Electoral Resilience

Steve Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Written Statements

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

His Majesty’s Government are today announcing an independent review into countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics. The review will be led by former permanent secretary Philip Rycroft, and will report both to me as Secretary of State responsible for the administration of elections, and to the Minister of State for Security as the Chair of the Defending Democracy Taskforce. It will be concluded by the end of March 2026.

The review follows the sentencing of Nathan Gill at the Old Bailey on 21 November 2025 under the Bribery Act. This case has revealed the threat our democracy faces today, and has caused deep concern across Parliament.

Mr Gill’s sentence is the longest handed down to a politician in a case like this in our nation’s recent history. At the time his offences were committed, Mr Gill sat as a Member of the European Parliament, and he went on to become a senior leader of a UK party. We should be clear about what his crimes were: An elected politician took bribes to parrot the lines of a hostile state responsible for the death of Dawn Sturgess—a British citizen on British soil. He took the side of those responsible for invading a sovereign European state, and he was prosecuted while Putin’s military targeted the civilian men, women and children of Ukraine. While the work of the police and Crown Prosecution Service in successfully prosecuting this case must be commended, it is right that we now take a step back to look at how we can protect our democracy against such appalling crimes.

The purpose of the review, which is independent of Government and of any political party, is to provide an in-depth assessment of current financial rules and safeguards, and offer recommendations. The detailed terms of reference will be deposited in the House of Commons Library.

The findings of the independent review will build on the Government’s elections strategy and counter political interference and espionage action plan, and inform the elections and democracy Bill that we have pledged to bring forward.

Our strategy for modern and secure elections, published earlier this year, will close loopholes that should have been closed long before we entered office. However, in the time since that strategy was published, events have shown that we need to consider whether our firewall is enough. The independent review will look at this, focusing in particular on the effectiveness of our broader political finance law, on current checks and balances within political regulation for identifying and mitigating foreign interference, and on the rules governing the constitution and regulation of parties, and the Electoral Commission’s enforcement power.

[HCWS1186]

Electoral Resilience

Steve Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting the statement. When we each enter this Chamber, we carry on one shoulder the duty to represent our constituents and, on the other, the responsibility to protect this democracy. The case of the former MEP Nathan Gill has revealed the threat that our democracy faces today, and I know it has caused deep concern right across the House. On Friday 21 November 2025, Mr Gill was sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison for accepting bribes linked to the Russian state and attempting to advance that state’s twisted interests. It is the longest sentence handed down to a politician in such a case in our nation’s recent history.

While we must commend the work of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, who successfully prosecuted this case, it is right that we now take a step back and look at how we can protect our democracy against such appalling crimes. Let me be clear about what the crime was. An elected politician took bribes to parrot the lies of a hostile state responsible for the death of Dawn Sturgess, a British citizen, on British soil. He took the side of those responsible for invading a sovereign European state, and he was prosecuted while Putin’s military targeted the civilian men, women and children of Ukraine. At the time, he was a Member of the European Parliament, supposedly representing the British people, and he went on to become a senior leader of a UK political party. We must learn the lessons, so that this can never happen again.

Following discussions with ministerial colleagues, I have today ordered an independent review into foreign financial interference in UK politics. It will be led by the former permanent secretary, Philip Rycroft, who will report both to me as Secretary of State responsible for elections and to the Minister for Security, as the chair of the defending democracy taskforce. The facts are clear: a British politician took bribes to further the interests of the Russian regime—a regime that forcefully deported vulnerable Ukrainian children and killed a British citizen on British soil using a deadly nerve agent. This conduct is a stain on our democracy. The independent review will work to remove that stain.

The purpose of the review is to provide an in-depth assessment of the current financial rules and safeguards, and to make recommendations. I will deposit a full copy of the terms of reference in the House of Commons Library. I have asked Philip Rycroft to report back by the end of March, when I will return to this House to set out his findings and the Government’s response. It is right that the review be independent of Government and independent of any political party. It is also important that I make it clear to the House that investigating crimes and examining broader allegations of wrongdoing remain the responsibility of the Electoral Commission and the police, not of this review. Individual Members should continue to refer to the National Protective Security Authority guidance, and to speak to the parliamentary security authorities if they have any specific concerns. The findings of the independent review will build on the Government’s election strategy and on the counter political interference and espionage action plan, and will inform the elections and democracy Bill that we will bring forward next year.

We published our strategy for modern and secure elections earlier this year. It will close loopholes that should have been closed long before we entered office. It will strengthen rules on donations, so that only legitimate donors can support legitimate campaigns. It will also clamp down on the free rein that shell companies and unincorporated associations have to make donations without first undergoing proper checks. However, since the strategy was published, events have shown that we need to consider whether our firewall is enough. The independent review will look at that, focusing on: the effectiveness of our broader political finance laws; the checks and balances in political regulations on identifying and mitigating foreign interference; safeguards against illicit funding streams, including cryptocurrencies; the rules governing the constitution and regulation of parties; and the Electoral Commission’s enforcement power. It is right that the review looks at these critical issues in depth, and I stand ready to do whatever is necessary to protect British democracy from foreign and hostile interference.

I mentioned the weight of responsibility that each of in this House should feel. Those who seek to disrupt or attack the foundations of our democracy will never prevail. Britain will always be a democracy, because the people of this country will never have it any other way, and because the choices of the British people will always be the guiding star for our nation. I thank all hon. Members who have come to the Chamber today. I am highlighting the threat of foreign interference because the first responsibility of His Majesty’s Government is to keep our people safe. Our ability to protect this nation and its values is always stronger when this Parliament presents a united front, so I hope that Members from right across the Chamber will offer their support for the independent review. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Paul Holmes.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. Let me begin by saying that protecting the integrity of our democratic system from foreign interference is not a partisan issue. It goes to the heart of public trust in our elections. Interference in our elections by foreign actors is something that we must all be vigilant against. I concur fully with what he said about Nathan Gill, and join the Secretary of State in giving sincere thanks to the CPS and the police. Any such crime deserves full condemnation from all Members of this House.

The Government announced their election strategy back in July, a strategy that affects all of us in this House. However, there was no consultation of political parties before the strategy was released. There has also been no formal consultation since it was announced. December marks the first time that the Government have engaged with the parliamentary parties panel. We do, however, welcome the announced independent review led by Philip Rycroft, and we wish him well in his work. Will the Minister commit to all parties being consulted during the new independent review’s work? Does he also accept the long-standing convention that Governments should not unilaterally impose changes to the law affecting political parties without proper consultation and cross-party engagement?

On electoral resilience, last week the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission noted that the commission was not consulted at all on the cancellation of the 2026 mayoral elections. Will the Secretary of State update us on whether council elections are going ahead, or will he cancel more elections at the last minute? Will he give electoral officials plenty of notice, whatever he chooses to do?

Delving into the Government’s statement, I note that the Government have signalled their intention to introduce “know your customer”-style checks on political donations, but political parties are not banks or the taxman. During the passage of the National Security Bill, the last Government committed to looking at greater powers for information sharing between relevant agencies and with political parties, precisely to identify irregular funding sources. Does the Secretary of State agree that such information sharing would help political parties to meet these new duties? I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement on cryptocurrencies, and the clarity that they will be in scope of the independent review.

The Secretary of State is absolutely right to mention Russia. The last Government legislated for a foreign influence registration scheme to stop covert foreign influence. Can the Minister explain why the Government have repeatedly refused to extend the scheme to China? What reasons are there for leaving such a gap in our national security framework, and will China be included in the scope of the independent review? Unfortunately, that decision sits uneasily alongside the Government ramming through the planning application for the Chinese embassy. How is that meant to convince Members of this House that the Government take seriously foreign interference from all malign powers across the globe?

There are clear loopholes that the Government need to address. Loopholes created by the Scottish and Welsh Governments allow Chinese residents in Scotland and Wales to make donations to UK political parties and politicians. What steps are the Government taking to close those loopholes, and to ensure that safeguarding is consistent throughout the whole United Kingdom?

Finally, protecting our democracy requires transparent cross-party discussion. Centralised power that bends the knee to the Chinese does not have the United Kingdom’s national interests as a priority. The Secretary of State now has an opportunity to set the record straight, and reassure the House of this Government’s commitment to taking seriously foreign interference by any malign influence. I hope that the concerns I have outlined are directly addressed today.

[Steve Reed]

I warmly welcome the hon. Member’s support for the review. I agree with him that this is way above party politics; this matters to all of us. It is about the integrity and safety of our democracy, and about ensuring that the safeguards in place to protect those precious things are sufficiently robust.

On the election strategy and the Bill that will be brought forward in the new year, we will of course engage with parties on aspects of that Bill before it is brought to the House. The hon. Member asked about the elections that are scheduled to go ahead; they will go ahead. He asked about cryptocurrency. That will be in the scope of the review, and I expect the independent reviewer to take a view on the subject. It has been raised by Members in all parts of the House, but I am sure that the hon. Member and other Members of his party will want to make their views clear to the reviewer before he comes to his conclusions. Again, the review is fully independent, but I would expect China to be fully in scope because of the questions that have been raised about the threats that China poses to national security, which are well documented.

We will engage with the devolved Administrations on applying the independent review’s findings on matters relating to elections that are within their competency.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for making his statement. Far too often, Members right across this House take elections for granted. The fact that we can go to the ballot box and cast our votes in a free and fair election is something that we have to fight for and protect, so I welcome the fact that the investigation will look into this, and particularly the foreign donations angle. It cannot be right that while political parties can raise millions of pounds in cryptocurrency, the source of that funding is unchecked, so I welcome the review into illicit funding, which will ensure that we can trace the source of political donations.

I also welcome the appointment of Philip Rycroft, and I hope to go through the terms of reference, which, as the Secretary of State outlined, will be published later. In welcoming this announcement, it is important that we look at the fact that democracy is under attack. We need to ensure that accountability and independence stay in check. The strategy and policy statement introduced by the previous Conservative Government were a step in the wrong direction; they gave politicians undue influence over the Electoral Commission. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the strategy and policy statement will be abolished in the upcoming elections Bill, and whether the independence of the Electoral Commission will be protected in future?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her support for the review, and I look forward to the Committee making its views clear to Philip Rycroft and his team. I agree with her about the problematic nature of cryptocurrency, and with her concerns about the anonymity of donors. It is important that there be transparency about where that money comes, and that we see who is seeking to influence British politics and democracy, particularly if they are malign, hostile foreign or state actors. She asked a question about the elections Bill. That will be published in the new year, and the details will be clear to her then.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

First, I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of the content of his statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the statement and the decision to establish an independent review. This is a serious issue that clearly demands action, and we will follow the review closely.

Public trust in politics is dangerously low. Polling consistently shows only 9% to 12% of the public trust politicians, which should seriously worry every Member of this House. Restoring trust must begin with integrity and transparency. People need confidence that the information shaping our political debate is accurate. Trust also relies on fairness. Every vote must count equally, and that requires a fair and credible electoral system. Finally, and most relevant to today, trust depends on transparency about political finance. Voters should know who funds our politics, and should trust that wealthy individuals, corporations or foreign interests cannot buy influence or access.

With that in mind, will the Government accept that a small number of extremely wealthy individuals now wield disproportionate influence over British politics? That includes overseas donors, which raises serious questions about foreign interference. In a recent Westminster Hall debate, Members from across the House spoke out about this strongly. Finally, will the Secretary of State commit to donation caps, which are supported by voters across every major party?

[Steve Reed]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the review. We have now had that support from all sides of the House, and that is appreciated. It is very important that the House of Commons stands united against the potential threats to our democracy from hostile foreign state actors. Our democracy is one of the most precious things we have, and it is important that we all work together across the Chamber to protect it. We are not targeting any particular states or individuals with this review; we are looking to confirm that the safeguards that protect our democracy from inappropriate or malign foreign financial interference are robust enough. I look forward to Philip Rycroft’s findings when we have them towards the end of March.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) recently failed to declare on time hospitality in a French villa from the wife of the former Russian deputy Finance Minister. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the offer and acceptance of gifts and free holidays from Russian oligarchs will be in the scope of the review?

[Steve Reed]

I preface my response by saying that the review is not looking at individual cases, but the broader issue of gifts and hospitality and how they may be used by malign, or potentially malign, foreign agents or state actors will be in scope for the independent review.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I hope that the Rycroft review will take account of the fact that the giving of money is by no means the worst aspect, or the main aspect, of treacherous behaviour, because very often these people do what they do out of a genuine belief in a potential enemy’s point of view. It would be interesting to know whether the crime would have attracted such a large sentence as it did if, instead of just money being given, it had been a matter of clandestine contact because the person was willing to spout the Russian line anyway. Let us not be overconcerned with the giving of the bribe, which is often a bonus to people who want to betray us to a potential enemy in any case.

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Member makes a very important point. The Security Minister, who is sitting alongside me, leads the defending democracy taskforce, which will be taking a wider view of the threats to our democracy as they evolve, and so too must our safeguards evolve to keep our democracy safe. Philip Rycroft’s review will focus on malign foreign financial interference, given that we know from the Nathan Gill case that there may be weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and we want to ensure that our safeguards are as robust as they can be.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and thank him for mentioning the forcible deportation of Ukrainian children by Russia. I recently co-ordinated a cross-party letter to the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), asking him to ensure that the human rights of those children are protected in peace negotiations. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that, although that letter was supported by almost every party across this House, not a single representative from one particular party sought to sign it, and that was the Reform party?

[Steve Reed]

I commend and congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaigning for the kidnapped children of Ukraine. We would expect representatives of all political parties to seek to support those children’s interests in being returned home to their parents and carers. Perhaps most shocking of all is the fact that, despite the widespread knowledge that that was going on, this individual chose to accept bribes from the Russian Government, who were responsible for those heinous activities, betraying his country into the bargain.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am curious to know in what respect our existing laws were insufficient to deal with this appalling case. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the best way to reassure the public on electoral resilience is never again to delay local council or mayoral elections?

[Steve Reed]

Well, I am curious to know exactly the same thing, which is why I have appointed Philip Rycroft to lead an independent review, so that we can find out.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

I welcome this review and the fact that it is independent. It is really important that this is seen to be above party politics, because we must protect our democracy; it is very clear that it is fragile and under attack from foreign forces. I want to ask the Secretary of State about the terms of reference. Will the review look at the role of social media companies? There is no doubt that foreign state actors are using that as a vehicle to spread disinformation and undermine our democracy.

[Steve Reed]

It is an independent review, and the reviewer and his team will be able to look at whatever they think may be problematic relating to the core terms of reference. The central part of those terms of reference is to focus on potential malign foreign financial interference in UK politics. That may or may not have a bearing on the point my hon. Friend raises.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The Secretary of State is right to highlight the appalling case of a senior UK politician being convicted of bribery for taking money from Russia. I am also concerned about a UK political party getting a donation—the largest single donation from a living person—from money abroad, from cryptocurrency. Can he assure me that this independent review, which I welcome, will consider political donations and potentially recommend where we set a political donation cap?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise concerns about cryptocurrency. There is no way of knowing for certain what the origins of that financing might be. It appears to be potentially a back door for malign foreign actors or states to seek to influence British democracy, and we cannot allow that. It will be up to the independent reviewer to choose where he wishes to go with the investigation, but I am sure that the hon. Member and other members of his party will make clear the points he has just made and that they will be fully considered.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I would like to follow up on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) about social media. This is really important. If a foreign Government are funding third parties to post false comments on social media in order to mislead people exercising their democratic rights, surely that must come within the terms of the Rycroft review. Could the Secretary of State confirm that that is up to Philip Rycroft and that he has the capacity to bring it within the terms of the review, given that particular issue?

[Steve Reed]

Yes, that is correct. What my hon. Friend has just described are foreign financial attempts to influence our democracy, and that will be in scope for the review.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As a former elections Minister, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I wonder if he would reflect on two points, together with his hon. Friend the Security Minister, with regard to the defending democracy taskforce. First, the Electoral Commission has plenty of influence, but it possibly needs more financial resource and sharper teeth that it can deploy more quickly. Would he reflect on that and ask Sir Philip to advise on that point? Secondly, the response of our police across the country is, at best, patchy when it comes to their interpretation of their key and pivotal role in defending democracy and ensuring that it works fairly and well for all of us. Through the taskforce, can he ensure that there is a more uniform approach from the police on this issue?

[Steve Reed]

I welcome the hon. Member’s question; he makes important observations. The role, resources and powers of the Electoral Commission will be in scope for the review, as will the role and enforcement powers of other agencies, including the police, if the reviewer sees fit to pursue that.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

As Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement following the case of Nathan Gill. There is nothing worse than the enemy within. It is quite clear that there are significant loopholes in the current system. Money is flooding in. In fact, we have taken evidence about cryptocurrencies on our Committee as part of our defending democracy inquiry. I am interested to hear from the Minister when the terms of reference will be published, and I echo the points made about media ownership and social media. Will the Secretary of State appear before the JCNSS when we hold our inquiry in January and February?

[Steve Reed]

I am always happy to receive invitations to appear before inquiries of that level of importance. The terms of reference will be laid in the House of Commons Library today—indeed, they may already have been—and I refer to my earlier comments on social media.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

In terms of looking at political finances, we are supportive of the review, and I thank the Secretary of State for announcing it today. Donations made to political parties are one thing, but donations made to either candidates or politicians are another thing and can be considered slightly differently. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this will be part of Rycroft’s review and that he will look specifically at donations to main political parties that are made outside the normal electoral cycle?

[Steve Reed]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the review. The circumstances she describes will be in scope. We need to look across the piece to ensure that the safeguards we have in place against foreign influence on our democracy are robust at all levels, all tiers and all elections.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that this appalling case of a senior Reform politician being jailed for accepting Russian bribes shows that the corrupt Putin regime is not only cyber-attacking our national infrastructure and interfering with our critical infrastructure under the sea with its shadow fleet, but trying to attack the very heart of our democracy itself? Can he explain how, when this review is concluded, the full powers and resources that might be recommended for the police, the security services and the other agencies that can protect our democracy will be provided?

[Steve Reed]

I will be responding directly to the findings of the commission when they are available at the end of March, and I will bring those responses back to the House. I agree with my hon. Friend’s point: the Russian dictatorship is clearly using malign information activity at scale to threaten the national security and integrity of democracies across the advanced democratic world, including in the UK. We must understand, as the threat evolves, that our safeguards are evolving similarly to keep our democracy safe.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the Rycroft review. In an earlier reply, the Secretary of State said that the role of the Electoral Commission will be in scope. If that is the case, it needs involvement from Opposition parties across the House—earlier in his statement he said that that probably would not happen, but perhaps it should happen with this taskforce, or more widely with the defending democracy taskforce. Given that the shocking case that he refers to started off in the European Parliament, may I invite the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues to look at the role of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly—I believe I am the only MP in history to have served on all three, although not on the same time, I hasten to add—as well as the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly? From my experience, all those have been subject to at least very low-level Belarusian or Russian influence operations.

[Steve Reed]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, not least because it gives me the opportunity to correct any misimpression. The independent review will be engaging cross-party across the House and will be hoping—indeed expecting—to hear from Members of all parties who have a view to share. I am convinced that all of us, in all parties, want to ensure that we can defend our democracy against malign foreign interference, whether that is from Russia or anywhere else.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and sending a clear message that attacks on our democracy will not win. This Government will not let that happen, and the British people will not let it happen. My right hon. Friend might be aware that the BBC sought to question the former leader of UKIP in Scotland, who also made pro-Russian interventions in the European Parliament at the same time as Gill, but he refused to answer those questions. With that in mind, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the review will have the resources it needs to leave no stone unturned when examining Russian interference in our political system?

[Steve Reed]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Our democracy is one of the most precious things in our country, and we must all do everything in our power to protect it. Resources will be made available to the independent review from my departmental budgets, and we will hear from the reviewer himself about exactly how he sees the review moving forward. I will make sure that it has appropriate resourcing to carry out the functions that the House of Commons is asking of it.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Members across the House expressed their deep concerns on this issue in the Backbench Business Committee debate on foreign interference that was led by my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), last Thursday, so I am glad that the Government have taken this step today. There is clear evidence that other leaders of UKIP and Reform UK also associated with Nathan Gill’s Russian handlers. There is also evidence, laid out—albeit in redacted form—in the Russia report from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Russian money seeking to influence other parties and elections. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the review will be free to look back as far as it needs to inform its recommendations, including to the referendums of 2014 and 2016, and that it will be free to publish its findings without ministerial censorship?

[Steve Reed]

The review will certainly have the freedom to be fully independent, because that is important if we are to have confidence in its findings, but it will be forward looking; there will be no relitigating of previous elections. Although we know, not least from the Nathan Gill case, that there have been attempts by malign foreign actors to interfere in British democracy, there have been no findings that the outcomes of any elections to date were affected by malign foreign interference. The point of the review is to ensure that we maintain safeguards that are robust enough to protect future elections from malign foreign interference.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I echo colleagues’ comments regarding social media sites. In Bexleyheath and Crayford, we have seen more and more examples of anonymous users, particularly on Facebook, spreading disinformation not just at election time, but also to undermine trust and faith in public bodies outside election time. As well as the review, will the Secretary of State give us assurances about how we can continue to work with colleagues across Government to look at these issues, and at how foreign interference is playing its part in them?

[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.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on social media, and I hope we can meet the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is responsible for elections, ahead of the publication of the elections Bill to see what we can do about those protections. The Secretary of State has announced a very good review. Will the money that is coming into this country, particularly related to changing our politics on abortion rights, trans rights and other areas, be within scope of the review?

[Steve Reed]

I am sure that the elections Minister would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her concerns. The review will look at any foreign financial interference in our democracy, and I would expect the points she raises to be in scope.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and the establishment of the independent review, and I agree with colleagues across the House who talked about the importance of the resilience of our democracy as well as about its current fragility. I note that the Secretary of State does not seem keen to give us too many spoilers about what to expect in the elections Bill in the new year, but I my question follows those asked by my colleague from the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). If the review recommended a cap on donations or restoring the independence of the Electoral Commission, would those be things that the Secretary of State would support?

[Steve Reed]

We certainly understand the risks posed to elections; for that reason, as we published in the strategy in July, through the elections Bill we will seek to strengthen the rules on donations to political parties. The findings of the independent review will inform what is in the Bill.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement and the leadership that the Secretary of State is showing on this issue. Our democracy is important and requires our active protection. Does he agree that as well as actions that the Government can take, there is far more that individual political parties, particularly Reform UK, can do on due diligence and vetting procedures, to stop people being elected in the first? We continue to see too many horror stories relating to people up and down the country once they are in office, when they should have been stopped in advance.

[Steve Reed]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s points about due diligence. It is no secret that the Government are looking at standards in public life. The Prime Minister has already made some changes in the code of conduct that affects all Members of Parliament, but we need to look further at how we can strengthen standards across local government that, unfortunately, were weakened by the previous Government.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. Following the sentencing of Reform UK’s former Wales leader for taking bribes to peddle pro-Russian propaganda, Plaid Cymru welcomes this review. As hon. Members will remember from the question asked at Prime Minister’s questions by Liz Saville Roberts—

[Ann Davies]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Plaid Cymru has been calling for action in Westminster and the Senedd for months, only to be repeatedly dismissed by this Labour Government, who even left it to leave Reform UK’s own leader to police his party. Unfortunately, because of the Government’s delay, there is now no time to implement reforms before the 2026 Senedd elections. Will the Minister set out exactly what steps are being taken to protect Welsh democracy from foreign interference before next year?

[Steve Reed]

Safeguards are already in place, but the fact that the review will report in March means that it will come ahead of the elections. That is because not only Members of this House, but voters across the country, will want to know that the safeguards against malign foreign financial interference in the coming elections are sufficiently robust to ensure that those elections are free and fair.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, I warmly welcome this independent review into foreign financial interference in UK politics. However, foreign financial interference is not the only threat to our electoral resilience: misinformation, disinformation and aspects of the electoral system itself are all flaws in the system. Will those issues be in scope for the elections and democracy Bill that is coming next year?

[Steve Reed]

The terms of reference will be laid in the House of Commons Library today, but the review is not the only way in which we are looking at the security and integrity of our elections. The Minister for Security is leading the defending democracy taskforce, which is looking more widely at action that we may need to take to ensure that our safeguards remain robust against the changing nature of the threat to our democracy.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Of course, the appalling crime carried out by Nathan Gill, with a £40,000 bribe to speak about Russia, is not unique. Although that bribe is the one that we know about, eight other members of Reform UK also parroted pro-Russia narratives, sometimes line by line and word by word. I have two questions: first, given that the timeline is for the review to report by the end of March, if there are parts of the electoral system that are not robust, will the Government introduce legislation before May? Secondly, given that loopholes have already been exploited, particularly on moneys entering this country, will the Government be applying the legislation retrospectively?

[Steve Reed]

I cannot anticipate what will be in the review. We have to give Philip Rycroft and his team time to make their recommendations, and then we will consider them. We are as yet unaware of the level of the threat that he may identify. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, I cannot comment on individual cases. They will be a matter for the police and if there are further prosecutions to be made, then I am sure that the police will carry them forward.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Russia is attacking every aspect of our state—our industries, our infrastructure and our way of life—and, as we have seen from the treacherous actions of the Reform UK politician outside this place, it is attacking the underpinning democracy that holds us together. While I welcome the steps and the leadership that the Secretary of State has announced, this must be a wake-up call across Government. Will he set out what steps he is taking to encourage similarly strong approaches and leadership from other Government Departments to counter Russian malign activity?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is right that it is a cornerstone of Russia’s international strategy to threaten the national security and integrity of democracies, including the UK and our partners overseas. We know that but we are seeking to check that our safeguards against that evolving threat are sufficiently robust to keep our democracy safe. Our approach will be supported by Departments right across Government. The Minister for Security is leading the defending democracy taskforce and he has already published the counter-political interference and espionage action plan, which calls on Ministers across Government to collaborate and work together to ensure that we are making sufficiently robust the safeguards called for by my hon. Friend.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Although it may seem a little tangential, will the scope of the investigation include the fact that hundreds of thousands of people who have worked in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years and who have paid their taxes are unable to influence the outcome of elections because they have an EU passport, yet hundreds of thousands of ex-pats who have not set foot in this country for decades still have an influence? Unscrupulous parties could hoover up those ex-pats and direct them towards marginal seats, thus influencing the outcome of elections. Will the Secretary of State address this issue, either through the review or the Bill?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point clearly and eloquently, but he is right that it is somewhat tangential to the review that Philip Rycroft will be leading. The review will be looking at malign foreign financial interference, but he should be reassured that no stone will be left unturned in seeking to protect our democracy, which is one of the most precious things that we have.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance to my constituents in Portsmouth North that the police have all the resources they need to pursue all remaining leads in the Gill case? Will he reassure us that the review will examine the full extent of Russian interference in our country’s politics and democracy, including any influence exerted through Government contracts or strategic infrastructure projects?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Yes, of course the police have the resources they require to pursue any lines of inquiry arising from associates of Nathan Gill, as well as in relation to any other cases and political parties. It is important that the independent inquiry that we are launching today operates across political parties, in the interest of our democracy and everybody who holds that democracy as dear as all hon. Members across the House.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Members of this House, including me, who have been targeted by Russia will be particularly horrified by the crimes of Reform UK’s former Wales leader. I am pleased that Philip Rycroft has been appointed to lead the review: we know he has been a fine public servant and has deep experience of Europe and Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the EU referendum will be in scope—[Interruption.] I think I am being heckled by a Reform UK Member, today of all days.

[Steve Reed]

As I said earlier, we are not seeking to relitigate the past. There is no evidence that the outcome of any previous election or referendum was affected by any attempted foreign interference. We are seeking to ensure that the safeguards that we have in place against any threats to our democracy from malign foreign actors seeking to use finance to influence voters’ choices in those elections and the outcomes of those elections are robust enough to keep us safe. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for Philip Rycroft’s appointment. For me, one of the important aspects of his appointment is that he has no party political affiliation whatsoever.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Some in Reform UK have suggested that its former leader in Wales, the traitor Nathan Gill—he was a traitor—was just one bad apple, yet we have learned in recent weeks that at least eight MEPs who represented the UK Independence party or the Brexit party were approached by Gill at the behest of his Russian paymasters. What is it about parties led by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) that makes them uniquely susceptible to Russian bribes? Could it be that they are already apologists for Putin?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I will not be tempted to comment on any individual cases. We are seeking to ensure that safeguards against foreign financial interference in the round are sufficiently robust.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I warmly welcome the review announced today by the Secretary of State. He is right to talk about the importance of upholding the integrity of our democracy, but this is not just about malign foreign interference; it is about things that are said in this place. One of the greatest threats to our democracy is the wilful spreading of misinformation by prominent politicians, and the Secretary of State is not without fault in that regard. He has repeatedly and incorrectly claimed that Scotland’s water quality was lower than England’s, but, in fact, it is significantly higher—I have pointed that out during a debate and in a point of order in this Chamber. Even when that was pointed out by the UK Statistics Authority, the Secretary of State refused to apologise. Will he take the opportunity to do so now, in the light of the fact that our conduct and social media posts are now in scope of the review?

[Steve Reed]

I know the hon. Gentleman did not like the facts when I made them clear in this House, but the review is not about points he dislikes but malign foreign financial interference in our democracy.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for announcing this review, which I fully welcome. Does he agree that every political party should welcome it, unless they have something to hide? Will he tell me whether the terms of reference of Philip Rycroft’s independent investigation will require every political party to co-operate? If they do not, will he name and shame them so that the public can render their judgment accordingly?

[Steve Reed]

The review will not have the powers to compel people to submit evidence, but, like my hon. Friend, my view is that members from every single political party represented in this House will want to ensure that the Russian state is not using dirty money to influence and interfere in our democratic processes. I would be shocked if any political party does not subscribe to that view, because it is what underpins the freedom of our democracy.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I am really disappointed that none of the Reform MPs who were here at the start—most of them have gone—took the opportunity to utterly condemn Nathan Gill’s treacherous acts. We should all condemn what he did; he is an absolute traitor to our country.

I am pleased that the Secretary of State is taking seriously his duties to build and protect faith in our democracy. He will be pleased to hear that I recently visited Forrester, Firrhill, Tynecastle, Boroughmuir and Balerno high schools in my constituency, to talk about our democracy and opportunities to come here and see it at work. The three most common topics they wanted to talk about were bobbing—I gave them a demonstration, of course; smartphone bans that may be coming towards them; and our electoral system and proportional representation. I know the Secretary of State takes seriously his role in protecting and modernising our democracy, so will he listen to our young people when doing so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing young people into this House; it is very important that young people get to see their democracy in action. I am sure that they, like all of us who are older, want to get dirty money out of British politics, and that is what this review is intended to achieve.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

As a member of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, I very much welcome the independent review into foreign financial interference in our democracy. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the inadequate oversight of foreign donations, particularly moneys funnelled through cryptocurrency, and the potential for malign actors to seek to influence our democracy through crypto donations?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Cryptocurrency is one route by which dirty money can covertly enter British politics in an attempt to influence the outcomes of elections. That is why crypto will be in scope for this review, and I look forward, as I know she does, to the findings of Philip Rycroft’s review.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

A once senior leader of the Reform party is now in jail for colluding with Russia. When the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) heard about that, did he launch an inquiry? Did he perhaps review his own previous statements on Russia, including saying that he admired Putin? No, he did not; he called Nathan Gill a “bad apple”. I welcome this review and the fact that all political parties will be invited to contribute, but will my right hon. Friend commit to make clear to the House, when he reports back on the findings of the review, exactly which political parties took part in this exercise of scrutiny and transparency and which did not?

[Peter Swallow]

I am pleased to say that I did. The hon. Member for Clacton is not in his place to hear my comments, but I hope he is listening anyway.

[Steve Reed]

It will be for Philip Rycroft to publish his review in the way that he sees fit, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The sentencing of Nathan Gill for bribery, alongside other recent cases, has exposed vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the UK’s political and electoral systems. The review will give us the opportunity to check that our safeguards are sufficiently robust given the evolving nature of the threat.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

May I, like others, thank the Secretary of State for his robust defence of elections and our democracy through his statement? On the Gill case, he may be aware that the Reform UK board member Gawain Towler is on record saying that he realised very quickly that Nathan Gill was raising pro-Russia questions about Ukraine in 2018. After confronting Gill, Towler simply

“accepted his explanation at face value”

and was, by his own admission, “foolish”. Does the Secretary of State agree that it cannot be good enough for any political party to simply accept the peddling of pro-Russian propaganda? Can he assure me that this review will examine all and every link with Russia without fear or favour?

[Steve Reed]

The review will absolutely operate without fear or favour. It will involve an in-depth assessment of the current financial and bribery-related rules and safeguards that regulate all political parties and political finance so that we can ensure our democracy remains safe in the decades to come.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Chris Vince]

May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement? This case should be of concern to anybody who believes in this country and in our democracy, which should be everybody in this Chamber. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure, in working with the Home Secretary, that police forces such as mine in Essex, which cover my constituency, are equipped to deal with any local investigations should the need arise?

[Steve Reed]

I have by my side the Security Minister, who chairs the defending democracy taskforce. He is located in the Home Office, and I am sure that he will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments. I agree with my hon. Friend; our democracy is too precious to allow dirty money from overseas to destroy it. I hope the whole House will come together to do what is necessary to protect something as vital and precious as our freedom to choose our own Governments.

Devolution Priority Programme

Steve Reed Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Written Statements

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

Devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity for local communities, through bringing local transport back into public control, making people’s daily commute easier, tailoring local skills training to local employer’s needs, so people can get a good job, and driving regeneration of local areas, so people feel proud of the place they live in.

For too long decisions have been made centrally in Whitehall, away from the places and communities those decisions impact. Mayors and other local leaders are best placed to identify and invest in the projects and infrastructure that reflect the needs of local people and drive growth, but they need long-term funding certainty to harness their region’s potential.

Today, I am therefore pleased to confirm the long-term funding offer to the six areas on the devolution priority programme. Once mayors are in post, the six mayoral strategic authorities will receive close to £200 million collectively per year for 30 years through their investment funds. These funds will be split equally between capital and revenue, and they will be un-ringfenced, so local areas can choose how they want to invest this money in local priorities. This investment will promote growth in the six areas, and as the baseline of our funding commitment, it will be additional to devolved funding streams from other Government Departments, such as adult skills funding and transport funding.

Each area’s individual yearly investment fund allocation, based on their populations, are as follows:

Cheshire and Warrington combined authority: £21.7 million per year

Cumbria combined authority: £11.1 million per year

Greater Essex combined county authority: £41.5 million per year

Hampshire and the Solent combined county authority: £44.6 million per year

Norfolk and Suffolk combined county authority: £37.4 million per year

Sussex and Brighton combined county authority: £38 million per year

Beyond the allocations based on population, each new mayoral strategic authority will be supported to build core capacity to ensure they can deliver for local people. All six areas will receive £3 million each as a minimum flat payment over the next three financial years, in addition to an initial payment of £1 million each when the statutory instruments are laid in Parliament, to help with the costs of establishing the new authorities.

The Government recognise that mayoral strategic authorities are most successful when they are built on a strong history of partnership and joint delivery. Moving forward, we will therefore seek to facilitate the establishment of foundation strategic authorities in areas without a foundation of collaboration, to build local capacity ahead of areas accessing mayoral powers. These foundation strategic authorities will be empowered to deliver for their residents in the interim. The Government plan to engage with local leaders about creating a new wave of foundation strategic authorities to ensure more residents can see the benefits of local control.

For devolution priority programme areas, as they have already made great progress towards the establishment of their mayoral strategic authorities, the Government ambition to foster collaboration ahead of implementing mayoralties will be facilitated by allowing for a meaningful period of time between the mayoral strategic authorities’ establishment and inaugural elections.

Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria have previously requested a delay of their inaugural elections to May 2027, to align with the majority of planned local elections, which could help voter turnout and enable further local savings. These areas have both successfully established unitary authorities.

The Government are also minded to hold the inaugural mayoral elections for Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Greater Essex in May 2028, with areas completing the local government reorganisation process before mayors take office. This is because devolution is strongest when it is built on strong foundations; therefore, moving forward we will ensure strong unitary structures are in place before areas take on mayoral devolution.

The Government intend to establish mayoral strategic authorities in all the devolution priority programme areas as soon as possible, to ensure sufficient time for meaningful preparatory work and to continue to build local collaboration. We will provide each devolution priority programme area with a proportion of their investment funds to ensure they can start delivering on key local priorities and deliver the benefits of devolution on the ground ahead of the mayors taking office. Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria will therefore receive half of their annual investment funds in 2025-26, while Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Greater Essex will receive a third of their annual investment funds in both 2026-27 and 2027-28.

Our commitment to ensuring areas across England can access the growth benefits of mayoral devolution holds firm. We will continue to engage with local leaders across the devolution priority programme towards the establishment of these mayoral strategic authorities.

[HCWS1128]

Overnight Visitor Levy

Steve Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Written Statements

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

The Government’s mission is clear: we must do all we can to unlock economic growth. For too long, England has been one of the most centralised countries in the developed world. That means that decisions made in Whitehall—far away from the reality of places and communities across the country—have too often failed to reflect the needs of local people. Mayors and other local leaders are best placed to identify and invest in the projects and infrastructure that drive growth and make a place attractive for visitors and residents. Mayors and other local leaders know their local history, local culture and the unique attributes of their places that draw visitors in. But they need powers and funding to enable them to harness England’s potential and unlock growth through investment.

English mayors have come together to ask for an overnight stay levy through the “right to request”. Together they made the case to the Government for the power to raise a new local revenue stream to realise growth-boosting projects that improve the experience for everyone, from hosting mega-events in Liverpool like Euro 2028 to revolutionising bus services in York and North Yorkshire to connect the coast with the moors and the historic towns and cities; from accelerating the redevelopment of Oxford Street in London for world-leading shopping and cultural experiences in the heart of the capital to delivering the Commonwealth games cultural legacy in the west midlands. These are the projects that both make communities, and world-leading visitor destinations. As mayors consider these investments in the months ahead, they will engage with communities and local businesses on what is right for their local economies.

Today I am meeting the mayors’ request and announcing the next big step on our path to devolution. Mayors in England will be given the power to raise revenue locally through a new overnight visitor levy, and we are consulting on whether to also grant this power to leaders of foundation strategic authorities. This is a groundbreaking step for the future of devolution, with transformative investment potential for England’s tourism sector and the wider economy.

With this new power, local leaders will be empowered to deliver more long-term, locally led investment in transport, regeneration and cultural assets that can unlock growth and improve the public realm for residents, businesses and visitors. Making places more attractive to visit and to live and work in will attract further investment and improve the visitor experience. I am therefore proposing that constituent authorities within strategic authorities that implement a levy should be eligible for a share of revenue raised, for growth-related spending.

Around the world, countries that have embraced fiscal devolution enjoy far greater local investment, and that investment is in the things that matter most to their communities. They can move faster to seize local opportunities without burdensome central Government oversight, and they can tailor policy and projects to match local economies. That is why we are embarking on this new era of fiscal devolution in England, giving local leaders the power to raise and invest money into projects that raise living standards in their local areas, and improve the experience for tourists.

Mayors have already proven what is possible when they are given the tools to deliver. Using a business rates supplement, the Mayor of London delivered the Elizabeth line, connecting communities right across London, and tourists from Heathrow airport to the heart of the west end. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has used his mayoral precept on council tax to provide far improved bus services, including free travel for 16 to 18-year-olds through the “Our Pass” scheme. It is outcomes like these that drive my commitment to devolution, and why my department has already taken such significant steps to strengthen it, including through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill currently in Parliament. This goes alongside our commitment in the fair funding review 2.0 to improve the business rates retention system to more consistently support mayors in driving growth, as well as existing arrangements for retained business rates in mayoral areas.

Giving local leaders in England the power to introduce a visitor levy in their area will bring them up to speed with their international counterparts in New York, Milan, Paris and Prague as well as in Wales and Scotland. But a visitor levy on overnight stays will not necessarily be the right lever everywhere. This is about providing mayors with another fiscal tool in their toolbox for growth.

Tourism is vital to our economy, and tourism should share in the growth benefits delivered by investment funded by this levy. England is one of the world’s leading tourist destinations, attracting over 130 million visitors each year. Investment in the places that people visit will help to build on England’s reputation as a world-leading destination. I recognise that businesses, and potential visitors, may have concerns about the effects of a new levy, and I take these concerns seriously. I expect mayors to engage constructively with businesses and their communities to hear these concerns throughout the consultation period and beyond. Local leaders will also run a formal local consultation before making use of the new power.

Tomorrow, my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and I will publish a consultation with the detail of the proposed levy, and I urge all those interested to respond to it, to make this a power that works for strategic and local authorities, businesses, local communities and visitors alike.

[HCWS1097]

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to build more social and affordable homes in the South Shields constituency.

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

This Government are delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. Our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme will build around 300,000 homes over 10 years, with at least 60% for social rent, backing councils and housing associations to build at scale. The Conservative Government failed to build the homes this country needs. They put homes out of reach for too many British families, allowed homelessness and rough sleeping to double over their 14 years in power and choked off the economic growth that this country needs. This Government will “Build, baby, build” to make the dream of a secure home a reality for everyone in this country.

[Emma Lewell]

After a long campaign from myself and constituents, South Tyneside council has eventually agreed to curtail any new houses in multiple occupation, but we remain saturated with them. My right hon. Friend knows that they are no substitute for good social housing, so does he have any plans to strengthen the licensing regime, to close down badly managed HMOs and to deliver better housing?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her petition, which the Department will respond to in the usual way. Planning authorities have the power to limit the number of HMOs within their locality, and they may withdraw a permitted development right in a specific area using an article 4 direction, but we are keeping this policy under review. I am aware of the concerns that her constituents have expressed to her, and those that others have expressed to their own MPs.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

The Government’s affordable homes programme will contribute 180,000 social homes over the 10-year period, but Shelter has called for 900,000 homes over that period. Could the Secretary of State tell the House how much he expects social providers to provide on top of the 180,000 to be provided by the affordable homes plan?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware, as I am and as Shelter is, that we inherited a housing crisis from the previous Government, who failed to build sufficient numbers of social and affordable homes. The £39 billion that this Government are investing over 10 years will give us the biggest increase we have seen in a generation. We know that in the long term we need to go further than that, but I hope he will agree that this is a very positive first step.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Ministers are claiming that this is a record amount of funding for affordable housing in South Shields and across the rest of England, but why are they consistently refusing to publish a breakdown of the annual funding under their 10-year programme? Is it because the majority of the cash is backloaded into future Parliaments and then exaggerated by inflation? The small-print prospectus says that the homes must be completed by 2039. That is 14 years away. As with Labour’s house building target, is this not just an exercise in hoodwinking people by promising homes that are never going to see the light of day in this Parliament?

[Steve Reed]

It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman mentioned 14 years, because that is the amount of time his party was in government, and it left us with this crisis, rather than building the social homes this country needs. The £39 billion is a record. It will give us the biggest increase in social and affordable homes that this country has seen in a generation. Conservative Front Benchers should be welcoming that, as we do here. Bids to the social and affordable homes programme will open early in the new year, and we will then start to get those homes built so that people who were denied a decent home under the Conservative Government will get one with this Government.

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

2. If he will take steps through the planned homelessness strategy to increase Housing First provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

3. Whether East Sussex county council elections will take place in 2026.

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

Our vision on local government reorganisation is clear: we intend to create stronger single-tier local councils that are better equipped to drive economic growth and improve local public services. The Government’s intention remains for all elections scheduled for May 2026 to go ahead, including East Sussex county council.

[James MacCleary]

Cuts to adult social care, collapsing support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, roads full of potholes—the list goes on. The Conservatives have failed East Sussex for too long and should be held to account. Another delay would mean that the current administration will have their term extended to six years. Can the Secretary of State give me and residents across East Sussex a clear answer on when we will know if we will have the chance to vote this May?

[Steve Reed]

First, I recognise the circumstances that the hon. Member describes, which were left behind by the previous Government’s approach to local government funding. As I said earlier, it remains the Government’s intention that those elections will go ahead as scheduled, unless there is a very strong justification otherwise. That is what will happen.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The Secretary of State really needs to do better than that. With local government reform not being in the Labour party manifesto and with the Prime Minister last week refusing to rule out further cancellations of local elections, will the Secretary of State now rule out—not “intention” but rule out—cancelling the next local elections, yes or no?

[Steve Reed]

I am sure the hon. Member will be aware that consultations and engagement are going on with local authorities, but the Government’s intention is that all the elections scheduled for next May will go ahead next May.

[Paul Holmes]

Here we go again: it is the Secretary of State’s “intention”. I remind him that he actually leads his Department and can set the legislation going forward. He needs to accept that the uncertainty created by this Government in relation to local government reorganisation, on sizes and funding, has meant that leaders have scrambled to meet the ever-changing expectations, with no leadership from this Government. Will the Secretary of State put his money where his mouth is and support the Opposition’s amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill tomorrow that would ensure that local elections go ahead and that local leaders have the certainty they need?

[Steve Reed]

Perhaps to the Conservatives the word “consultation” means “diktat issued from the centre”, but to me it means listening carefully to the views of those who will be affected. My intention, and my preference, remains for the elections to go ahead on schedule.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It has been very interesting to hear the back and forth on this question. It is not just about East Sussex, of course; it is about all the councils up for reorganisation. Councils across the country that are due to have elections next year have received letters asking them whether they would consider cancelling them. Will the Minister set out the content of those letters, and will he stand with the Liberal Democrat by backing our amendments, which seek absolute assurances for councils across the country that are putting money into organising those elections?

[Steve Reed]

It does not surprise me that the Conservatives do not understand consultation, but it does surprise me that it is also difficult for the Liberal Democrats. We are engaging with the councils that will be affected. There is precedence for this where elections would result in only a very short term in office. Our intention, and my preference, is for the elections to go ahead. We want to cut the cost of politics, simplify decision making for local people, and deliver stronger economic growth and better public services in every part of the country.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the level of his Department’s funding for Buckinghamshire council.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

9. If he will provide additional support to local councils to help them increase levels of funding for social housing stock.

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

We have taken decisive steps to support councils to invest in social housing, including committing to a new 10-year rent settlement and the launch of our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. We are very clear that we want to see councils increase the level of social housing.

[Will Stone]

Will the Secretary of State tell us a bit more about the additional support that the Government can offer local councils, like Swindon, to invest in existing council housing stock, especially in areas like Penhill, with flats that desperately need investment?

[Steve Reed]

The Government are supporting councils to invest in new and existing social housing through the new 10-year rent settlement and our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. A further £14 million is being provided this year to boost council house building skills and capacity. In addition, the warm homes social housing fund will provide £1.2 billion from 2025 to 2028, and we have committed over £1 billion between 2026 and 2030 to support cladding remediation for social landlords, ensuring equal access to building safety funds.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

We are facing a national affordability crisis, but handing out planning permissions like confetti did not bring down prices under the last Government and there is zero reason to expect it will do any better this time. Does the Minister accept that relying on private developers to bring down prices can never work, because they simply stop building whenever prices start to fall?

[Steve Reed]

Respectfully, I wish to correct the hon. Gentleman. The reason we are allocating £39 billion to build more social and affordable housing—the biggest amount in a generation—is precisely to avoid the very scenario to which he refers.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

10. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the floods resilience taskforce on future planning considerations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

17. What steps he is taking to improve the private rented sector for tenants.

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

Labour’s Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is the biggest strengthening of tenants’ rights and protections in a generation. From 1 May 2026, 11 million renters in England will benefit from the changes that this Government are making, including an end to section 21 no-fault evictions and preventing unfair rent hikes.

[Tom Rutland]

In my constituency more than 10,000 residents are renting privately. These families, couples, friends and individuals have too often been the victims of excessive rent hikes, no-fault evictions, substandard conditions, and a private rented sector that benefits bad landlords and disadvantages fair landlords and good tenants. Can my right hon. Friend tell me when the measures in the Renters’ Rights Act will come into effect and give security to my constituents who rent privately?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is, I know, an outstanding advocate for his constituents. We will deliver our reforms in three phases. On 1 May next year, we will implement reforms to reshape the tenancy system and remove barriers to renting, including abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions, limiting rent increases to just one a year, and outlawing bidding wars. The implementation dates for Awaab’s law and the decent homes standard are subject to consultation. The 11 million renters in England, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency whom he mentioned, will not forget that the Conservatives and Reform UK voted against these important changes that will benefit renters throughout the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I recognise what the Secretary of State has said about protection for those who rent houses, but desperation is the issue for many people who rent their accommodation, and who find themselves in financial difficulties while living—as we heard earlier from the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock)—in a small, one-bedroom flat. Will the Secretary of State please speak to the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, who I think would be the Minister for Communities, about what the Government here are doing, to ensure that we in Northern Ireland can be a focus of attention?

[Steve Reed]

I recognise what the hon. Gentleman has said. The answer is, of course, to build more social and affordable housing, and to increase the supply of housing more generally. I am, in fact, due to meet the relevant Northern Ireland Minister to discuss these matters, and I look forward to that.

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

19. If he will take steps through the fair funding review 2.0 to ensure that the most deprived lower layer super output areas receive the largest increases in funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

At the general election last year, Labour promised the biggest boost to renters’ rights and protections in a generation. Earlier this month, our historic Renters’ Rights Act 2025 gained Royal Assent, and it will transform private renting for 11 million renters in England. The reforms will be introduced in three phases. The first phase, including abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions, will come into effect on 1 May 2026. Those 11 million renters will never forget that Reform UK and the Conservatives opposed these changes, which will massively benefit renters’ security by allowing them to remain in the homes that they love.

[Emma Lewell]

The hospitality industry in South Shields has really struggled over the last year. There are now deep concerns, which I share, about the imposition of a tourism tax. Can my right hon. Friend explain what assessment he has made of such a tax’s impact on beautiful little coastal tourist towns, like mine?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend tempts me to venture into terrain that is properly within the decision-making jurisdiction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She only has to wait 48 hours to find out what the Chancellor has decided. I suggest that she ask the Chancellor on Wednesday, rather than me this afternoon.

[Mr Speaker]

It will all be on Sky News in between. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and even the Secretary of State himself have said that they will not touch council tax bands in this Parliament. Does he not recognise that a new tax, or levy, revaluation or surcharge, would be a de facto breach of that commitment, and will he therefore rule it out?

[Steve Reed]

Again, much as I would like to comment on matters that are properly for the Budget, the right hon. Gentleman will know that there is a very long-standing convention that prevents me from doing so.

[Sir James Cleverly]

All the Secretary of State had to do was repeat his earlier commitments. He chose not to do so. Labour’s unfair funding review shows that the party is consciously starving well-run councils of money, penalising councils that have kept council tax low and subsidising his political friends in high-spending, wasteful, Labour-run councils. How on earth can the Secretary of State justify this blatant party political decision?

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman will remember his former colleagues being caught on video boasting about how they were taking money away from poorer areas, and giving it to wealthier parts of the country that needed it less. Through the fair funding review, this Government are ensuring that funding is aligned with need and with deprivation. That is the right thing to do.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

T6. This follows on from previous questions about the fair funding review. Luton has seen local services decimated, due to years of Conservative decisions, which stripped consideration of deprivation and need from the funding formula. Under a fairer funding system, Luton is set to gain. What can we expect to see from the formula in places like Luton, which suffered so badly under the Conservative Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

I have residents from Tillicoultry who have not had access to their homes for two years because of RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Their lives have been turned upside down. A year ago, the Scottish Government were given the largest settlement figure in the history of devolution, but they have not helped my residents. Will the Secretary of State inform me what discussions his Department has had with regard to residential RAAC with Scottish Government counterparts?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and I would be happy to write to him with details of our engagement with the Scottish Government.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

T8. A more dynamic and active market unblocking pathways to home ownership and boosting local businesses by up to £1.2 billion—I am sure if someone offered that to the Secretary of State, he would bite their hand off, so why, when those are the benefits of scrapping stamp duty on homes, is he not lobbying the Chancellor to do just that on Wednesday?

[Steve Reed]

The Conservatives foisted Liz Truss on us as Prime Minister. I am very surprised that they have failed to learn from that disaster. Unfunded commitments they have no idea how to pay for cause only trouble to the economy, including to the housing economy.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Cornwall has been campaigning for fair funding for years under successive Tory and Liberal Democrat Governments. We are so pleased with the fair funding formula 2.0. There have been some consultation changes, so can the Secretary of State please confirm that they will not disadvantage Cornwall and that we will get the increased fair funding we deserve?

Planning Reform: Next Phase

Steve Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Written Statements

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

The Government are committed to building 1.5 million homes in England this Parliament. This will require house building at levels not seen in over 50 years, but it is essential to restore the dream of home ownership and ensure every family can access a safe, decent, and affordable home.

Meeting this commitment requires a combination of ambition and resolve: ambition in the scale of our reforms, and resolve to see them through. We have already taken significant action—including introducing mandatory and higher housing targets, modernising green belt policy, taking the Planning and Infrastructure Bill through its final phases, and accelerating growth supporting infrastructure. It is now time to press ahead with our next phase of reform—going further on fixing the foundations, transforming the housing market and building homes for those who need them most.

Over the coming weeks, I will set out the actions that comprise this next phase of reform. That starts today, with three pro-growth planning reforms designed to accelerate house building: unleashing development around rail stations, intervening to support growth, and streamlining the statutory consultee system.

Unleashing development around rail stations

First, development of the right quality and density around train stations enables working families to benefit from greater opportunities to live in close proximity to transport hubs—saving them time and money—alongside unlocking more opportunities for jobs, education, and sustainable growth.

That is why—as part of a revised, more rules-based national planning policy framework—the Government intends to provide a “default yes” to suitable planning applications for development within a reasonable walking distance of well-connected stations. This will give greater certainty for house builders, allow development to be approved more quickly, and unlock tens of thousands of new homes during this Parliament.

This new policy will form part of the consultation on a revised NPPF by the end of the year, and will apply to land around both train and tram stations with a sufficient frequency of services. Recognising the significant benefits for jobs and growth that can be unlocked by building around train stations, these rules will extend to land within the green belt—continuing efforts to ensure that a policy designed in the middle of the last century is updated to work today. As with other green-belt land, the golden rules would apply, ensuring higher levels of affordable housing, local infrastructure and green space are provided to local communities.

The new approach will apply equally across all local authorities, so that these benefits are realised across the country.

Intervening to support growth

Secondly, while planning decisions are principally for local authorities, I hold powers that allow me to take over applications and determine them directly—ensuring the right decisions are taken in the local and national interest.

Given the scale of the housing crisis, and the imperative of building the homes we need, I want to use these powers in a more focused and active way. I will require local authorities to notify me where they intend to refuse an application for 150 homes or more—providing me with the opportunity to decide whether to take it over.

This will be enforced through a new consultation direction and a change to legislation, and supported by a revised call-in and recovery policy.

The Government will also commence new provisions that allow called-in applications to be dealt with faster through written representations, rather than requiring an inquiry, where requested by the main parties.

Streamlining statutory consultees

Thirdly, the statutory consultee system requires reform. Statutory consultees play a crucial role in the planning system by providing expert advice on significant environmental, transport, safety, cultural and heritage issues, ensuring informed and balanced decision making. However, a lack of clarity in the requirements for consultation and an overreliance on statutory advice can contribute to delays and inefficiencies in the planning process.

That is why we want to ensure they offer practical, timely advice, focused on what is necessary for development approval. To that end, the Government are today publishing a consultation that proposes the removal of Sport England, the Gardens Trust, and Theatres Trust as statutory consultees in planning applications to help rationalise the planning system, as set out in the written ministerial statement on the “Reform of the Statutory Consultation System” of 10 March. Since the spring, we have also worked with key statutory consultees to develop broader reforms, which aim to cut applications requiring input from bodies such as National Highways and Active Travel England by up to 40%, saving time and effort for developers and councils.

We expect that these reforms to the planning system will reduce delays and uncertainty in the process and remove bottlenecks to economic growth.

Wider acceleration plan

These three changes are necessary but not sufficient if we are to reach our goal of building 1.5 million homes in this Parliament—which is why they mark only the initial steps in our second phase of reform. I will set out more detail on my wider acceleration plan before the end of the year, including publishing a revised version of the NPPF for consultation that establishes a more rules-based planning system, including our policy on unlocking development around rail.

[HCWS1062]

Implementing Awaab’s Law

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Written Statements

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

Tenants must feel protected and safe in their homes, which is why Awaab’s law is crucial legislation, and I am pleased to announce that it is coming into force today for all emergency hazards and damp and mould hazards. These regulations represent a landmark step forward in ensuring that every resident of social housing lives in a safe, decent home, and that swift, responsible action is taken by landlords when hazards are identified.

The tragic death of Awaab Ishak, aged just two, in December 2020, due to prolonged exposure to mould in his family’s social home, shocked the nation. His parents, Faisal and Aisha, have shown extraordinary courage and determination in campaigning to ensure that no other family suffers such a preventable loss.

Early last year, the previous Government ran a consultation on Awaab’s law, publishing the Government response in June 2024. On 25 June 2025, regulations for phase 1 of Awaab’s law were laid in Parliament, and they are now in force. The regulations prescribe requirements that every social landlord in England must comply with. Failure to do so will constitute a breach of contract, and tenants will rightly be able to take legal action through the courts, or take action through the housing ombudsman, ensuring that tenants can hold landlords fully accountable if they fail to meet the required standards and timescales. These new requirements do not replace or lessen existing duties.

Social landlords already have clear legal obligations to keep homes fit for human habitation, free from category 1 hazards, and to remedy disrepair. Many landlords go beyond these obligations to provide their residents with a quality service. Awaab’s law strengthens these obligations by introducing clear, time-bound requirements and a robust route to enforcement.

From today all social landlords must:

Investigate emergency hazards and make them safe within 24 hours;

Investigate significant hazards, including damp and mould, within 10 working days;

Provide a written summary of findings to tenants within three working days of the investigation concluding;

Take action to make the home safe within five working days of the investigation concluding;

Begin further works to prevent recurrence within 12 weeks;

Complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe; and

Offer suitable alternative accommodation if the home cannot be made safe within the required timescales.

These measures mean that no tenant will have to live in unsafe conditions without a route to take action. Landlords must act swiftly to fix dangerous hazards and dangerous damp and mould. I am determined to extend these protections to all hazards and have committed to apply Awaab’s law to hazards such as excess cold and heat, falls, structural collapse, fire, electrical hazards, explosions and hygiene risks in 2026, and to all remaining hazards under the housing health and safety rating system in 2027. By taking a phased, test-and-learn approach, I am clear that transformational change will be delivered effectively, proportionately and sustainably across the sector—ensuring consistent application of the law and full preparedness to deliver these new duties.

Implementing Awaab’s law represents a significant change. To support this cultural shift in the way tenants and landlords will engage in tackling safety issues in their homes, the Department has published guidance to aid implementation. Tenant-facing materials will be made available through the “Make things right” campaign, explaining how Awaab’s law will protect tenants and how tenants can raise concerns. Additional guidance for tenants will be published explaining how tenants can use Awaab’s law, and the Government will continue to work closely with the regulator of social housing and the housing ombudsman to ensure clear, consistent implementation.

Awaab’s law is a critical part of the Government’s broader programme to raise the standard and safety of social housing and to strengthen tenants’ voices. While many landlords already provide good-quality homes and responsive services, too many tenants still live in homes that are unsafe or poorly maintained. This must change. As well as Awaab’s law, we have also introduced new regulations that mean social landlords must have the electrics in their homes inspected and tested at least every five years.

We have also launched a £1 million social housing innovation fund to fund innovative projects that improve tenants’ engagement with their landlords and ensure that they have influence over decisions affecting their homes.

Awaab’s law is not about creating unnecessary burden; it is about ensuring that tenants’ voices are heard, that action is taken responsibly, and that homes are safe and decent. It represents the change that social housing residents have long deserved and is central to restoring trust, fairness and accountability in the sector.

Delivering the transformational change that Awaab Ishak’s family fought for is essential—and every tenant has the right to expect nothing less.

[HCWS995]

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

22. What steps he is taking to build more social and affordable homes.

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

It is a privilege to be appointed as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. May I start by paying tribute to my predecessor and former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), for all she has done since the general election last year on workers’ rights, local government and building council homes? She made a real and lasting difference.

In July, the Labour Government published a five-step plan to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation, and to transform the safety and quality of social homes. The affordable homes programme will deliver 110,000 to 130,000 affordable homes. Under the new £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, we have set an ambition of 300,000 new homes over 10 years. We will set targets after the initial bids.

[Paul Waugh]

I was lucky enough to grow up in a council house in Rochdale in a stable and secure home with an affordable rent, but sadly that is an opportunity and a childhood denied to far too many children in my constituency today. Why? Because under the last 10 years of the Conservative Government, the number of families on the housing list trebled. Does the Secretary of State agree that reducing the number of children in temporary accommodation should be not just the mission of this Government, but the moral mission of this Government?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this incredibly important issue and for always championing his constituents in Rochdale. He is quite right to highlight the appalling record of the Conservative party on temporary accommodation for families and children, and on homelessness and rough sleeping. Our drive to build more social and affordable homes will tackle its failure head-on. We will reduce homelessness levels and the need for temporary accommodation by providing more secure and affordable homes up and down the country, with a particular focus on social rent, including record numbers of new council homes.

[Andrew George]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his position and declare an interest as a volunteer member of the Cornwall Community Land Trust. The Secretary of State will be well aware that a perfect storm has hit the construction industry as far as the delivery of social housing is concerned: tender forecasts are not encouraging, Homes England’s scoring matrix is proving to be inflexible, and the cost-value ratio used by registered providers is not helping and is providing a disincentive to deliver in the most deprived communities. There are thousands of homes that community-led CLTs and others could be delivering now. Will the Secretary of State meet me and fellow members of the community-led housing sector? Otherwise, we will be waiting another five years to get shovel-ready affordable homes off the ground.

[Steve Reed]

I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and others on issues as important as this. I had the pleasure of visiting Newlyn in his constituency not so long ago and some of those issues were made apparent to me by people living in the area. We announced top-ups to the affordable homes programme in the autumn and the spring, and in March we announced £2 billion as a downpayment for the new social and affordable homes programme, which is now open for bids. Homes England can and does vary grant rates on the basis of bids from social housing providers. Importantly, the available £39 billion covers a range of tenures, including community-led housing. I would expect and hope to see increases in the way that he has described.

[Tom Rutland]

The only way to solve the housing crisis is, as my right hon. Friend so articulately puts it, to “build, baby, build”. In my constituency of East Worthing and Shoreham, the median wage is £37,000, but the median house price has soared to more than 10 times that. What will the Government do to ensure that social and affordable homes are built for my constituents who desperately need them?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this issue, and I am sorry he is not wearing the red cap I saw him wearing in Liverpool recently highlighting this very important issue. The Government have committed £39 billion to a new 10-year affordable homes programme that will deliver around 300,000 homes, with at least 60% for social rent—the most affordable tenure. We have committed to the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation, and we are backing councils and housing associations to build at scale, so that communities such as his in East Worthing and Shoreham get the homes they need at costs that people can afford to pay.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

There are over 560 families on Gosport borough council’s waiting list for social housing, yet despite taking power a few years ago, the Liberal Democrat council has not built a single extra council house. Meanwhile, the complaints I get in my mailbag about the substandard quality of council accommodation grow more and more every single week. What is the Secretary of State doing to encourage such inadequate councils to build a greater quantity and better quality of council accommodation?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have reintroduced home building targets that were scrapped by the previous Government. It is important that we have those targets and that they are achievable, and councils will be held to account to achieve them. I am working on an acceleration package to encourage more building in which local authorities will be key partners, and we will make announcements on that in due course. Of course, the hon. Lady will be aware of the changes we are making to drive up standards in council and other social housing, which we will insist are enforced and carried through.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It falls to me to open the bowling for the Opposition Front Bench, so I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment and welcome him to his place today.

The previous Government awarded the Mayor of London almost £9 billion of funding to build a total of 151,000 affordable homes in London. The second tranche of that money amounted to £4 billion, which was to build 35,000 homes between 2021 and 2026. To date, only 997 have been completed, with 443 of those homes being acquisitions rather than newly built. What plans does the Secretary of State have to hold the Mayor of London to account for this lamentable failure?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, but I think it is disingenuous to blame the Mayor of London for failings that were the fault of the previous Conservative Government and, I am afraid, current Conservative boroughs in London such as Bromley, which is a shocking 95% behind its house building target. We cannot tolerate that.

The previous Government choked off house building everywhere by scrapping house building targets and crashing the economy, sending mortgages through the roof so that people could not afford to buy new homes—of course, the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), was a major cheerleader for the Prime Minister who carried that through. In the last four years of the previous Government, housing consents collapsed by one fifth. It is this Government who will take the steps to remediate that situation, this Government who will get 1.5 million new homes built and this Government who will work with local government partners across the whole country, including here in London, to ensure that the homes this country needs are built.

[Gareth Bacon]

The whole House will have heard that the Secretary of State has no plans to intervene on the Mayor of London. Under section 340 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Secretary of State has the power to direct the Mayor of London to review and revise specific policies of the London plan if they are seen to be hindering housing delivery. There are a plethora of policies—including an obsession with dual facing and twin staircasing and a bizarre aversion to corridors—that developers are united in saying are massively hindering development in the country’s largest city, which has the highest demand for affordable housing. The Secretary of State is holding all the cards and the purse strings. Why will he not intervene?

[Steve Reed]

First, I do recognise the challenges the hon. Gentleman has outlined. They should concern us all, and I thank him for raising them. He will be aware that we are making legislative changes right now, with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that is going through Parliament, to speed up the planning system that is holding back so many homes from being built. We will be tabling further amendments to the Bill to tackle some of the challenges the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

I am working with the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London on an acceleration package that targets London in particular. We will make announcements on that within weeks, and the hon. Gentleman will then see the action that we intend to take here in the capital city to ensure that home building continues apace. We will also be looking nationally, because every region of the country needs new homes built to meet people’s dreams of having somewhere affordable to rent or buy.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

In 2007, Ming Campbell launched the Liberal Democrats’ campaign for not just affordable but decent homes for our military. I congratulate the Secretary of State on his position. Will he join me in congratulating the forces families who backed my amendment to provide them with a decent homes standard, and will he agree that they deserve nothing less?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I agree that the changes that have been made—we have managed to come to a consensus on this—are very important and will make a big difference to forces families and veterans, which we all want to see. I congratulate and commend the hon. Gentleman on working cross party to ensure an outcome that will be satisfactory to everybody who is concerned about this issue, as he is.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

2. What information his Department holds on the proportion of people granted asylum status living in the private rented sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

7. What steps he is taking to support the building of social housing in rural towns and villages.

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

The £39 billion social and affordable homes programme will support a wide range of social and affordable housing, including council housing, supported housing, community-led housing and, of course, rural housing. The Government will also consider how planning policy can better promote rural affordable housing through our work on national policies, which will be brought forward for decision making later in the year.

[Ben Maguire]

I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Cornwall has been given an ambitious annual target of 4,400 homes, and I sincerely hope that a large proportion of those will be for the 25,000 Cornish families on the housing waiting list. I meet so many constituents in social and private housing who have been left high and dry by dodgy developers who go into liquidation before they can deliver vital infrastructure, such as roads and sewerage works. Will the Secretary of State please meet me to discuss the enforcement tools that local authorities need to properly hold those developers to account?

[Steve Reed]

I certainly recognise the problem that the hon. Member describes; it is an issue in North Cornwall and right across the country. On the developer contribution, we are looking at how we can strengthen enforcement, so that where commitments are made, they are delivered on, and local communities are not stranded and left high and dry because the vital infrastructure to support the homes never appears.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to bring long-term empty homes back into occupation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to support local authorities to build social housing in Buckingham and Bletchley constituency.

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

The Government have taken decisive action to improve the capacity of all local authorities, including those in Buckingham and Bletchley, to build more social housing, including through our new £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, the new 10-year social housing rent settlement, and right-to-buy reform, so that we can reverse the decline seen under the previous Government.

[Callum Anderson]

The on-time, on-budget delivery of 183 new council homes for local families on the Lakes estate in Bletchley is a good demonstration of what Labour can achieve in local government. Is my right hon. Friend willing to visit Bletchley over the coming weeks and months to discuss how further investment from the social and affordable homes programme could help ambitious, pro-housebuilding councils like Milton Keynes to go even further for local people?

[Steve Reed]

I am sure that it will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend that I wholeheartedly welcome the delivery of 183 new council homes in his constituency. I fully agree that the Lakes estate demonstrates the ambition of Milton Keynes city council to build the homes that its communities want and need. I also value such councils’ support in helping the Government to meet our ambitious housebuilding targets, which include targets for the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in this country in a generation.

[Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)]

13. What steps he plans to take to ensure that new housing developments in Cheadle constituency have adequate access to infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

T1.   If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

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

[Debbie Abrahams]

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

[Steve Reed]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

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

[Steve Reed]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Sir James Cleverly]

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

[Steve Reed]

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

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

T3.   Tory cuts to local authorities cruelly caused lasting damage to many communities. What a contrast to the Government’s Pride in Place programme awards to Park End and Thorntree in Middlesbrough, which will change lives for the better. Does the Secretary of State agree that 100% council tax equalisation and a new children’s formula are essential elements to fully deliver for those communities that were totally overlooked by the Conservatives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

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

[Steve Reed]

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

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

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

[Steve Reed]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Neil O'Brien]

I would be delighted to have an excuse to get back up to the Borders.

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last week, the Minister for Levelling Up Communities told us that many community renewal fund projects will finish late. That will further delay the UK shared prosperity fund, under which areas such as Cornwall have so far received only 1% of the amount that they lost in European funding, having been promised that they would get all of it back. Will the Minister tell us how the latest CRF delays will affect the roll-out of the UK shared prosperity fund?

[Neil O'Brien]

All the successful community renewal fund bids have been given additional time to deliver their good programmes. We have asked them all to be in touch if there is any issue and we stand by our commitments to Cornwall and other places to which we have made commitments to match EU funding.

[Steve Reed]

There is a worrying pattern with this Government of overpromising and underdelivering, is there not? We have had the great train robbery and the return of the dementia tax and now they have postponed levelling up. The community renewal fund is plagued by delays. More than £1 billion of towns fund money has not even been allocated yet, and two years after the scheme was announced, it still has not delivered anything. If this is the Minister’s idea of levelling up, does he accept that it is just not good enough?

[Neil O'Brien]

The hon. Gentleman says that the scheme has not delivered anything. I was in Norwich on Friday opening the first project ever funded by the towns fund. Whether it is the towns fund, the future high streets fund, the community renewal fund, the shared prosperity fund or the levelling-up fund, this Government are determined to put the financial firepower behind communities’ ambitions across this entire United Kingdom, so that we can level up and unite this country.

Budget Resolutions

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, I thank the Secretary of State for highlighting Crystal Palace’s glorious victory over Man City—I do so with apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who is sitting next to me. In their own way, Crystal Palace are attempting to level up the premiership.

Despite that happy news, I am afraid that the grim truth is that after a decade of Conservative rule, Britain is more divided and unequal than at any time in living memory. Many of the trends that led us here go back decades, but this Government have made the situation far worse. To address the problems that caused this, we need to repair the broken foundations of our politics and our society. We must re-establish the link between hard work and fair pay; support families as the essential bedrock of our society; rebuild the fabric of our communities; and remake Britain as a country that works for everyone.

This Government will not do that. Their Budget was supposed to be about levelling up, but it did not even convince their own MPs. The previous Secretary of State, who used to sit opposite me, laid into the Government over soaring taxes. The former Brexit Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), slammed the Government’s national insurance hikes. Conservative MPs past and present lined up to denounce the Budget in the media. Perhaps most surprisingly of all, the Chancellor himself seemed strangely unconvinced by what he read out to the House last Wednesday. He left the country facing the highest level of personal taxation for 70 years and then pleaded with us, rather unconvincingly, that deep down he is a tax cutter really. The Chancellor sounded for all the world like a hostage forced by the Prime Minister to read out a script on video.

So what does this tell us about the Government’s plans for levelling up? First, the Government are deeply divided between a Chancellor who does not believe his own Budget, and a Prime Minister and, I presume, the Secretary of State, who made him read it out. They are split down the middle between blue wall, low-tax, traditional Tories, including the Chancellor, and the red wall reformers, led by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, who are attempting a top-down coup against their own party.

Secondly, the Government are now distancing themselves from their own record, thereby disorientating their party. The Chancellor told us repeatedly that spending was reaching its highest point since his own party started cutting in 2010—as if getting back to where we were more than a decade ago was in any way good enough. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are trying to present this as a brand-new Government unconnected to the previous two Conservative Administrations, of which they were senior members. This is not levelling up the country; it is covering up their record.

Thirdly, the Secretary of State does not recognise the contradictions between an economic policy based on crony capitalism and his claims about national renewal. The Conservatives cannot build a fairer country while they are siphoning off billions to their wealthy mates through crony contracts. It is that simple.

Fourthly, the Secretary of State still cannot tell us clearly what he means by levelling up. I was hoping for a clue in his speech this afternoon but, sad to say, we did not hear one. At the Conservative party conference Ministers used at least eight different definitions, and they still cannot tell us how they would measure it. Let me help the Secretary of State: levelling up should mean opening up opportunity to people and communities in every part of the country. But that is not what the Conservative party is about. The Conservatives have broken Britain and they cannot bring it back together.

The pandemic exposed just how badly the Conservatives have broken the link between work and reward. It is the workers on the frontline who care for others, empty the bins or sweep the streets who are the lowest-paid and the most neglected. They kept this country going—they are the heroes we all applauded—yet their standard of living has been falling for a decade.

When the Chancellor announced an end to the public sector pay freeze, he did not provide the funding to put wages up. Pay in the north-east is now £10,000 a year less than in London. Average wages are down 4% in the west midlands, down 5% in Yorkshire and down 6% in the east of England.

Our held-back regions desperately need a radical plan to reindustrialise around the green economy and digital technology, and to bring good new jobs to every part of the country. The shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has announced bold plans for a green new deal to do precisely that, but the Chancellor did not mention the climate crisis even once in his speech, just days before COP26 was due to start in Glasgow.

This Tory decade has been the weakest for pay growth since the 1930s, yet now the Tories are cutting universal credit for the lowest earners, hiking up taxes on working people and eating up what is left of people’s incomes with rising levels of inflation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, workers are facing an assault on their living standards because of this Government’s economic mismanagement. The Conservatives are now the party of high taxes because for a decade they have been the party of low growth. In the words of the shadow Chancellor:

“Voters won’t be fooled by a smoke-and-mirrors budget that is presented as being on the side of working people but hands a tax cut to banks while hiking up council tax, national insurance and freezing personal allowances.”

Families are the fundamental building blocks of our society. Any Government who want to level up the country should support families to nurture the young and cherish the old, but under this Government half a million more children now live in poverty, with the most dramatic increase in the north-east of England. The Government have provided only a fraction of the funding that their own adviser told them kids need to catch up on the education they missed during the pandemic. We cannot level up the country by denying children the chance to learn. If kids do not have the foundation of a good education to build on, their life chances are stunted right from the start. No parent can accept that.

Older people are suffering, too. The Prime Minister ignored the social care crisis for two years, then introduced a punitive tax on jobs that will provide next to nothing for social care for at least three years. By relying on council tax rises to plug some of the gap, the Government create further divides, because council tax raises more money in richer areas than in poorer areas, creating a postcode lottery on care.

With all these new Tory taxes, the Resolution Foundation tells us that families will end up paying £3,000 more tax a year by the middle of this decade than when the Prime Minister took office. Families’ disposable incomes will be lower and the public services on which they rely will be cut harder, while a landlord with a portfolio of properties, a shareholder or a banker will pay nothing more. We cannot level up the country by clobbering hard-working families while letting the rich get away without paying their fair share.

Communities are a vital building block of our country. They give us a sense of belonging. They are a rich network of relationships, associations and shared values, but the Conservatives have spent 11 years undermining them. We have already lost 10,000 shops, 6,000 pubs, 1,200 libraries, 800 youth centres and a similar number of Sure Start centres under this Government, and they are now refusing to protect our high streets by levelling the playing field on tax between independent high street shops and the online giants, which pay far less. Because the costs of social care outstrip any increase in council funding, not least because of rising demand, communities now face yet more cuts to youth services, mental health services, street cleaning, bin collections, park maintenance, social housing and the voluntary sector. We cannot level up communities if we strip out the fabric that binds them together.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is brilliant then that the Conservative-run Lancashire County Council has reopened all of the libraries that the Labour Administration closed and is continuing to invest in our libraries?

[Steve Reed]

I hope the Conservative council will also be opening all the Sure Start centres that were closed because of the actions of the Government.

The truth is that if we look at what the Government are doing with the towns fund, for instance, which is something that Conservative Members like to talk about, we can see that it operates in the same way as a burglar, who first strips a house bare and then expects gratitude for returning the toaster. Blackpool, Darlington and Hartlepool are all getting back barely a quarter of the funding that the Conservatives took away in the first place, but Conservative MPs have nothing whatever to say about the way that their communities have been stripped bare by this Government.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for 10 minutes and I am yet to hear anything about what the Labour party would do if it were in Government and we were not. What would the hon. Gentleman cut that we are not cutting and what would he invest in that we are not investing in?

[Steve Reed]

I am looking forward to telling the hon. Gentleman that later on in my speech if he could just restrain his enthusiasm for one moment.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the towns fund. He will obviously celebrate the fact that Kidsgrove got £17.6 million. That means that £2.75 million can go towards refurbishing the sports centre for when it reopens in spring 2022. That sports centre had been closed by the then Labour-run borough council because it did not want to spend a single pound on it.

[Steve Reed]

I am delighted that areas are getting back some of the money that the Conservative Government took away from them in the first place, but perhaps if Conservative MPs had held the Government to account a little bit harder over the past 11 years, that money would not have been stripped away from these communities in the first place.

Let us look at other pots of money that the Government are so happy to keep announcing and re-announcing. Local groups have still not been told whether they will get funding through the community renewal fund. Mid-project reviews are supposed to start this month, but many of those projects have not even started yet. Government delays mean that the jobs and investment linked to those projects are now at risk of collapse. The Secretary of State had told us in his usual courteous manner that there would be an announcement last week, but, sadly, we are still waiting. If possible, we would like to know what on earth is going on.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I heard nothing whatever in the Budget about the increase in the use of food banks across this nation. In my own constituency, food bank use has trebled in recent years.

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the things that the Government have done over the last 11 years is dramatically increase levels of poverty across the country. They have not been levelling the country up at all, and now they are trying to cover up their track record since they came into Government back in 2010.

To make the situation worse, the Government’s plans to change the local government funding formula—what they call, in an Orwellian way, “the fair funding formula”—will divide communities even further. Analysis by the Local Government Association found that millions of pounds would be redirected away from poorer towns in the north of England to wealthier southern shires, and that 37 of the Conservative MPs newly elected in 2019 would see millions of pounds cut from their towns, including Workington, Sedgefield, Stoke-on-Trent, Redcar, West Bromwich, Bishop Auckland, Grimsby and Leigh. That is not levelling up Britain; it is pulling Britain apart.

Whether it is work, families or communities, this Conservative Government have made our country more unequal. They have ushered in an age of insecurity, where public services have been decimated, wages have fallen in real terms, jobs are more precarious than ever before, our high streets are struggling to survive, and British people are forced to pay the highest housing costs in Europe for some of the worst quality housing. These levels of inequality are not just morally wrong; they make our country weaker. We all pay the price of inequality, with higher levels of crime, family breakdown and mental ill health, and we pay the price a second time by denying people the opportunity to reach their full potential for themselves, their families and their communities. Levelling up must mean opening up opportunity, not closing it down in the way that this Government have done for the last 11 years.

The Secretary of State will find that he cannot fix regional inequalities because the biggest obstacle in his way is his own party’s marriage to an economic model that is based on crony contracts and waste, and that starves whole regions of capital investment. We need new institutions in our regions—such as regional banks to direct investment where it is needed most—if we want the economy to work in the interests of working people in every part of the country.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting debating points, but will he share with the House his view why, despite this bad news that he has shared with us, the Conservatives remain overwhelmingly the largest party in local government and made significant gains in the recent local elections, especially in areas that traditionally favoured the Labour party?

[Steve Reed]

Given the Government’s announcement of their intentions to level up the country, the interesting thing will be whether those people feel that they have been levelled up at the next general election and the next set of local elections. That is the only test of what this Government are announcing that will really matter.

The Conservatives have broken the link between work and reward with a decade of stagnant wages and a tax raid on working people; they have undermined families by pushing half a million more children into poverty and refusing to invest properly in kids’ catch-up; they have ripped the fabric out of our communities instead of harnessing the innovation, creativity and compassion that they have to offer; and they have weakened our country with an economic model that has deepened the divides between regions and within communities. That is the polar opposite of levelling up.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech and I am really interested in what he has to say, but I cannot determine from what he has said so far whether he thinks that the Government are spending too much or too little. Perhaps he could be clear with the House and let us know.

[Steve Reed]

What the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West, said—and I agree—was, wouldn’t it be nice if the Government asked everyone to bear their fair share of the tax burden, rather than, as this Government do, always going first and foremost to working families and clobbering them, but letting people who own assets, such as bankers and landlords, off the hook, absolutely scot-free? That is not fair. We want to see fair models of taxation.

What we need to do now is to remake our politics by tackling the power inequalities that allowed all this to happen in the first place. Labour would open up power across the country with a radical model of devolution that gets power out of Whitehall. We would give people a voice and the power to use it in the workplace, in their community and over the public services that they use. Instead of undermining work, we will respect the hard work and sacrifice that people make for their families, re-establish the link between hard work and fair pay, and invest fairly across the whole country. We will establish clear measures for levelling up to hold the Government to account for what they do or do not deliver.

This Budget is not about levelling up; it is about covering up the damage that the Government have done in the past 11 years. By deepening the divides across this country, the Government have closed down opportunity and made Britain weaker. Only Labour will bring Britain together, so that every British person, wherever they live, can reach their true potential—for themselves, their family, their community, and this country that we love.