. I have been listening to businesses from the property industry, which is my core industry—I started digging trenches in 1983, so I have been in the industry a long time. House builders and investors are now telling me that they are done. They are just not going to bother. We have heard experiences of people allocating a year from completion to occupation. Investors are saying, “We’re not going to bother. We’re going elsewhere.” We have to act faster on this.

There are a couple of key things that we need to consider, including the application of a strange thing called common sense, which, too often among regulators, is sadly not very common. When we have traditional building materials that have stood the test of time for hundreds of years, be it brick or concrete, we could apply common sense to say, “Well, if using those materials, there should be a fast fast-track process.” I question also whether the whole concept of gateway 1 is necessary at all. If a project gets to gateway 2, that covers gateway 1. A developer is not going to spend hundreds of thousands or several millions on a planning application and get on site if they know they are not going to pass gateway 2, so why bother with gateway 1 at all? Numerous other examples have been talked about.

Although there have been changes, we need to monitor those changes very quickly. It may well be that what we need is either an outsourcing or—dare I mention the word—competition. A competitive process or regulator could operate alongside the existing process, so that it does not act as too great a block. If it does, we will suffer the worst of all worlds, one in which those who most need new homes in our cities, particularly affordable homes, suffer the most. As a consequence of well-intentioned—but badly implemented and organised—caution and prevention, they will miss out. The numbers are as bad or worse than people fear, particularly in city centres.

The issue also means that people are just not bothering to develop on brownfield sites—I have a number of them in my constituency—because the costs are too great, and because of the fear of the Building Safety Regulator and of ever-more regulation that may make the situation even worse. There is an enthusiastic pressure on the Minister and the Department to listen to these concerns and respond to them with constructive answers and keep everybody updated. As other hon. Members have said, the Minister should communicate that rapidly to industry participants. She needs to give the industry confidence that it is worth bothering to seek planning and start on site on important new housing projects here in the United Kingdom and help us all to create growth, wealth and more homes.