Oral Answers to Questions
Steve Reed Excerpts(3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
Happy Easter to you, Mr Speaker. Shipley will benefit from the £1.5 million allocated to Bradford through the Pride in Place impact fund. The Department has asked local authorities to engage with their local MP and a wider range of local stakeholders to shape delivery of the fund, and to report on that engagement.
Anna Dixon
A happy Easter to you, Mr Speaker. The Government’s £1.5 million impact fund for Bradford is critical to communities that have been overlooked for too long. I recently visited Windhill recreation ground in my local area, which is set to benefit from Pride in Place funding. Does the Secretary of State agree that after 14 years of brutal cuts to northern councils such as Bradford, this Labour Government are providing our local areas and communities with the investment they need?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is a great advocate for her constituents, which I saw for myself when I visited her constituency during the general election. She is right, of course: this funding is going to hundreds of areas that were the most left behind by the previous Government, so that they can take decisions about what to invest in and put pride back at the heart of the communities that the people there belong to and love.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
I was delighted to confirm up to £20 million for central Luton as part of the expanded Pride in Place programme. The funding will give the community the resources and the power they need to drive transformational local change that will bring people together and restore a sense of pride in the area.
Rachel Hopkins
May I take a moment to congratulate Luton Town on winning the English Football League trophy yesterday at Wembley? I very much welcome the £20 million Pride in Place funding for central Luton, which will help to restore pride in our local neighbourhoods after they were left behind for so many years under the previous Conservative Government. Does the Secretary of State agree that decisions on how to use that investment to regenerate central Luton will be made by the community, for the community and to connect the community?
Steve Reed
I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the most exciting things about Pride in Place is that the community themselves take the decisions about how the money should be spent. Of course that is the right thing to do, because they know best what needs to change to put pride back at the heart of their communities.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
Can I first say what a pleasure it was to join my hon. Friend on a visit to the new Pride in Place area at Enfield Wash during the Easter recess? Many places in phase 1 of the programme that have already announced their spending intentions have selected community spaces as what they will spend their money on. That is no wonder because community spaces are where communities can come together and take action and give their community the voice they need to articulate their aspirations for the future.
Feryal Clark
I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting Enfield Wash in my constituency last week. After 14 years of Conservative cuts, Enfield lost around 60% of its funding, hitting vital services such as adult social care, youth services and our high street. Despite the cuts, Enfield Labour council has worked tirelessly to protect residents and support the most vulnerable. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and our brilliant Labour council leader Ergin Erbil—
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that we are into an election period, but we will have to shorten questions if other Members are to get in. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree.
Steve Reed
I always agree with you, Mr Speaker.
Fair funding will provide a significant increase for Enfield council, in line with deprivation levels. The additional Pride in Place funding for two of the most held-back areas will allow them to take control of their own futures.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
In the Staffordshire county council area we have amazing community spaces, but they would benefit from additional investment, and Pride in Place would have been a great way to allocate it. Sadly, none of the local authorities in that county council area is eligible for Pride in Place, and the result feels a little like gerrymandering, but I am sure that that is not the case. Will the Secretary of State commit to looking afresh at whether there is any opportunity for Staffordshire not to be forgotten by this Government?
Steve Reed
Through fair funding, Labour is ensuring that funding goes where deprivation is highest. The previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), stood up in a leafy garden in Tunbridge Wells and boasted about how the Conservatives were taking money away from deprived areas to use it for what I can only assume was gerrymandering.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Pride in Place funding in Dudley is being divided between two constituencies, risking the dilution of its impact. Given the high levels of deprivation among many of my constituents, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that communities in Dudley fully feel the transformational benefits of the investment and see tangible improvements? Will he meet me to discuss how we can crowd in funding?
Steve Reed
Of course, the most exciting thing about Pride in Place is that communities themselves, rather than politicians, make the decisions about how the money is spent. They will come together, from across the area that is benefiting from the funding, to decide what they want to do to put pride back into a place that had pride ripped out of its heart by the Conservatives.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
There are real concerns that Pride in Place is just another example of this Government’s blind spot on rural areas. Groups such as the Rural Services Network and Plunkett UK warn that villages are being left behind. Key rural assets are disappearing fast, and Plunkett is calling for a targeted £10 million rural community ownership fund to help. What are the Government doing to ensure that rural communities are not left out again?
Steve Reed
Of course, the funding was distributed according to data provided by the indices of multiple deprivation, so it is going to the most deprived areas, wherever they may lie in the country—be it in urban or rural areas. The fair funding review also ensured that funding targeted the areas that needed it most and were most deprived of it by the previous Government. It included a measure on rurality to ensure that rural areas get their fair share.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
The Pride in Place programme supports community cohesion by backing locally led change—local people coming together, whatever their background, to determine their own priorities for putting pride back at the heart of their community.
Sarah Smith
I have established a Get Hyndburn Working group, which is bringing together local organisations, schools, the Department for Work and Pensions, voluntary sector organisations, the college and our training providers to tackle economic inactivity and look at the high levels of our young people who are out of work, training and education. Does the Minister agree that Pride in Place funding could play a key role in supporting these place-based, collective approaches to tackling such issues?
Steve Reed
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing that working group together. That is an excellent use of her role as a Member of Parliament to support her community to have a bigger say, and to enable them to share their ideas and creativity about how to tackle local priorities in the circumstances she is talking about—the important matter of getting people into work and guaranteeing them a better future.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
The Renters Rights Act 2025 meets Labour’s manifesto commitment to transform the experience of private renting in England. We will introduce our reforms in three phases, the first of which will begin on 1 May, when section 21 no-fault evictions will be abolished and rent increases will be limited to just one a year. We will end rental bidding wars and limit requests for rent in advance to a maximum of one month, and it will be illegal to discriminate against prospective renters who have children or who receive benefits. These are the biggest reforms in the rental sector for a generation. The Tories and Reform UK voted against them and the Greens want to abolish renting, but this Labour Government stand firmly on the side of renters.
Sarah Dyke
The availability of affordable housing in Somerset has plummeted, demand has surged and rents have risen by six times as much as income. These challenges are highlighted in rural market towns such as Glastonbury, where hundreds of people live in vans and caravans lining the kerbsides. Many are there because they cannot afford to rent a bricks-and-mortar home. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that everyone has a decent and safe place where they can afford to live?
Steve Reed
Ensuring that there are decent and safe places to live all across this country is a primary objective of this Government. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the social and affordable homes programme opened for bids in February, and the first phase of bidding will close later in April. The programme will provide up to £39 billion for the biggest ever increase in the amount of social and affordable housing across this country, including council housing, which will make a massive difference to people in rural areas as well as those in other parts of the country.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Last week I was in Bromsgrove, a rural constituency facing an 85% increase in its housing target. Neighbouring Labour-run Birmingham, which has significant brownfield capacity, has seen its target cut by more than 30%. Targets are increasing by 37% in Essex, but decreasing by 11% in London. House building has collapsed under this Labour Government, so why is the Secretary of State letting his Labour-run urban friends off the hook while dumping housing targets in rural Britain?
Steve Reed
It was, of course, the Conservative Government who abolished housing targets everywhere, which led to the housing crisis that we are now facing. Under that Government, the number of people sleeping rough, on the streets and in shop doorways, doubled. Opposition Members are smiling while I explain what they did: they are smiling because the number of people sleeping on the streets doubled, while the number of families in temporary accommodation doubled as well. The Conservatives did nothing when the housing market collapsed in 2022-23 because of Liz Truss’ Budget, which the shadow Secretary of State supported.
Sir James Cleverly
The Secretary of State cannot answer—he does not have an answer. Perhaps he can give the answer that he failed to give in response to a written question, because he has once again refused to publish either the prospectus or the selection criteria for his election pilots. This is part of a wider pattern: cancelling elections that the Government do not think they will win, changing local government boundaries instead of giving that task to the independent Boundary Commission, and changing voter ID arrangements without consultation. When I saw this kind of behaviour overseas, I called it out for what it was: dirty, self-interested, partisan politics. Will the Secretary of State scrap this Orbán-style politics and start doing things properly?
Steve Reed
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, elections are going ahead all over the country right now. I suspect that, like me, he has been campaigning and knocking on doors to talk to people about how they will vote, and we will find out in a few weeks what their judgments on all of us will be.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Housing, Communities and Local Government
Steve Reed Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to the House to talk about the importance of integrity in politics. However, as purdah arrives, in Sussex we are seeing a mess of dithering and delay and, frankly, blatant disregard of the original process for the changes in local government in Sussex. That is affecting my constituents, and indeed yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. Decisions are apparently taken on a case-by-case basis, but can I point out to the Secretary of State that people are saying that exactly this kind of political gerrymandering is happening in Sussex, which is exactly what he is seeking to prevent? Can he explain to the House how my constituents, and people more widely in Sussex, can have confidence in this process?
Steve Reed
Of the original proposals that we had for Sussex, none were considered financially viable, ultimately. We are reopening the consultation, and the hon. Member and her constituents will be able to comment on the new proposals.
[Official Report, 25 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 311.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed):
Steve Reed
Of the original proposals that we had for East Sussex, none were considered financially viable, ultimately. We are reopening the consultation, and the hon. Member and her constituents will be able to comment on the new proposals.
Correction to Written Statement HCWS1455
Steve Reed Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
On 25 March I made a written statement on local government reorganisation. There was a minor error in the statement. In outlining the new councils to be created in Suffolk, it said:
“Central and Eastern Suffolk Council (current local government areas of West Suffolk, 21 parishes from Mid Suffolk, and Babergh (less 31 parishes)).
Western Suffolk Council (current local government areas of Mid Suffolk (less 29 parishes), and East Suffolk (less 25 parishes).”—[Official Report, 25 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 49WS.]
It should have said:
“Western Suffolk Council (current local government areas of West Suffolk, 21 parishes from Mid Suffolk, and Babergh (less 31 parishes)).
Central and Eastern Suffolk Council (current local government areas of Mid Suffolk (less 29 parishes), and East Suffolk (less 25 parishes).”
[HCWS1485]
Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics
Steve Reed Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
This Government are committed to strengthening our democracy and upholding the integrity of elections, as set out in our 2024 manifesto. We have already made progress on this, with our strategy for modern and secure elections published in July 2025, setting out the actions that we will take to simplify, protect and promote our valued democracy.
The Representation of the People Bill, currently being considered by Parliament, will bring in protections against foreign interference, improve political funding transparency, add tougher checks for political donations and close loopholes—increasing public confidence in the integrity of our democratic institutions.
However, we cannot ignore the fact that vulnerabilities in the UK’s political and electoral systems, particularly with politicians being targeted by foreign states, were exposed in the sentencing for bribery in November 2025 of former MEP Nathan Gill, alongside other recent cases. It is therefore right that we urgently consider whether our firewall is enough.
In December 2025 I commissioned former permanent secretary Philip Rycroft to lead an independent review into foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics. Mr Rycroft has now provided the outcomes of the review to myself and the Security Minister, and today we have laid before the House, using the unopposed return procedure, and published on gov.uk the independent review into countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics.
The Government welcome Philip Rycroft’s comprehensive, thoughtful and well-reasoned report on foreign financial interference in our democracy. We are taking immediate steps to implement his recommendations for a cap on donations made by overseas electors and for a moratorium on donations made via cryptocurrency, which we will implement through the Representation of the People Bill.
Specifically, we will introduce amendments to the Bill to:
Cap the total value of donations or regulated transactions that an overseas elector can make to, or enter into with any, one or more regulated recipients at £100,000 per calendar year. This cap is a “per elector” cap, meaning that the value of any donations to, or regulated transactions involving, any regulated recipients during the calendar year involving an overseas elector will count towards the cap as it applies to that elector.
Establish a complete moratorium on the making of cryptoasset donations to any regulated recipient, until such point that Parliament and the Electoral Commission are satisfied that there is sufficient regulation in place to ensure confidence and transparency in donations being made in this way. The moratorium will apply to any donation of any value, including donations of a value that would ordinarily fall below the threshold for the controls on donations.
We intend for these measures to apply to all regulated recipients of political donations, and to apply to all elections in the UK. This means that it is intended that the measures will apply to:
Any donation to a registered political party regulated under part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA);
Any controlled donation to a member of a registered political party, a members association or the holder of a relevant elective office—i.e. an MP; a Member of the Scottish Parliament, Senedd or Northern Ireland Assembly; a police and crime commissioner; a member of a local authority or the Greater London Assembly; the Mayor of London or an elected mayor—regulated under schedule 7 to PPERA;
Any regulated transaction involving a registered political party, a member of a registered political party, a members association or the holder of a relevant elective office regulated under part 4A of or schedule 7A to PPERA;
Any relevant donation to a recognised third party regulated under schedule 11 to PPERA;
Any relevant donation to a candidate at any election in the UK—i.e. a candidate at a UK parliamentary election, a Scottish parliamentary election, a Senedd election, a Northern Ireland Assembly election, a local government election in England, Wales and Scotland, a local election in Northern Ireland, a Greater London Assembly election or an election of the Mayor of London, or an election of a police and crime commissioner in England and Wales—regulated under schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983, schedule 3A to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 or equivalent provision under secondary legislation;
Any relevant donation to a permitted participant to a referendum to which part 7 of PPERA or the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 applies;
Any relevant donation to an accredited campaigner at a recall petition under the Recall of MPs Act 2015.
In Scotland and Wales, donations to candidates—rather than parties—are devolved matters, but my intention is to seek a legislative consent motion for our amendments, to ensure that there are no gaps in our safeguards. I will also speak to my counterparts in the Scottish and Welsh Governments to emphasise my commitment to work together to protect our electoral system across the UK.
Critically, the amendments to the Representation of the People Bill will make it clear that, when the legislation comes into force, both of these changes will be applied retrospectively from today. The measures will therefore apply in respect of donations received from today and regulated transactions entered into from today—and for the purpose of the cap on donations from regulated transactions involving overseas electors only such donations or regulated transactions are to be taken into account when determining whether the cap has been reached in respect of any overseas elector.
Political parties and other regulated recipients will need to consider carefully any donations or regulated transactions to which these measures will apply from today until the provisions in the Bill that relate to these measures come into force. A regulated recipient should refuse any donation—or choose not to enter into a regulated transaction—where the donation or regulated transaction would be considered impermissible as a result of these two measures once enacted.
Once the provisions of the Bill for these two measures come into force, a regulated recipient will then have 30 days to return any unlawful donations that they may have received and inadvertently accepted in the interim, or to pay back any money owed under transactions inadvertently entered into or rendered void, after which enforcement action can be taken.
The Government support the wider conclusions drawn by Philip Rycroft on the risks in our system and will reflect swiftly on how best to take these forward, given their more technical nature. We will respond, formally and in full, in advance of Commons Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill.
[HCWS1459]
Local Government Reorganisation
Steve Reed Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
This Government are undertaking the biggest reform of local government in a generation, ending the two-tier system and replacing it with new single-tier unitary councils. This agenda is key to this Government’s vision of local councils that deliver good services for residents and are equipped to drive economic growth, but can empower their communities.
As a Government, our No. 1 ambition is growing the economy and putting more money in the pockets of working people. Driving economic growth means acknowledging that cities, towns and villages do not all perform the same roles in the national economy—they specialise in what they are best at. Public service demand also is not the same across the country. Some areas have high levels of homelessness and temporary accommodation, others have a high need for adult social care due to an older population. Local leaders, both in councils and mayoralties, need to be able to focus on the specific needs of their area.
Reorganisation presents a once-in-a-generation chance to make sure our councils match the modern realities of our places, making sure outdated boundaries are not constraining growth, particularly in our towns and cities. In too many places, council boundaries are misaligned with the needs of their local communities and how those communities live their lives. In Ipswich, for example, the boundaries have remained largely unchanged since the middle of the 19th century, even as the population has grown. These outdated and misaligned structures slow down decisions, stifle housing growth, and fragment public service delivery.
This is particularly important for key Government priorities on house building, like our target of building 1.5 million homes in England this Parliament. The housing needs of local communities are best met by councils who are closely connected to their communities and understand a place’s local identity. This connection is crucial in ensuring that local government can boost economic growth and design public services that respond to local residents.
Reorganisation must also respect local identity, and the distinctive nature of the rural, urban and coastal communities across our country. We want to see councils that are connected to their local residents and communities; councils that mean something to the people they serve.
Decisions
I am pleased to announce today the next step in our vital reforms to reorganise local government. On 5 February 2025, councils in the 21 areas of England that still have two-tier local government and neighbouring small unitary authorities were invited to submit proposals for unitarisation.
We invited six areas to put forward proposals by 26 September 2025—East Sussex and Brighton and Hove; Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton; Norfolk; Suffolk; and West Sussex.
My Department received 17 proposals in total across the areas. I would like to thank councillors and officers in these areas for their hard work. As the House was informed on 19 November, all the proposals received were taken to consultation, which closed on 11 January 2026. We have now considered each proposal carefully against the criteria set out in the invitation letter of 5 February 2025, alongside the responses to the consultation, all representations and all other relevant information to assess the proposals. In summary, these criteria are:
whether each proposal achieves for the whole of the area concerned the establishment of a single tier of local government;
whether the councils are the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks;
whether the unitary structures prioritise the delivery of high quality and sustainable public services to citizens;
whether councils in the area have sought to work together to come to a view that meets local needs and is informed by local views;
whether new unitary structures support devolution arrangements;
whether new unitary structures enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment.
Decisions on each area have been made on a case-by-case basis, on their own merits, respecting the differences of local circumstances and local people’s views. In two areas, I have not yet made a decision, and will make a decision as soon as practicable, so reorganisation can be completed on the planned timeline.
Today, I have written to the leaders of councils setting out decisions and/or next steps for all six areas. I have decided to implement the following proposals, subject to parliamentary approval, in these areas:
Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock: five unitary proposal, creating the councils referred to in the proposals as:
West Essex Council (current local government areas of Epping Forest, Harlow and Uttlesford)
North East Essex Council (current local government areas of Braintree, Colchester and Tendring)
Mid Essex Council (current local government areas of Brentwood, Chelmsford and Maldon)
South West Essex Council (current local government areas of Basildon and Thurrock)
South East Essex Council (current local government areas of Castle Point, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea).
Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton: five unitary proposal (option 1A) submitted by Eastleigh, Fareham, Hart, Havant, Portsmouth, Rushmoor and Southampton councils, creating the councils referred to in the proposals as:
North Hampshire Council (current local government areas of Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor)
Mid Hampshire Council (current local government areas of East Hampshire, New Forest, Test Valley and Winchester, less 11 parishes from all four areas)
South East Hampshire Council (current local government areas from East Hampshire, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Portsmouth, three parishes from East Hampshire and one parish from Winchester)
South West Hampshire Council (current local government areas of Eastleigh, four parishes from New Forest, Southampton and three parishes from Test Valley)
Isle of Wight Council will remain as a separate unitary authority.
Norfolk: three unitary proposal, creating the councils referred to in the proposals as:
West Norfolk Council (current local government areas of Breckland, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, and nine parishes from South Norfolk).
Greater Norwich Council (current local government areas of Norwich, 19 parishes from Broadland, and 16 parishes from South Norfolk).
East Norfolk Council (current local government areas of Broadland (less 19 parishes), Great Yarmouth, North Norfolk, and South Norfolk (less 25 parishes)).
Suffolk: three unitary proposal, creating the councils referred to in the proposals as:
Central and Eastern Suffolk Council (current local government areas of West Suffolk, 21 parishes from Mid Suffolk, and Babergh (less 31 parishes)).
Western Suffolk Council (current local government areas of Mid Suffolk (less 29 parishes), and East Suffolk (less 25 parishes).
Ipswich and South Suffolk Council (current local government areas of Ipswich, 31 parishes from Babergh, eight parishes from Mid Suffolk, and 25 parishes from East Suffolk).
In implementing the above proposals for reorganisation in Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight; Norfolk; and Suffolk, I will exercise my power to modify the base proposals received from councils, in order to make the boundary changes that the councils requested.
Further information on the decisions taken in these areas can be found in the letters to council leaders in the areas, which will be published on gov.uk later today. A summary of the responses to the consultations for proposals in these areas will also be published today.
In East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, and West Sussex, after carefully considering the four proposals received across the areas, I have not yet made a decision, due to concerns regarding all four of the proposals I received. But I would like to reassure the House that I am still fully committed to delivering reorganisation in these areas with elections in May 2027 and changes coming into effect from April 2028.
I am considering modifications that could address my concerns, including an option for potential modification of the proposals for further consultation. I have set out further details in a letter to council leaders this morning.
I would also like to confirm our commitment to repay in-principle £200 million of Thurrock council’s debt in 2026-27. This is a significant and unprecedented commitment which reflects an assessment of value for money for national and local taxpayers, given the significant unsupported debt at the council linked to historic capital practices. This follows the recent announcement in October 2025 as part of reorganisation in Surrey to repay in-principle £500 million of Woking borough council’s debt in 2026-27.
We have not taken these decisions lightly and they have not been made simply because debt is high at these councils. The decision for Thurrock council reflects an assessment of value for money and acknowledgement that, even after significant local action to reduce debt, the council still holds significant unsupported debt that cannot be managed locally in its entirety. I would like to thank the council’s current leadership for its grip of the financial situation and to recognise the progress that has been made to reduce debt.
Further detail on this can be found in the letter to Essex council leaders, which will be published on gov.uk.
To prevent failures like those seen in Thurrock and Woking from happening again, we will now bring into operation the statutory powers enacted in 2023—but never used by the previous government—which allow direct intervention where authorities take excessive risks in their borrowing and investment practices. These powers will ensure that essential capital investment in services, housing and growth can continue, but within a much stronger framework of safeguards to protect taxpayers from costly and avoidable failure. We will soon launch a consultation to engage with the sector and stakeholders in developing and implementing these powers.
I am pleased to be able to confirm how the £63 million in transition funding announced in February will be allocated—making this the first Government to provide funding for the reorganisation process. We will provide at least £900,000 for each new unitary authority to help establish effective services and governance arrangements, ensuring funding is provided fairly, consistently, and as quickly as possible. This will mean the Essex invitation area receives £4.5 million for five new unitary councils; the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton invitation area receives £3.6 million for four new unitary councils; the Norfolk invitation area receives £2.7 million for three new unitary councils; and the Suffolk invitation area receives £2.7 million for three new unitary councils. We will also provide the Surrey invitation area with £1.8 million for two new unitary councils. This approach reflects the differing levels of complexity involved across areas and allows for a small central reserve to be used later for targeted support if needed. Funding will be issued through established, flexible grant mechanisms and my officials will be in touch with councils to confirm next steps.
Next steps
Delivering reorganisation for the benefit of all residents is a shared endeavour, and ongoing collaboration will be vital to ensure that these reforms are implemented with the interests of residents at their heart.
We remain committed to the timetable we have set out previously, with elections to the new unitary councils taking place in May 2027, ahead of them going live and delivering services in April 2028.
For the other 14 areas going through local government reorganisation, I would like to emphasise that the decisions taken here, and previously in Surrey, do not set any precedent. Decisions will be taken individually, based on the published criteria referred to above, the merits of each proposal we receive, and the local context.
I will deposit in the Library of the House copies of the letter and documents I have referred to, which are also being published on gov.uk today.
[HCWS1455]
Points of Order
Steve Reed Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. This is not a matter for the Chair, but those on the Treasury Bench will no doubt have heard exactly what he had to say and will, I hope, ensure that his comments are addressed and taken on board—
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
indicated assent.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I can see the Secretary of State looking at me and nodding. Let’s take that as a positive.
Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics
Steve Reed Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
I would like to make a statement on foreign influence and interference.
The responsibility of protecting our democracy is a duty that every single Member of this House shares. As a Government, we are clear-eyed about the evolving threats we must contend with from those who wish to disrupt our democracy for their own gain and their own twisted purposes. We already have a strong toolkit to detect, disrupt and deter interference, and we are strengthening it through our Representation of the People Bill and counter political interference and espionage action plan. But as threats evolve, so too must our protections. For this reason, I announced in December an independent review led by the former permanent secretary, Philip Rycroft, into foreign financial interference in UK politics. I would like to place on the record my thanks to Mr Rycroft for his thorough, diligent and swift work in rigorously assessing our political finance framework and identifying where further safeguards are needed. The full report from his review has today been laid before the House, and the findings are stark. Mr Rycroft concludes that this country faces a persistent problem of foreign interests seeking to exert influence on, and to interfere in, our politics, and that the threat has become arguably more acute. While he welcomes the measures in our Bill, the report is clear that we need to go further, and I agree.
We welcome Mr Rycroft’s assessment and his wide-ranging recommendations, which cover the regulation of corporate and overseas donations, the need to close loopholes used by some non-party campaign groups, the approach to combating online threats, the importance of ensuring that enforcement agencies have the information and powers they need, and the organisation of Whitehall to ensure that we are best placed to tackle these threats.
In advance of the Commons Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill, we will provide a comprehensive, line-by-line response to all the report’s recommendations. I am clear that, wherever necessary, we will amend the Bill to ensure that our defences against foreign interference are robust. Given the gravity of the threats we face and their level of seriousness, I reassure the House that we will take immediate action on the most serious loopholes set out in the report that allow illicit foreign money into our democracy.
British citizens living overseas have the right to participate in UK parliamentary elections, and that gives them the right to donate to parties or candidates they support. However, the report raises two fundamental concerns about such donations from overseas. First, the report is clear:
“Inevitably, tracing the source of funds offered by individuals living abroad is more complex than for domestic donations.”
Secondly, it raises concerns about the “democratic fairness” of allowing people
“who have chosen to live abroad in order to have their wealth taxed abroad”
none the less to
“have the opportunity to make potentially game-changing donations into British politics.”
I will therefore take immediate steps to implement the report’s recommendation on donations from overseas electors. We will introduce an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to place an annual cap on the total political donations that an overseas elector can make. The cap will be set at £100,000 a year. In the light of the gravity of the issues raised in the report, I am not prepared to allow any window of opportunity in which malign actors based overseas can funnel dark money into our politics. The cap will therefore apply retrospectively, so it will include all donations from overseas electors received from today and all regulated transactions entered into from today.
Once the provisions are in force, any donations by an overseas elector to any political party or regulated entity that exceed the cap for that overseas elector will be an unlawful donation. Subject to parliamentary approval of the amendment that I will table, the recipient of any unlawful donation will have 30 days to return that donation once the legislation comes into force, after which enforcement action can be taken and criminal penalties will apply.
The cap will apply to relevant donations from today in all elections in the UK, including for parties at the upcoming English local elections, Scottish Parliament elections and Senedd elections. In Scotland and Wales, donations to candidates rather than parties are devolved matters, but my intention is to seek a legislative consent motion for our amendments to ensure that there are no gaps in our safeguards. I will speak to my counterparts in the Scottish and Welsh Governments to emphasise my commitment to work together to protect our electoral system right across the United Kingdom.
The second recommendation on which I will take immediate action relates to donations made in cryptocurrencies. Following extensive consultation, Mr Rycroft sets out clearly the deep reservations that many people have about such donations, and his conclusions are clear that
“there is a risk that cryptoassets are used as the vehicle to channel foreign money into the political system in the UK…we should pause the use of cryptoassets for political donations for the time being.”
I accept Mr Rycroft’s assessment that the anonymity inherent in cryptocurrency transactions could make it easier to mask the origin of donations and to evade robust checks on the true source of funds. The clear route that that creates for illicit channelling of money into our politics is unacceptable and undermines public confidence in our electoral system.
In the light of that, I can confirm that the Government will take immediate steps to implement the recommendation made in the report, and we will introduce an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to place a moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency. I want to be crystal clear: as the report recommends, I mean crypto in any amount, including donations of a value that would ordinarily fall below the threshold for control on donations. There are specific risks posed by cryptocurrency donations, such as the risk of rapid multiple small donations being made just below our current thresholds.
The moratorium will remain in place until the Electoral Commission and this Parliament are satisfied that there is sufficient regulation in place to ensure full confidence and transparency in donations that are made in that way. Subject to parliamentary approval, the moratorium will be applied retrospectively to any crypto donations received from today by any political parties and regulated entities. Once the provisions are in force, if a political party or regulated entity has received a donation in the interim, they will have 30 days to return it, after which enforcement action can be taken and criminal penalties will apply. That will again apply to all elections in the United Kingdom. As I have set out, we will work with devolved Governments to secure legislative consent where that is required.
I would like again to express my thanks to Philip Rycroft for his comprehensive, thoughtful and well-reasoned report. It is, and always will be, an absolute priority for this Government to protect our democratic and electoral processes. The swift and decisive action being taken by this Government sends a clear message: we will do everything necessary to protect the UK’s democracy. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Those Members who have come into the Chamber extremely late will not be called to participate in the statement. Members have to be here for the beginning of a statement, not for the last minute of it.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I echo his thanks to Mr Rycroft for the work that he has done on a very important report. We began work in this area through the defending democracy taskforce, and I am glad to see the Minister for Security in his place to highlight the important link between the work of this report and the work that he does.
There should be no party political divide when it comes to protecting the integrity of our democracy, and there is a great deal in the report that my party instinctively agrees with. However, the process falls far short of what this House should expect. The 50-page Rycroft review was published just 20 minutes before Prime Ministers questions, and only five minutes before one of the Secretary of State’s Ministers was hosting a meeting to which I was invited about local government reorganisation, making it very difficult for me to read the detail of the report—[Interruption.] That made it very difficult for me to read the detail of an incredibly important report which, as I said, contains much with which we instinctively agree. This is not just poor procedure; it means that it is harder for the Opposition to scrutinise the actions of the Government properly, particularly in light of the fact that many of the proposals in the report are being initiated immediately.
Sadly, this follows a pattern of behaviour by this Government. The Representation of the People Bill has already been through Second Reading and is in Committee, yet today is the first time we are seeing important elements of a report that goes to the heart of that legislation. Foreign interference is growing and it demands a coherent response—a cross-party response—and yet this Government choose to legislate first and make announcements later. They brought forward the Representation of the People Bill before the Rycroft review had reported; they asked the House to scrutinise legislation that was full of holes, as the Secretary of State is now announcing from the Dispatch Box. This is not good process.
My comments are not about process for process’s sake, but about ensuring that unforeseen or bad outcomes are avoided, while protecting what needs to be protected. Now we are told that major changes—fundamental changes—on donations, enforcement and transparency are being rushed into a Bill late in its passage, without proper consultation, scrutiny or time. That is not the way to ensure that cross-party policy is successfully implemented.
It is right that the Secretary of State and the Government want to send a clear message that they take this issue seriously, and we echo that desire, but this is not the way to do it. Announcing Government action by press release, then filling in the details later, undermines the important work at the heart of the report. Russia’s aggression, Iran’s hostile activity on British soil, cyber-attacks on our institutions and Chinese state-based activity against us here in the UK make it incredibly important that we fight this fight together. Having these things bumped on the House, in the way that this report has been, does not help.
The Secretary of State knows that the Conservatives are very much on the same side in relation to these matters, so I have a number of questions for him, which I will rattle through now. Why did he not wait for the Rycroft report before introducing the Representation of the People Bill in the House? Which of the review’s recommendations will require primary legislation and what time will be provided for that primary legislation? Will he commit to a full consultation with political parties and regulators before making any substantive amendments to the Bill going through the House?
From an initial reading, the proposals on company donations will have a significant effect on legitimate domestic donations, so why are the Government proposing to treat domestic philanthropy as if it were something distasteful? Will the Secretary of State confirm that these changes will not be brought forward without proper consultation and consideration on the effects of legitimate domestic funding?
Foreign interference is not the only threat to the integrity of our elections. We have seen evidence of breaches of electoral law, so what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that current legislation is enforced?
Will the Secretary of State tighten the rules on foreign donations? He talked about devolved franchise changes in Wales and Scotland. What will he do to make sure that the forthcoming elections are protected? Finally, does he now accept that a very short pause to enable good faith interventions from my party and others would make this legislation stronger and send the signal that we are united as a democracy in this endeavour?
Steve Reed
May I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his support for the purpose and intent of this legislation, and, indeed, for his and his party’s engagement with Philip Rycroft and his review? He lists the reasons that this is important to all of us and I agree with him. Certainly, I want to see both proper engagement with the Opposition and the opportunity for proper scrutiny, because that will strengthen the legislation. It is important that the legislation has cross-party support given the nature of the issue.
We had to act quickly to bring forward the provisions, because we could not allow a window of opportunity to open that would enable evasion by malign and hostile actors. Beyond that, the proposals will proceed in the usual way through the parliamentary processes and Members from all parts of the House will have the opportunity to comment and be engaged. It was necessary to act at speed because of the gravity of the threat that Philip Rycroft’s review outlined very clearly.
None of wants to allow foreign interference to continue. All of us believe that it is the right of the British people—and the British people alone—to freely choose their own Government. We will engage with Governments across the United Kingdom and parties across this Parliament to ensure that is the outcome.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
May I start by echoing the comments of the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, paying tribute to Sir Philip Rycroft for his tireless work? I also thank the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy for its work on cryptocurrency?
We have to be honest and say that there is a lot of mistrust in our politics and democracy. I am proud to stand here as someone who was supported by two trade unions and local members in the funding of my campaign. We cannot say in one breath that we want to defend this country from foreign threats and then allow fundamentally opaque payment methods into our democracy. That is not on. It is therefore right that the Government put in place this moratorium on cryptocurrency donations. I welcome the Secretary of State’s pledge, as well as the cap on donations by overseas electors following the extension of their enfranchisement in the Elections Act 2022.
As is stated in the Rycroft review, one problem is the fact that no less than five Departments cover the responsibility for protecting our democracy. If we want to get this right, we need to continue with leadership at the heart of Government, so will the Secretary of State accept recommendation 17 and allocate a permanent secretary with lead responsibility for sustaining our democracy and co-ordinating the response to the threats at the heart of Government?
Will the Secretary of State also commit to ensuring that any amendments to the Representation of the People Bill as a result of the recommendations are tabled before Commons Report stage, so that Parliament can have adequate time to scrutinise the proposals?
Steve Reed
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her questions and for her support for this work. The intention is to bring the amendments forward on Report. In advance of those amendments being laid, we will provide a detailed response to each of the 17 recommendations, including the one to which she has just referred.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I was grateful to meet Philip Rycroft as part of this important and urgent work.
The threat that we face is not new. Back in 2020, the Intelligence and Security Committee said that Russian influence in the UK is the “new normal” and that the Government then were not doing enough. Since then, we have seen Reform’s former leader in Wales being convicted for accepting pro-Russian bribes.
We have said before that the Representation of the People Bill is not nearly ambitious enough, so I very much look forward to working as part of the Bill Committee to incorporate the recommendations. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the Government intend to accept just the two recommendations that he has focused on in his statement, or all of them?
On overseas donations, a cap is welcome, but does the Secretary of State accept that if this reform is made without wider changes, a malign actor could get around it simply by donating via a UK company? We strongly support the moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency, but much more is needed to really seize this opportunity to clean up our politics. We should ban anyone who has served a foreign Administration from donating to UK political parties, think-tanks or campaign groups A significant opportunity remains for those who have been political appointees in hostile Governments to funnel donations into the UK.
We should also ban politicians from receiving payment for participating in the propaganda of foreign adversaries, on broadcasters like Russia Today and Iran’s PressTV. Will he also address why calls from the Liberal Democrats for Donald Trump’s Administration, and their explicit policy of interference in our democracy, to be included in this review were ignored? Will he order a stand-alone probe into that?
Steve Reed
Let me thank the hon. Member for her and her party’s engagement with Philip Rycroft’s review. She is right to point to the growing threat; it has been evolving over recent years. She mentions the case of Nathan Gill, which underscores the nature and the gravity of that risk. Today I am accepting the report in general. We are bringing forward two provisions now, because had I not done so, a window for evasion would have been left open. We will provide a detailed response to all 17 recommendations. The amendments that we table will be open for parliamentary scrutiny and debate in the usual way. I look forward to her and her party making their views clear as we go through the process.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Rycroft review and I very much enjoyed speaking to Philip Rycroft during the process. Beyond crypto and other financial donations, he says we need to tackle deepfakes, bots and disinformation; create a political ad library; and put in place greater investigatory powers for the Electoral Commission and an incident protocol should there be a major election incident. My amendments deal with all those points. Will the Secretary of State undertake to urgently meet me to see how we can take my currently named amendments and make them Government amendments at the Bill’s next stage?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for her support and her active interest in making sure that the legislation that follows is as robust as possible. I would be more than happy to make sure that she has a meeting with me or the relevant Minister to discuss her amendments. The report and its recommendations cover some of her concerns, and it is our intention to amend the legislation to deal with those concerns.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
As a former elections policy Minister and member of the defending democracy taskforce, may I thank the Secretary of State for launching this inquiry? I also thank Philip Rycroft for his work; it was a pleasure to give evidence to him during that process.
I welcome the spirit in which the Secretary of State has brought forward with urgency the changes that are so demonstrably required. May I ask him two direct questions? If amendments to reflect the Rycroft report are not to be tabled at Committee stage but on Report, will he ensure through the usual channels that the length of time devoted to Report stage reflects the fact that the House will be debating for the first time amendments to the legislation, which were not included on Second Reading? That speaks to the process point made by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly).
If these important new rules are to be policed effectively and properly, there will clearly be additional demands on the Electoral Commission both in terms of power and resource. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of those needs and how will they be delivered in speedy time to mirror the urgency that is required?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Member for his support, for his work with the defending democracy taskforce and for contributing to Sir Philip Rycroft’s review. He is quite right that we want to make sure that there is adequate time on Report for Members to make their points, and I am sure that the business managers will ensure that that happens. Regarding resources for the Electoral Commission, we will need to ensure that the resources are adequate to meet any new demands placed on them or other regulators. That will be part of the process of ensuring that the legislation goes through and can be followed through on.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I thank Sir Philip Rycroft for his important work. In his review, he notes:
“The online environment has created a cheap and relatively simple means of getting anonymised content in front of ordinary people in a way that seeks to undermine their trust in the political process.”
He notes that this activity is “strategic, long-term and patient”, and that
“dissonance is its own reward.”
Does the Secretary of State agree with those findings? What can we do to address the challenge of misinformation and disinformation on social media and in online spaces?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We have to maintain confidence and trust of the British electorate in the integrity of our elections and election processes. This legislation, and the amendments we will table as a result of the Rycroft review, are intended to achieve precisely that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Mr Rycroft’s wide-ranging review makes the non-inclusion of China—or, failing that, its constituent entities—in the foreign influence registration scheme look increasingly bizarre. Will the Government look at this again as a matter of urgency? If it is the case that the FIRS is inadequate to include the state entity or its constituent parts in the meaning of the scheme, will he look to review it and perhaps replace it with something that will achieve the same end?
Steve Reed
The right hon. Member raises a very important point. The Government are keeping precisely that concern under very close review so that we stand ready to make changes as and when they are required. The Security Minister is on the Front Bench with me today because he would lead much of that work.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I declare that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on the Rycroft review. He says that he will be responding to the many wide-ranging recommendations that the review contains, but can I press him further on what actions the Government are taking to give the Electoral Commission not only resources but the powers needed to both deter and punish breaches of political financial rules?
Steve Reed
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question; it is a very important one. We will respond in detail to the recommendations and bring forward any new powers or resources that the Electoral Commission requires. We will ensure that it can carry out any new responsibilities that we place on them.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Can I put on record my thanks to Sir Philip Rycroft for his public service? The Secretary of State referenced devolved Administrations. The Scottish Parliament is going into the pre-election period this afternoon, so how will this work in terms of the elections? How will this legislation impact the extraordinary number of political donors who happen to find themselves as Members of the House of Lords, should they be seen to have broken any rules here?
Steve Reed
I hope to speak with the relevant Minister in the Scottish Government today. There will, of course, be engagement between officials during the pre-election period. Any legislative change would come after the elections in Scotland and in Wales.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I very much welcome Sir Philip Rycroft’s review. It is long overdue when we think about how much money has been flooding in from Russia and elsewhere. There are questions about association, and certain individuals who have been donating significant amounts of money while living for 21 years not here but in Thailand. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, made many recommendations in our political finance report, which we published last week. I have tabled 11 amendments, which I hope the Secretary of State will very much view as constructive.
I welcome the connection tests that the Secretary of State has mentioned to do with the individual and on a corporate level, and the moratorium on cryptocurrencies is extremely welcome. California banned them back in 2018, so it just goes to show how much could have been done in recent years. The capacity of the enforcement agencies is a real concern. The higher penalties will be very much welcomed by them, I am sure, but I reiterate that there needs to be greater capacity and expertise across the Electoral Commission and the enforcement agencies.
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I recognise his concerns. I have addressed them in answer to previous questions, and I will not repeat those responses.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to the House to talk about the importance of integrity in politics. However, as purdah arrives, in Sussex we are seeing a mess of dithering and delay and, frankly, blatant disregard of the original process for the changes in local government in Sussex. That is affecting my constituents, and indeed yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. Decisions are apparently taken on a case-by-case basis, but can I point out to the Secretary of State that people are saying that exactly this kind of political gerrymandering is happening in Sussex, which is exactly what he is seeking to prevent? Can he explain to the House how my constituents, and people more widely in Sussex, can have confidence in this process?
Steve Reed
Of the original proposals that we had for Sussex, none were considered financially viable, ultimately. We are reopening the consultation, and the hon. Member and her constituents will be able to comment on the new proposals.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
I welcome the Rycroft review and, in particular, the Secretary of State’s commitment to take action on crypto donations and to cap foreign donations from overseas donors. I want to draw his attention to the comment in the report that the debate on social media
“seeks to exacerbate division and increase polarisation with a view to simply destroying the capacity of the UK to function as a well-governed state.”
This is chilling. Alongside the proposals that he has spoken about, we need action to tackle deepfakes and disinformation, which are making it more and more dangerous for electoral candidates to operate in our democracy. Will he take action to empower our regulators, including Ofcom and the Electoral Commission, to take action rapidly, without delay?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Many people who care deeply about democracy have raised similar concerns. The review makes proposals on deepfakes and transparency about the origins of any content that appears online, which is needed. We will provide a detailed response to the recommendations, at which point she and other Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate and scrutiny them as we work through the legislation.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the action he is taking on cryptocurrency, but can I urge him to go further on corporate donations? A report this week by CenTax revealed that as many as one in four donations from corporate entities are essentially opaque. It put this down to the reliance on persons with significant control rules, and it made a series of recommendations. Will he commit to looking at the recommendations in that report and ensuring that we tighten up the system so that people cannot simply circumvent the rules by donating via British companies?
Steve Reed
The Bill and the Rycroft review already propose actions on that. I recognise the concerns. We need to act on shell companies, for instance, which can be used to funnel in dark money. We have no idea where that is coming from. There are legitimate concerns that the money could be coming from hostile states seeking to weaken and undermine our country by undermining our democracy. We will not tolerate that.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
In his excellent report, Sir Philip Rycroft specifically references the amplification of divisive content on social media. Yesterday my Committee heard from TikTok, Meta and X how in each case the design of their algorithm is determined by a foreign billionaire with a political agenda. Certainly when it comes to Mr Musk, that agenda does not reflect our democratic values—he has called for civil war in the UK. Unlike traditional press, social media algorithms are hidden, inaccessible and use personal data to target content, as Rycroft observes. Will the Secretary of State consider whether political bias in algorithms constitutes a donation in kind, and will he work with colleagues to address the algorithmic, advertising research and transparency failures that our Committee gave detailed proposals about in our report last July?
Steve Reed
I listened carefully, and with great interest, to part of the Select Committee’s proceedings yesterday. We are grateful for the contribution that my hon. Friend and her Committee are making to the debate. This legislation is not intended to target any one individual or state; it is about putting in place safeguards against growing threats, wherever they may arise.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I think the Government are very wise to try to close the potential loophole that somebody might make a giant donation between today and the conclusion of the legislative process, but I can think of at least one other rather glaring loophole, which hopefully the Secretary of State has also considered. If somebody is an elector living abroad, he will be limited to £100,000 per donation, but what about other members of his close family to whom he could channel indefinite numbers of packages of £100,000 apiece? What is to stop them from making similar donations? Has the Secretary of State considered how the limit will work in practice?
Steve Reed
Any attempt to bypass existing laws or the provisions that I have announced today would themselves be illegal. We would seek to identify the ultimate source and, if any behaviours of that kind had been carried out, there would be necessary enforcement action to follow.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I welcome the measures announced today to tackle foreign interference in our elections. Will the Secretary of State go a step further and support my proposal to break the link between wealthy donors and the parties they help to elect by banning their firms from subsequently holding Government contracts?
Steve Reed
The report is focused on stopping money coming in from hostile states or other hostile individuals who seek to undermine our democracy. That is the extent of the measures that I am announcing today.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Constituents like Andrew from Crewkerne have told me how worried they are about funding from the United States for right-wing UK think-tanks and political parties. Recommendations 4 and 16 of the review would strengthen transparency and reporting around donations to think-tanks and lobbying groups, which can advance foreign influence. Will the Secretary of State tell my constituents whether the Government will implement those recommendations, and when that will be?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Member and his constituents for their interest in this important matter. Philip Rycroft makes 17 detailed recommendations in his review. We will respond to all of them line by line, and at that point the hon. Member and his constituents will have our clear view.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for making this important statement. Like the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), I am concerned about the ability of shell companies to make political donations. Clearly that is not transparent, and that is rightly recognised in the Rycroft review. What steps will the Government take to close that loophole? Crucially, what will the Government do to strengthen the monitoring of donations?
Steve Reed
That is an important point, because the ability of shell companies to exist as funnels for dark, dirty money entering and polluting UK politics is real. That is why we are taking the recommendations seriously, and we will come forward with amendments to the legislation intended to close those doors so that we can keep British elections free for British people.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
I am going to mention the elephant in the room. Earlier this month, the husband of a sitting Labour MP—the hon. Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid)—was arrested on suspicion of spying for China. The hon. Member was subsequently suspended from the Labour party. It has been reported that she received a donation from her husband’s firm, which presumably would be covered by the Government’s plans. I do not expect any comment on that live investigation, but in the light of that and the historic case of Christine Lee, Labour MPs and the Chinese Communist party, will the Secretary of State confirm that the measures he has announced will apply equally to members of his own party who find themselves compromised by the Chinese Communist party?
Madam Deputy Speaker
She is saying that she has done so. We obviously do not mention live cases either.
Steve Reed
The right hon. and learned Member, as a former Home Secretary, will of course know that I cannot comment on ongoing investigations. The provisions of the legislation that we will bring forward—as with all legislation—will apply without fear and favour to members of all parties, as indeed does the bribery legislation that applied to Nathan Gill, a traitor who was the leader of Reform in Wales.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
At the time of the Boston tea party, the American colonists demanded, “No taxation without representation.” Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should instil the principle that there should be no ability, in a game-changing way, to influence representation without taxation? Will he elaborate a little on the principles in his statement?
Steve Reed
Philip Rycroft has recognised the concern and proposed what I think is a proportionate approach to dealing with it. I have accepted the figure of a £100,000 cap, which I think most reasonably minded people would agree is a very generous level of funding, for donations from British nationals who are living and paying their taxes overseas.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his comments. The Rycroft report has come at a really important time. As a member of the Bill Committee, I look forward to working with the Government to ensure that all the recommendations are brought through, because they are incredibly important. I return to the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) about the importance of a report relating to US interference in our democracy. What steps are the Government and the defending democracy taskforce taking to protect our democracy from foreign interference more generally before the Representation of the People Bill passes through the House?
Steve Reed
The US, of course, is our closest ally. The provisions that we are making in this legislation do not target any one country, or indeed any one individual; they are intended to be a proportionate response to a growing threat, wherever that threat may arise.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I strongly welcome the report and the Government’s speedy and decisive response to it. Evidence from Germany and from Moldova shows how online attempts at foreign interference can combine with real-life attempts at foreign interference in the run-up to elections. First, was I right in hearing that the Government will look at a transparent protocol for dealing with information emergencies related to foreign actors in the run-up to elections? Secondly, is the Secretary of State aware that in countries where crypto interests have unfairly influenced elections, donations have often been given in domestic currency? Will he look at that broader context?
Steve Reed
There are recommendations covering precisely the points that my right hon. Friend raised. I have accepted the report, in general terms, in full. We will respond in detail to each of the 17 recommendations, which I hope will address her concerns.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I warmly welcome the Rycroft review and the Government’s swift action set out today on crypto and on overseas donations, although I would like to see them go much further. The Secretary of State said that he will amend the Representation of the People Bill wherever necessary. As a member of the Bill Committee, I would love to see those amendments tabled while we are still in Committee so that we can give them the line-by-line scrutiny that, as he referred to, is the normal practice of this House. Will he please pull out all the stops to ensure that happens?
On stopping the spread of disinformation on social media, Philip Rycroft refers on page 47 of the report to the significant benefits that could come from having a real-time online library of social media adverts so that we get that transparency and that light shone on how all sorts of actors are influencing people below the surface. Does the Secretary of State support Philip Rycroft’s view on that? Will he table an amendment to deal with that problem?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Lady for her and her party’s support for the review. I also thank her for her work on the Bill Committee. She is quite right; we need to make sure that when the amendments come forward, the Bill Committee has sufficient time—and, indeed, that the House has sufficient time—to go through them in detail. I and the Government will respond to each of the 17 recommendations in detail, and I think that that will be the most appropriate time to respond to the question she has raised.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As an individual who has dedicated my life to tackling corruption in all its forms and as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Security, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), for their commitment to addressing foreign interference in our politics, as well as thanking Philip Rycroft for his review. I am grateful for the immediate measures that the Government have announced today on crypto donations and the size of donations made by British nationals abroad. They are very welcome and very much needed.
May I press the Secretary of State on three particular questions? First, to what extent can he assure the House that the Electoral Commission is sufficiently supported to monitor and police the perimeter of the new announcements that have been made today? Secondly, will he confirm that, contrary to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, there was ample opportunity for political parties of all stripes to feed into the review? Thirdly, on “know your donor” checks and the risk factors that will be introduced through the Bill, there is a recommendation in the report that they should be more aligned with the anti-money laundering requirements that have been in place for quite some time for banks and other financial services firms. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with other regulators—for instance, the Financial Conduct Authority—to understand how those would best be implemented, working with parties?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his personal engagement on this issue and for the work of the APPG that he chairs. It has made some significant contributions and we are grateful for that. We will, of course, ensure that the Electoral Commission has the resources it requires to enforce changes as we bring them forward. On his final point, the defending democracy taskforce exists to make sure that there is proper alignment across all the necessary regulators to ensure that we are keeping our democracy in this country free and safe.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s reference to the rights of British overseas electors and the cap on donations as a proportionate response, yet their right to cast their vote is constantly stymied by late arrivals of the post. While the Secretary of State is considering amendments to the Representation of the People Bill, will he meet me to consider my amendments that would address that issue and seek to secure the voting rights of overseas citizens?
Steve Reed
I am aware of that important concern. I am happy to make sure that he gets an appropriate meeting to discuss it.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I welcome the report; it is game changing. I agree with the Secretary of State’s logic that leaving a window open for dodgy money to flood into this country would have been totally irresponsible, so I welcome the swift action. My specific question is about recommendation 2 on company donations. We have learned from the Premier League’s attempt to enforce financial fair play that, unfortunately, revenue can be manipulated very easily—for example, sponsorship can allow clubs to buy players that they otherwise would not be able to afford. I welcome Rycroft’s recommendation that we switch to profit to ensure that only genuine companies that make a profit in this country can give donations. As the Government respond in full to the report, will the Secretary of State take a close look at that recommendation?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He is quite right; Philip Rycroft was very clear in his reasoning on that point. The objective is to prevent shell companies from being set up to funnel dark money into British politics. It is not to prevent British companies that are just going through a difficult year or two from making donations themselves.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I welcome the review, the Minister’s response and the general thrust of it. I am glad to see the list of people who responded at the back of the review. We responded on behalf of the Unionist community, and it is a good job that we did as no others seem to have done so.
On political donations in Northern Ireland, the Minister will be aware of Sinn Féin being able to funnel money from the United States into the Republic and then into Northern Ireland. That is an issue that we raised and it is itemised on page 25. It is a concern that many people have. Sinn Féin already gets millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in representative money for not coming here, and in addition to that, it is now getting several millions from the USA via Dublin and into Northern Ireland.
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his and his party’s engagement with the review. I hear his concerns. It is important that we continue to engage so that those concerns can be heard and, where appropriate, addressed.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his prompt action in banning cryptoasset donations and capping foreign donations. The Rycroft review also recommends that foreign-funded adverts be banned and that all online adverts should have imprints to show who has paid for them. Will the Secretary of State explain when and how the Government will take those recommendations forward?
Steve Reed
Philip Rycroft makes some really important points on that, which of course other Members across the House have made previously. As I said earlier, we will respond in detail to all the recommendations, including those covering the points that my hon. Friend has just raised.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I thank Philip Rycroft for his review and the Secretary of State for the announcement today. I am particularly happy that we have this idea about it being retrospective and applying the measures from today because we do not know when the Bill will come through. May I encourage the Secretary of State to consider, both for crypto and for foreign donations, extending the period of retrospectivity back to the previous general election?
Steve Reed
I am not so sure there is much precedent for that level of retrospectivity.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank Philip Rycroft for meeting me in my position as chair of the fair elections APPG and for including some of my points and evidence in this excellent review. I also thank the Secretary of State for including the donations cap—an issue that I raised with the Minister for Democracy, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), when we met.
My question relates to page 45 of the review, which talks about international best practice, and the point I raised with Philip Rycroft about VIGINUM in France, which monitors foreign online interference. That is the most pressing issue in UK politics today. It is about not just identifying it and publishing it, but attributing and exposing it, and in some cases even getting it removed. Are we considering the same modalities, capabilities and powers when implementing that recommendation in the UK?
Steve Reed
We will respond in detail to each of the 17 recommendations, including the one that my hon. Friend references. However, he is absolutely right: we can and should learn from best practice in other democracies to make our democracy as robust and safe as it can be.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I, too, welcome Sir Philip Rycroft’s work and the Secretary of State’s announcement today. I strongly support the idea of applying the donations cap and the moratorium on cryptocurrency donations to the devolved elections. Will the Secretary of State just clarify, to reassure me, that for those changes to take effect for the upcoming elections, we will not have to have a legislative consent motion from the devolved legislatures before the elections because, as others have mentioned, there is very little time for that to happen?
Steve Reed
No; to reassure the hon. Gentleman, the provisions I have announced today apply to the entire United Kingdom, with immediate effect.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I strongly welcome the review and I thank the Secretary of State for commissioning it. I have heard what he has said about considering the recommendations in detail. I draw his attention to paragraph 75, which states:
“there are no reporting requirements for campaign spending outside regulated periods for either non-party campaigners or candidates. This means that there is no transparency around what is spent, or around the donations being used to fund this spending, outside of regulated periods.”
We go out of the regulated period again in six weeks’ time. Will the Secretary of State consider the urgency of that particular recommendation for dealing with the regulated period? More broadly, does he agree that it is our democratic duty to take the report seriously, and that political parties that do not take the report, and transparency and democracy, seriously have no role in this Parliament and no decency in representing their constituents?
Steve Reed
There are clear recommendations about non-party campaigns and candidates, and we will be making our response to those recommendations in due course. The only recommendations I am bringing into force immediately are those that I referred to in my statement.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I welcome the recommendations of the Rycroft report, particularly the cap on donations from overseas voters, but we all know that our domestic politics is still prey to big money influencing all the parties in this House, which warps our politics and moves it away from public discourse in favour of the interests of the wealthy. In fact, the last election saw one of the highest ever levels of spending in a general election, at close to £70 million. That is extremely unfair for the smaller parties and independents, so can I ask the Minister how we can promote fairer representation and a move away from domestic big-money politics?
Steve Reed
The purpose of the review, and therefore of my statement, is to address growing concerns about foreign influence on our elections, particularly the attempts by hostile states to get control of our elections and influence them in ways that will favour them rather than the British people.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Rycroft report, especially the focus it puts on the threat of social media upturning our democracy. It was astonishing in the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee yesterday that the representative from X repeatedly stated that X was not politically biased and appeared to decouple himself from Elon Musk and the platform itself. Elon Musk has incited hatred in this country and backed very right-wing candidates and parties on his platform. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the recommendations on foreign financial influence extend to any Member of this House receiving any income from X or any other social media platform?
Steve Reed
The recommendations are very clear in their scope. I hope my hon. Friend will allow the Government to take the necessary time to respond to those recommendations in detail—there is a lot in them—and then to bring forward amendments to the legislation and take that through both Houses in the usual way.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
A former high-ranking member of Reform UK was convicted and sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison for accepting bribes to promote pro-Russian narratives, while some Members across the House have had direct foreign interference in their work in Parliament. Given that the Rycroft report highlights the fact that foreign interference in our politics is real and persistent, what additional steps can be taken to strengthen our democracy against foreign interference in political parties?
Steve Reed
The hon. Member is right to highlight the very high profile case of Nathan Gill, who was accepting bribes on behalf of Russia, a hostile foreign state, and effectively kowtowing to it rather than responding to the wishes of the British public. We cannot allow that to happen. That is why we are bringing forward the provisions in the Representation of the People Bill, and we will be bringing forward further amendments based on Philip Rycroft’s review that is before the House today.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I thank Philip Rycroft for his review and for meeting me to discuss his report. I also thank the Government for the quick action that they are taking. On cryptocurrencies, what further action will the Government be taking to ensure that the influence does not move from politics into lobbying or, even worse, into think-tank organisations?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are recommendations in the review about precisely that, and we will come forward with our detailed response. I have accepted the review in general terms, but we will bring forward detailed responses to the individual recommendations and then amendments to the legislation so that we can put in place the necessary protections to ensure that it is the British people who take the decisions about who governs them, not people sitting in the Kremlin or in seats of government in other countries.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his positive statement and for the clear direction from the Government. Some four or five weeks ago, I asked him a question about Sinn Féin moneys. At that time, he said that he would come back to me, but he did not—this is not a criticism, by the way—and I now understand that the reason he did not was that this statement was coming today.
In the light of the statement, can I ask for some clarification? Accountability and transparency are tenets that have to go hand in hand with elections, and those ideals must become realities. Given that Sinn Féin has historically received millions in US-placed donations and maintains a unique cross-border structure, will the Minister ensure that the Rycroft review specifically examines the adequacy of safeguards against political funding originating from the Republic of Ireland and the United States of America, to ensure a level playing field for all parties within this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his deep interest in this entire matter. Our intention is to ensure that the safeguards we put in place are robust enough to ensure that no dirty or dark money can enter British politics in any way or from any source. I am always more than happy to continue to engage with him about any specific concerns he may have.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am completely disappointed with myself for not wishing the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a happy birthday today. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is why his question was allowed to be a little bit longer than usual, but hopefully it will not be next time.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome this statement. The public must have confidence that political decisions are made in their interests, not those of wealthy donors. Nowhere is that more important than in relation to the housing crisis, where there are also significant concerns that vested interests are seeking to exert significant influence on policy making. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss my proposed amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to ban developers from donating to politics and restore trust in our planning system?
Steve Reed
I am more than happy to make sure that my hon. Friend gets an appropriate meeting. I also belatedly wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a happy birthday.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Section 10 of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 amended the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that, in addition to already needing to be on the electoral register, a donor would need to be domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. However, section 10 required a statutory instrument to activate it, but no such statutory instrument was ever laid before this House. Will the Secretary of State look at belatedly activating this measure to ensure that only those that live and pay tax in the UK can influence our democracy with their money?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and of course I am more than happy to look at that.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s announcement of a cap on donations from overseas electors and a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations from today is extremely welcome. What criminal penalties will be incurred for breaking these rules? After all, we need an effective deterrent to dissuade those who might seek to circumvent them.
Steve Reed
We will lay the details before the House so that Members on both sides have access to the relevant information. It was important that the provisions in these two circumstances were brought forward to today, because of the risk of a window for evasion had we not done that. That retrospective change will be subject to the legislation going through Parliament successfully.
Local Government: Best Value
Steve Reed Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
I have previously updated the House on this Government doing what it takes to fix the foundations of local government. That includes taking prompt and direct action when councils are failing their best value duty. In that context, today I am updating the House on the steps we are taking in Tower Hamlets.
On 19 January, I informed the House that, having carefully considered the evidence, I was concerned that a year into the statutory intervention, the council was not making sufficient progress and had not understood the severity of its situation or moved beyond planning for improvement into action and impact. I considered that the council was not yet complying with its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, governance, leadership, culture and partnerships, and that the evidence amounted to new failure to comply with the duty in relation to its use of resources. I therefore proposed changes to the current intervention package to accelerate and strengthen the required improvement work, and invited the council and other interested parties to provide representations on the proposals by 2 February.
I received five responses. I also received the envoys’ second report, which I am publishing today. The envoys recognise the progress the council has made in some areas, including engaging more effectively with its partners, the delivery of a staff survey and the development of a more mature continuous improvement plan. They conclude, however, that
“the overall pace of change and the grip of the officer and member leadership to drive improvement is insufficient.”
They describe the council’s leadership as “unnecessarily defensive”, noting that their energy is centered on
“managing the message and writing a plan, rather than on deeper ownership of the council’s issues and driving forward key deliverables".
The envoys welcome the proposed package and believe that it will support a necessary shift in the approach of the council’s leadership.
I have carefully considered the representations, the envoys’ second report and other relevant material. I am satisfied that the council is continuing to fail to comply with its best value duty, which includes additional failure in relation to its use of resources. I am also satisfied that the council is not yet making sufficient progress or demonstrating the required level of leadership grip under the existing model of intervention. I have therefore concluded that it is both necessary and expedient for me to exercise intervention powers under the Local Government Act 1999 as I have proposed, to accelerate and strengthen the improvement work, with some minor amendments, in order to:
Streamline the governance of the intervention,
Increase the transparency and scrutiny of the council’s reporting against its improvement journey, and
Clarify the scope and intended effect of the powers being issued to the envoys.
I have today issued the council with revised directions under section 15(5) and 15(6) of the 1999 Act which in summary require the council to
Continue to implement its continuous improvement plan in a timely manner, including action to continue to address the statutory recommendations and significant weaknesses identified by the council’s external auditor
Continue to achieve improvements in scrutiny, recruitment, transparency, procurement, contract management, internal investigations, officer structure and the scheme of delegation
Co-operate with the envoys to adequately resource and deliver the deep dive project into alleged misconduct at the council
Disband its transformation and assurance board and establish an envoy-led improvement board to oversee its delivery against the ministerial directions
Take appropriate action to ensure compliance with its best value duty in relation to leadership, governance, culture, partnerships and community engagement, continuous improvement and use of resources.
To safeguard the improvement process, the envoys will be able to exercise the following functions of the council, which are to be treated by the envoys as held in reserve. In summary, these functions are associated with the
Governance, scrutiny and transparency of decision making
Strategic financial management, financial governance and scrutiny of financial decision making
Operating model and redesign of local services, and
Recruitment, appointment, structure, performance management and dismissal of senior and statutory officers.
To reflect the need for additional finance expertise and capacity in the envoy team, I will appoint an additional assistant envoy with finance expertise in due course.
For the envoy model to be successful, the council and its leadership need to grip and drive its own improvement at pace, supported, challenged and overseen by the envoys. I want to be clear in my expectation that the council’s political and officer leadership now demonstrate true acceptance and ownership of the issues and embed improvement at every level of the organisation, with clear evidence of impact and progress. I expect the envoys to see a clear change in the current behaviours of the council’s leadership, and I know they will hold them accountable if change is not forthcoming.
Additionally, I would like to highlight to all members of the council that their individual and collective contributions to the council’s improvement journey are crucial to its success. It is disappointing that some members have demonstrated a lack of commitment to improvement thus far and it is my expectation that members from all parties can put aside their personal and political differences to prioritise constructive scrutiny and debate. It is time for all members to put the residents of Tower Hamlets first and contribute wholeheartedly to the council’s improvement journey.
As we approach local and mayoral elections this May, it is of upmost importance that all interested parties work closely together to deliver safe and secure local elections. I would also like to remind the council of the importance of adhering to the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity, particularly its principles of objectivity and even-handedness, especially in times of heightened sensitivity.
The revised directions take effect from today. The envoys will provide their next report on progress in the summer, with further reports as agreed with them. As with other statutory interventions led by my Department, the council will meet the costs of the envoys and provide reasonable amenities and services and administrative support. The envoys’ fees are published on gov.uk. I am assured this provides value for money given the expertise being brought in and the scale of the challenge.
I will review the directions and the envoys’ roles at the appropriate time, to ensure Tower Hamlets has the right support to secure its recovery and to protect the public purse. Subject to clear and sustained evidence of improvement, certain functions may be returned to the council ahead of the expiration of the directions. As set out in my 19 January statement, I remain committed to working in partnership with the London borough of Tower Hamlets to provide whatever support is needed to ensure its compliance with the best value duty.
[HCWS1410]
Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill
Steve Reed ExcerptsMonday 16th March 2026
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill 2024-26 View all Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I start by paying tribute to the bereaved family members of those who died at Grenfell Tower, as well as the survivors and members of the local community. Nothing we can say in this Chamber can take away what they have been through. The fire at Grenfell Tower, which took the lives of 72 people, was a terrible moment in our country’s history. It was an avoidable tragedy, and it has had lasting consequences for bereaved families, for those who survived and for the local community and far beyond. We must ensure that nothing like it can ever happen again. There is still much to do on justice, on reform and on making homes safe, but today’s Bill is about one clear part of our responsibility: how we remember Grenfell and how we keep our promise over time.
This is a simple Bill with a simple purpose: to ensure that the Grenfell Tower memorial is properly supported today and for the long term. It is for the bereaved, survivors and the community to take their decisions on what the memorial will look like. The Bill is here to fund that important work. Grenfell must not be about party politics. The previous Government promised to support bereaved families and survivors to create a fitting and lasting memorial. This Government are keeping that promise.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for the sombre and appropriate way he proposes the Bill. Although the memorial is important and should be tasteful and poignant, the best memorial is the lessons learned so that no other family has to suffer as these victims’ families have suffered, and the lives that will be saved by the changes that are implemented for safety. That is the real memorial those people wish to have.
Steve Reed
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He describes it absolutely correctly. That is why it will be the local community, survivors, the bereaved and the next of kin who will take decisions about what the memorial will look like.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is correct in everything he has said so far about the memorial. Is he willing to meet me? He has spoken about safety, and many of my residents are concerned about their safety with unsafe cladding. They are also worried about the cost of that. Will he or one of his Ministers meet me to discuss that issue further?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Part of the legacy of Grenfell must be that people are kept safe in their own homes. I would be happy to ensure that she has an appropriate meeting with an appropriate Minister, whether that is me or a colleague.
The points that Members have raised is why the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission was set up in 2019. It is community-led and there to shape a shared vision of the future of the site. After years of engagement, the commission published its report “Remembering Grenfell” in November 2023. It set out clear recommendations for: a permanent memorial at the site of Grenfell Tower; a private site where parts of the tower where people died and where their remains were not identifiable can be laid to rest with respect; and a physical and digital archive alongside a permanent exhibition, so that the story of Grenfell is preserved as a lesson for the future.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for bringing forward this piece of legislation. Can he confirm that the Bill is not only about capital expenditure, but long-term maintenance, to ensure that this is a lasting legacy for the families of Grenfell?
Steve Reed
I agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes. This legislation has to be about the long term; that has to be the best way we can pay tribute to those who died and their relatives from that very dark night.
The work of the memorial commission will be guided by those most directly affected. We know that views about the future of the site are deeply personal and not always shared by everyone. The Government have welcomed the commission’s recommendations and will help to carry them out. Design work led by the community is now under way, with a design team appointed after a selection process that involved bereaved families, survivors and the wider local community. The aim is to start construction of the memorial from mid-2027.
This is a very focused Bill. It gives the Government the statutory authority needed to spend public money on the construction and long-term management of a Grenfell Tower memorial. It allows for land to be bought where needed and for works to be carried out on that land. The scope of the Bill is deliberately narrow. It does not set the design of the memorial. It does not determine planning decisions. It does not set governance or ownership arrangements. It makes sure that spending connected to the memorial is carried out properly, in line with the rules for Government spending and with Parliament’s agreement.
The community will continue to work on the design while Parliament considers this Bill so that work stays on course towards a mid-2027 start to construction. The memorial will honour those who lost their lives and those whose lives were forever changed by that tragedy. It will be a place where people can remember, reflect and pay their respects. It does not take away from other work that still needs to be completed. The community has waited far too long for justice to be served. Those responsible must be held to account, and I fully support the Metropolitan police in what is one of the largest and most complex investigations it has ever carried out. We must also reform the system so that the voices of residents cannot be ignored and safety risks can never again simply be brushed aside.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
The way in which the Secretary of State has spoken so far reflects the way we all felt post-Grenfell. We must ensure that the communities feel they have somewhere to go, somewhere to grieve. Does the Secretary of State agree that the work relating to who was responsible for the tragedy needs to continue, alongside the work on the memorial?
Steve Reed
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, and of course the police investigation continues. The families have had a long wait for justice, but justice must and will come.
This requires a new culture of transparency and accountability, which the Government remain fully committed to building. I will continue to act on the Grenfell inquiry recommendations to ensure that they lead to real and lasting change across the country. No one should ever go to bed unsure about whether their home is safe, and speeding up remediation remains one of our highest priorities. We are working with developers, freeholders and local authorities to remove unsafe cladding as quickly as possible, and we are now monitoring thousands of buildings to ensure that progress is being made.
This short but important Bill is about how we remember what we learn and what we do as a result. It ensures that national remembrance is properly supported and protected with Parliament’s consent, while also supporting the central role of bereaved families, survivors and the community. It helps to ensure that Grenfell is never forgotten, and that the lessons of that tragic night will make homes safer and the future fairer for everyone. I commend it to the House.
Housing, Communities and Local Government
Steve Reed Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Reed
People deserve to feel proud of their neighbourhoods. Pride in Place is central to our plan to make that happen. We have now committed £5.8 billion to almost 300 constituencies and begun to set up neighbourhood boards so that local people can decide for themselves how that money is spent.
[Official Report, 9 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 80.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed):
Steve Reed
People deserve to feel proud of their neighbourhoods. Pride in Place is central to our plan to make that happen. We have now committed £5.8 billion to almost 300 areas and begun to set up neighbourhood boards so that local people can decide for themselves how that money is spent.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Muslim people across the country face intensifying, dehumanising and often violent racism every day. Now that we have a definition, I am desperate for the conversation to move towards action. How quickly will the Government now move from definitions towards a clear and funded road map for action, including proper monitoring and accountability?
Steve Reed
The hon. Member is right to call for action, and I agree with her point. We will now engage in a review of how best to disseminate the definition, and put it into action so that it makes a difference to people’s lives. There is £5 million of new funding in the report, but Departments across Government will have sources of funding that also can be used to disseminate the new definition.
[Official Report, 9 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 91.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government:
Steve Reed
The hon. Member is right to call for action, and I agree with her point. We will now engage in a review of how best to disseminate the definition, and put it into action so that it makes a difference to people’s lives. There is up to £4 million of new funding in the report, but Departments across Government will have sources of funding that also can be used to disseminate the new definition.
Representation of the People Bill
The following extract is from Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill on 2 March 2026.