Kemi Badenoch MP: speeches 2024

72 published records · newest first.

Speeches

9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?
9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
I do not mean to be patronising, but it is quite difficult when there are very clear issues that have a precedent in Scotland. The question is not why I am being patronising; the question is why the Government are ignoring what has happened when these proposals have been tried in another part of the UK. That is a serious problem. All of us here want the best for children and to see tenants do well. It is very wrong of the hon. Gentleman to ascribe negative motivations when we are pointing out problems with legislation. We on the Opposition Benches are doing our job. We do not think the Bill will work.
9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
That is an excellent point—we should not make the problem worse. We should start with first principles not policy, but there are no first principles here that will help the Bill get through. We want to help the Bill become legislation to deliver for tenants and landlords. However, as I have heard from the comments that have been made, this seems to be about the left being seen to be tough on landlords and passing legislation with the right sounding title, rather than delivering real improvement to people’s lives. I heard the Secretary of State teasing my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), but it is hypocritical to criticise those of us in the House who declare our interests—we on the Conservative Benches do that well—when a Labour MP was disgraced in the press for letting out unsanitary homes with mould. The Government should look at why they have Members who are behaving that way. We want a housing market that works for everyone—landlords, tenants and those who want to own their home. By attacking those who rent out homes, they will damage investment in new homes. They will push landlords out of the market and drive up rents. That is bad for everyone. By piling on excessive regulation, they will push good landlords out and empower those bad landlords who simply ignore the rules. We need to look at enforcement of the rules we already have. We all agree that renters need a better deal, but this Bill is not going to work. It is not what renters need—we found that out and we want to help deliver a good Bill. If the Government want to help renters, they should drive up housing supply: so far, no sign of that. If the Government want to help renters, they need to reduce immigration: so far, no sign of that. Some 80% of recent migrants have moved into the private rental sector, creating a demand the sector cannot cope with. If the Government want to help renters, they need to enforce existing rules against the bad landlords that do not look after their tenants, rather than create new rules that will make the problem worse. This legislation is typical of Labour in government. We have tabled a reasoned amendment because the Bill fails to fix the major issues and adds yet more rules and regulations to keep the bureaucrats busy, rather than finding solutions to help those tenants who desperately need them.
9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
There is a big difference between having a headline in a manifesto and seeing the detail, as many Members on the Government Benches will soon find out. Earlier on, their Prime Minister could not answer the question about whether the Government will increase taxes. Campaigning is easy, but governing is hard.
9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
We will find out soon enough. Perhaps Members on the Government Benches are oblivious to these costs and dynamic effects—listening to their interventions, it appears so. I note that no impact assessment for the Bill is available, an omission that has rightly drawn criticism from the Regulatory Policy Committee. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether an impact assessment has been undertaken? If it exists, where is it? If it does not exist, why did the Government not ask for one? I hope this is not how the Labour Government mean to go on. When I was in government, I provided impact assessments on all sorts of complex legislation. I know that is difficult and can create arguments, but I also know there is a lot more badly thought out and costly regulation where this came from, and we on the Opposition Benches are worried. I know Members on the Government Benches will want to point to the last Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill—I have heard their interventions—but the fact is, that Bill was flawed. I am quite happy to say that, but at least it recognised the practical effect of its provisions and would not have come into full effect until the courts were ready. The then Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee warned in 2023 that the equivalent provisions in the Renters (Reform) Bill created “a real risk that the current systems will be overwhelmed, and there will be a logjam with lengthy delays.” This Government are pressing ahead with measures that will cause gridlock in our justice system, and pit landlords and tenants against each other in protracted litigation.
9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
That question is nonsense. My point is that tenants will not be able to find properties to rent in the first place. From that intervention, it seems that Labour still does not understand these concepts. We worry that the higher prices will be paid by tenants, especially young people and the less well off. Demand is rising in England, but availability is not keeping up. Forty-seven per cent. of landlords have either attempted to sell a property in 2023 or are thinking of doing so, with the biggest reason being to their fear of new laws.
9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
I would like to make some progress. The Government are pressing ahead with measures that will cause gridlock in the justice system, which will create even more problems for tenants. The people the Government are trying to help will not be able to get a home in the first place—none of us want to see that. We have to do better.
9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
Of course we want people to have security in homes, but to do that we need to increase supply. We did what we could when we were in government, and we will help this Government to deliver. The fact of the matter is that this legislation is not going to help. We would love it if it did—we tried to make it work and we could not—but it would have a negative effect. Landlords provide a vital service. The private rented sector is essential for those who cannot yet afford a mortgage, for young people and for those who need to move for work. Landlords selling and giving up homes for rent for mortgages do not help many of the people who need to rent. The overwhelming majority of landlords are responsible—I am glad the Secretary of State acknowledged that—and law abiding, and they see their property as a sustainable long-term investment. The Government claim the Bill will reform the rental market. We do not believe it will—it will break it. Respect for property rights is not just an abstract principle. It underpins confidence in our economy and legal system. If the Government do not protect property rights, investment is damaged. If investment is damaged, growth is hit. It is painfully clear to anyone who understands markets that the Bill will act as a powerful disincentive for anyone to rent out their property. Most tenants do not have friends and family to rent from and, unlike Members of the Labour party, they do not have millionaire donors to put them up, so they will suffer most when supply goes down and rents go up.
9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
We need to focus on the contents of the Bill. If anyone has an issue with landlords in this House, it is Labour Members—I notice the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) ran away before the discussion about the Bill started. They should look at themselves, and the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells had better check his fellow Members before asking that sort of question. As I was saying, when the problems of protracted litigation in the courts are combined with the new, extended and highly convoluted notice requirements for recovering a property where the tenant has not paid the rent, a landlord whose tenant is in arrears will face many months of uncertainty and cost. Let me summarise in two words why the Bill will fail: unintended consequences. That is what we get when we start with policy rather than first principles.
9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
Yes, I do recall. The reason why our Bill did not get through is that we recognised its flaws. That is what I mean when I say that I worry about the Secretary of State, because the bright young things in Downing Street who have sent her out with this Bill do not care if it fails. They will take the credit today, but she will get the blame tomorrow, and tenants will get bad regulation, shortages and higher prices, as we have seen in Scotland. Those higher prices will be paid by tenants, especially young people and the less well off.
9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
I have not seen that specific report, but I have seen others that indicate that this is happening. We have to be careful. I appreciate that the Government want to make renting more secure and affordable, and we want to do that too, but this Bill will have the opposite effect, as we have seen in Scotland. As this Government will find out over the course of this Parliament, they cannot buck the market.
9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
Private landlords react to legislation, which is why we say that such legislation will reduce housing in the private rented sector. Fifty-six per cent. of landlords cited our Renters (Reform) Bill as a factor in their decision to sell. We already recognise those flaws, and such a reduction in supply is bad for both tenants and landlords. We are losing homes in the private rented sector.
9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
It is a privilege to open for the Opposition on Second Reading of the Renters’ Rights Bill in this momentous week. As the Secretary of State mentioned, Labour reaches 100 days in office this week, for which it is to be congratulated, as not everyone gets to 100 days—Sue Gray didn’t. [Hon. Members: “Liz Truss didn’t!”] Neither did Sue Gray. The point is that not everyone gets to 100 days, so we congratulate the Government. So far, the only real actions we have seen are the noisy infighting and chaos that resulted in the hurried reset we saw over the weekend—oh dear. This Renters’ Rights Bill will only add to the chaos. The first time the Secretary of State and I faced each other across the Dispatch Box, I warned her that she is being stitched up by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I also told her that we are here to help, and we are, especially as it has been a particularly rough time to be a woman in the Labour party. It is not just the sacking of Sue Gray—she is soon to be awarded what Winston Churchill called a “disapeerage”—as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) has taken the brave decision to leave the Labour party. I have followed the hon. Lady’s career in this place closely and, although we do not agree on everything, she is very brave.
9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin).
9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
I am still on that subject, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, the hon. Member for Canterbury took the brave decision to leave the Labour party. I have followed her career in this place closely and, although we do not agree on everything, she is very brave. Perhaps the Secretary of State will feel nervous as she introduces the Bill, because I know that her Department is already breaking promises of its own. It promised a new national planning policy framework within 100 days, yet there is no new framework. There is just a consultation, as I predicted during our last debate on this subject. To be fair, the Department has finally produced this Renters’ Rights Bill, after copying and pasting quite a lot of our Bill, but it is still not ready. The truth is that it cannot fix the rental market by tying it in knots with further interventions and directives. The simple truth is that this Bill will not work and the proposals will fail. We know the Bill will fail because this approach has been tried in Scotland by those great experts in failure, the Scottish National party. Research by Indigo House, the housing expert, has found that none of the Scottish legislation since 2017 has protected the majority of private residential tenants against excessive rent increases or high advertised market rents. It has discovered that tenants have found it more difficult to find a home, and that there is a particularly negative impact on those in greatest need, including homeless households and those with less economic power, such as those claiming welfare benefits.
2 Sept 2024 · Requirement for New Housing to be Beautiful · Hansard source
More
On the subject of the NPPF, I am grateful for the letter that the right hon. Lady sent to me on Saturday. I enjoyed reading it, especially her attempts to explain why she reduced Sadiq Khan’s London targets and, even more, where she highlights that he has consistently under-delivered. If other local leaders miss their new housing targets, will she reduce their targets too?
2 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
It has been reported that the Secretary of State is being lobbied to increase council tax and remove discounts such as the single occupancy discount. Will she take this opportunity to reassure the House that the Government have no plans to increase council tax, as they assured us before the election?
2 Sept 2024 · Community Cohesion · Hansard source
More
The right hon. Lady has not read the Khan review, as she would not have given that answer if she had. The review talks about the 2021 incident at Batley grammar school, where a teacher was failed by local police and the local council and had to go into hiding. Given the fears about the rise is Islamist sectarianism in communities such as West Yorkshire, what are the right hon. Lady’s plans, especially as she has not read the review, to ensure that such incidents do not happen again?
2 Sept 2024 · Community Cohesion · Hansard source
More
Can the right hon. Lady give me her assessment of the Khan review into social cohesion?
30 Jul 2024 · Building Homes · Hansard source
More
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I echo the comments by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) regarding the appalling incident in Southport. We on the Conservative Benches send our deepest condolences to the families of all those who are impacted. Having listened to the right hon. Lady’s statement, I have many questions. I know she will not be able to answer all of them, certainly not in the time we have today, so I hope that, for the questions she does not have the answer to now, she will be able to provide written answers within a month and before the end of the summer recess, so we can pick up quickly when we return for her Department’s oral questions. The Labour party has a mandate to deliver what it promised in its manifesto. As a party which has governed for most of the past 100 years, the Conservatives respect that mandate. It is our job, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, to scrutinise its plans and ensure that Labour is saying what it means and, more importantly, doing what it says. With that right to deliver its manifesto come many responsibilities. Labour now has the responsibility—unlike in its manifesto—to be crystal clear about what it actually wants to do to avoid prolonged uncertainty. It now has a responsibility to understand and address the concerns of councillors and local residents. It now has a responsibility to explain the economics and allocate the funding that we all know will be needed for this plan. It now has a responsibility not to be contradictory in what it is setting out. It must not make promises that any impartial observer knows cannot be delivered. Crucially, it must not break its commitments early, yet we are already seeing changes to what it committed itself to. On 20 June, the Chancellor stated that the Government would update the national planning policy framework within 100 days, so why is Labour now briefing that it will be before the end of the year? That is a lot more than 100 days. They have just started and they are already changing their targets. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the NPPF will be updated and in effect by mid-October, the deadline they set for themselves? They are proposing an eight-week consultation over the summer holidays for their updates to the NPPF. This is the third set of updates we will have in a year. In the previous consultation on the NPPF in 2023, we had 2,600 responses. How will they have a meaningful consultation, which is what the legislation requires, that respects the input of local planning authorities and others? There will be legal challenges. Are they ready for them? The Government are proposing multiple changes to planning: the NPPF updates; the new primary legislation that the right hon. Lady just described; the changes to nutrient neutrality, which they have recently converted to; and the NSIP—just to name a few. The right hon. Lady says she wants to end constant changes and disruption to planning policy. That is great, but how will she avoid creating years of uncertainty and making it harder for local authorities and developers to build new housing as all those changes are worked through? As I said to her the last time we sat opposite each other, these things take time and they are not as straightforward as she is making out. The Government will not be able to deliver their ambitions unless they recognise that. What is most interesting in the statement is that the right hon. Lady confirmed she is reducing the housing need calculation for London. Can she confirm whether that reduction will apply to other urban areas? Can she explain why she is reducing the need for cities like London to build more housing when they have the infrastructure to support it? Why is she forcing suburban and rural areas to take more housing when there are schools in Hackney, such as De Beauvoir primary school and Randal Cremer primary school, that are shutting down because they do not have enough pupils? Why is she doing that? The Government talk about the grey belt in the planning framework. It is very interesting; I have had quick look through it. They define it, but what does the limited contribution to the five green belt purposes actually mean in planning terms? If they are not clear, planning inspectors will determine that, and we will yet again have more and more local opposition. It is also interesting that the Government are considering changes to restrict the right to buy. The right hon. Lady has told us very proudly how she was able to buy her own council house— [ Interruption. ] At least one, certainly. Can she confirm that, following these changes, young people across England will still be able to exercise the same right to buy that she had in 2007? There is also a responsibility to address the concerns of councillors and local residents. From my own constituency, I know that the references to Traveller sites will cause some concern. The fact that the right hon. Lady has stood up and said that many of the housing allocations will be surprising will make it very difficult for local councils and local communities to deal with. Where is the respect for local decision making? We are not saying that they should not be ambitious, but they will have to take local government in hand when they do that. They say they want to impose exacting mandatory housing targets on local authorities. We had the advisory target so that councils could make sure they could do better, not worse, so it is wrong for her to claim that that was us removing mandatory housing targets. Councillors have repeatedly told me they are afraid they will be forced, under a duty to co-operate, to sacrifice their own green spaces to take the housing need that urban leaders, who are her friends, fail to meet. What will she say to reassure leaders in places like Bromsgrove, Wychavon and South Staffordshire? What penalties will she apply to local leaders like Sadiq Khan who fail to meet local housing need requirements? What happens when the mayor fails to meet even these reduced targets that she has set for him? The right hon. Lady has already let slip that she is ditching the requirement to ensure that beauty is a key part of housing, something I was very proud that the previous Conservative Government put at the heart of our planning reforms. Local people want beautiful housing. Now she is telling us that she will be replacing what they want with a requirement to meet 1.5 million ugly houses instead. Why on earth would they take out something that means so much to local communities? People deserve to live in beautiful homes. The fact that the Labour party does not care about that shows exactly how it will develop its policies. The Government’s responsibility to explain the economics and set out how they will fund their proposals is also key. They say they need to ensure that the NPPF has a new growth-based approach, but that is already in the NPPF. The right hon. Lady would know that if she had read it. I bet she hasn’t. The Chancellor effectively killed off some major NSIP schemes on Monday, such as the Arundel bypass. Is all the talk of prioritising energy infrastructure projects just a way of dressing up these cuts to other kinds of infrastructure? Where is the economic analysis that her Department has undertaken on the housing market? Yesterday, we all saw the Chancellor come to the Dispatch Box claiming not to have understood the pressure on public finances and how it was all so difficult. We warned repeatedly during the election that Labour says one thing and does another. It said that it was not going to raise taxes; now we can see what it is planning. The Chancellor said nothing about the impact on housing, so now I am asking the right hon. Lady, on behalf of the British people and local authorities, what it means for them. Is she going to follow the same playbook, pretending she did not know what it cost to build affordable housing, or to change the planning system and impose more costs for builders, homebuyers and renters? Those are just a few of the questions the Government will need to answer. I am sure colleagues across the House will have many more. The Government are in danger of choosing the worst of all worlds: not addressing the basic economics of housebuilding and centralising decision making. When we look at all that, it looks like the 1.5 million homes will be a distant aspiration rather than a meaningful target.
19 Jul 2024 · Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs · Hansard source
More
rose —
19 Jul 2024 · Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs · Hansard source
More
It is a delight to be back at the Dispatch Box, and I have been looking forward to speaking opposite the right hon. Lady for a very long time. She and I have never really met, and certainly never spoken to each other, despite being in this House together for seven years. We have some things in common, although not much. We were both born in 1980, although I am older and wiser than she is. People often think we are both much younger than we really are, because we have got such great skin and good hair, and we are both known as being quite feisty. I am really pleased to be able to congratulate her on her elevation to Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister. This is a phenomenal achievement. She will be a great inspiration to young people, particularly young women, in many communities across the country. That is a wonderful thing. That is the sort of Britain we are: where people from all walks of life can grow up and reach the top. It is an extraordinary story, dare I say it, of Conservative success. Because unlike me, the right hon. Lady grew up under a Conservative Government, with a welfare state that provided a safety net, a strong economy and opportunity. I mostly grew up in Nigeria, under a socialist military Government, who used a lot of the rhetoric that I heard her promote when she was sitting on the Opposition Benches. She may not credit the Conservatives for what she has achieved, but we will take some of the credit anyway. I would like to extend a very warm welcome to the right hon. Lady on her first outing as a Minister in the Chamber, because it will only be downhill from here. The thing is, I have been a Secretary of State, and after five years as a Minister one learns a thing or two about government that cannot be learned in Opposition. I have been there and done it, and I can tell the right hon. Lady that she has been stitched up. It is quite clear that the Bills and policies from the King’s Speech that she just referenced were written not by her, but by the Chancellor and her advisers. We all know that because we watched the Chancellor announce them in far more detail in her speech last week. All the stuff that the Secretary of State worked on in Opposition, such as her new deal for workers, has been taken off her and given to the Business Secretary. I am sorry to tell the right hon. Lady that her colleagues—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and their many advisers—have written a manifesto and made promises that are not deliverable, and they have hung them around her neck and said, “Ange, you go out there and you sell it.” I am sad to see many of her shadow team not sitting beside her as Ministers. They worked for free, grinding in opposition for years, only to watch the children of the chosen ones get the ministerial cars and salaries before their maiden speeches were written. Wow. Sue Gray was a lot nicer to me when she worked in my Department. I think we know who is in charge, and it is not the right hon. Lady. She has been stitched up—her colleagues have made her the fall guy. The Government have promised 1.5 million houses by the end of this Parliament—over 800 houses per day—and we are already two weeks in. As she goes on, day after day, she will realise that a backlog is building, and there is no way out. I want her to know that I am here for her. I will be here to hold her hand and walk her through what is likely to be a very difficult time. I may even give her some tips because, having worked in that Department, I know what needs to be done. I know what we should have done but did not do, and I know that the Labour Government will make the same mistakes. It is not that 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament is unachievable, but it will require the sort of systemic change that Labour Members are not ready for. I know that because of how they voted in the last Parliament and how they campaigned in their own constituencies. I will not read out the long list of all the Cabinet members who have been opposing planning in their backyard, including the Housing Minister. Many of them thought that they would get into government and concrete over lots of Tory constituencies. Three weeks ago, just 15% of the green belt was in Labour constituencies. Now it is 50%. They are not Tory constituencies now—they are Labour. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Yes, they are Labour. I say to Labour Members, “They are now your voters and your electorate, and you’re going to have to tell them that you’re going to do something that many of you promised locally that you would never do, not that long ago.” However, mostly it will not be the problem of the Cabinet, who will look after themselves. It will be the Back Benchers—all those bright, shiny faces I see sitting behind the right hon. Lady, who are really excited to be here. They have not started getting those angry emails that we have been replying to for 14 years. Many of those voters, on whom their narrow, slim majorities now rely, will be writing to them. In the spirit of sisterly support, I will let the right hon. Lady know what will happen over the next few weeks and months. Labour Members are looking so nervous right now. The right hon. Lady will have a consultation period, which will take this long. Then, she will have to respond to that consultation, which will take that long. Assuming that nothing goes wrong with either of those processes, we reach December or January. Six months will have passed—10% of the Parliament—and the Government will not have built any extra homes. At this point, she will be running 500 homes behind the target every single day and they would not have started building properly. [ Interruption. ] The Minister of State in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), is chuntering from a sedentary position, “You wait and see.” We have seen. We have been there. We know; you don’t. And as it becomes clear to their voters what is happening in their new Labour constituencies—for which, congratulations—in the green belt, those MPs are going to receive a lot more emails. I mean, a lot more. They are going to want a lot of public meetings, because they will know that the decisions she announced are now being taken out of local hands and made by central Government. And the only way that they can register their concern is by appealing to their local MPs, who will all be appealing to her. Well, this is what being in power is. Government is about making difficult decisions. Opposition is easy—we have been watching Labour do it for 14 years, and it has spent all that time telling the people of this country that they will do better. So here is the record that they are going to have to beat: we built 1 million new homes in the course of the last Parliament, while safeguarding the green belt; and 2.5 million since 2010, despite covid. We delivered nearly 700,000 new affordable homes and over 172,000 of those were for social rent. We put in place the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme. Does the right hon. Lady even know yet if the Chancellor will give her up to £11.5 billion? She is going to need a lot more than that if she is going to beat our record. And let us not forget what Labour did just last year. We had a majority in this House, but not in the other place, where they whipped Labour Lords to vote against an amendment on nutrient neutrality, using new Brexit powers to unlock 160,000 homes. Many new Members did not see that happening. They are going to find it shocking. We legislated for that and they blocked it—destructive opposition. Are they going to reverse that decision? I have a feeling they will not. And that is why I am worried about the right hon. Lady. Is she going to be able to face down her Back Benchers? Or will Labour carry on not doing the things that have to be done in order to build homes? Let us look at Labour’s record. The right hon. Lady talked about what happened after the last world war. In the year to June 2009, when everybody here was alive and they were last in government, they only built 75,000 new homes—the lowest level of housebuilding since the 1920s. And what are they doing where they currently are in government? In London, Sadiq Khan has failed to hit his own targets, beginning just 21,000 new homes in 2022, despite us giving him pots and pots of money. We were forced to intervene on his housebuilding failures. Why has he not built on all those car parks that she was talking about in her speech? In Wales, the Labour Administration promised to deliver 20,000 new homes for social rent by 2026. They have barely delivered a quarter. The right hon. Lady may pretend that building homes is easy, but Labour know it is not easy because they failed in London and they failed in Wales, and they are already making new mistakes. We all know that immigration increases housing demand. Just this week, we heard that they are going to be fast-tracking 90,000 illegal immigrants who already landed here. If they are permitted to stay, they will require permanent housing. We put the Rwanda scheme in place to limit illegal immigration. They have scrapped it. With no plans whatsoever to tackle the problem, has she got 90,000 homes ready for the people the Home Secretary is going to be fast-tracking through? If not, she is already 90,000 homes down on the target the Prime Minister has set for her. So that is why I am feeling very generous towards the right hon. Lady, because she has been stitched up. She is going to need some friends, and I want her to know that we are all here for her. [ Laughter. ] Some people think opposition is about throwing mud across the Chamber or calling your opponents scum, but often it is about saying, “I told you so.” I want to reassure the right hon. Lady that I will be here to say, “I told you so” when these targets are missed. We, of course, will be a constructive Opposition. We want to see homes built in the right places with the right infrastructure. We are here to help. I doubt the same can be said of the biggest local nimbys in the country, the Liberal Democrats. There are many more of them now—you wouldn’t know it, but there are—usually elected on promises not to build anything anywhere in their communities. In the last Parliament, I watched them oppose planning reforms on permitted development; reforms that would have allowed us to build on land that was already in use. It will be very interesting to see how they square their nimby tendencies with their manifesto promises—but then again, saying one thing and doing another has never bothered the Liberal Democrats. The right hon. Lady will not get any help from them, but we are here for her. I have heard some of Labour’s plans. Introducing mandatory targets while introducing new regulatory costs will not work. Without taxpayer funding, Labour’s affordable housing targets are unviable. Where is that money going to come from? The mandate that Labour wants to enforce implies a consequence for missing the target. What will that consequence be for local councils? Is Labour going to scrap the neighbourhood plans that communities have put together to deliver more homes? What will those councils say when they are forced to do things that they promised they would not do just eight weeks ago? We have heard from Labour Members that they will introduce mechanisms for overriding local decision making to identify the land for development. That is fine, but identifying land does not mean that homes or infrastructure will be built. I look forward to the Second Reading of the right hon. Lady’s Bill, when she will have to explain the plans that the Chancellor and her spads have written up for her, and she can tell us in great technical detail how they will be delivered—although I suspect that she will leave the tricky stuff to her junior Ministers. We Conservatives may not be as many as we used to be, but we still know all the stuff that we learned over 14 years as we delivered 2.5 million homes. We know where the difficulties are, and we know the technicalities; the right hon. Lady is just learning. We will be ready and waiting to show that she and her party have made promises that they cannot keep, and in many cases have no idea what they are doing. The Labour Government have a tough act to follow— [Laughter.] They do! However, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I am pleased to see that they have been copying and pasting many of the policies that we had in government. We introduced metro mayors with substantial powers; now they are announcing that they are going to do more. We put billions of levelling-up funding into communities, backing metro mayors such as Ben Houchen; let us see whether Labour will follow that for all its new mayors. In the last local government finance settlement we made £64.7 billion pounds available to local authorities, a 7.5% increase in cash terms. Let us see whether Labour tops that, rather than just moving money from one part of the country to another. We would like to see the Labour Government get the Holocaust Memorial Bill—which we initiated—on to the statute book, as the Prime Minister promised, and we will support them in that. We must do right by our Jewish communities, and we provided record levels of funding to protect them from harm and extremism. We took decisive action to tackle growing sectarianism, so we were disappointed not to see any mention in the King’s Speech of how Labour would continue that. In the election we saw independent MPs win seats from Labour on the back of sectarianism and integration failures, a problem whose existence Labour continually denies even as we are watching riots in Leeds. It is time to put away the childish displays and fake outrage that Labour has been showing. The right hon. Lady will need to get very serious very quickly, and where she has the right ambition, we will do what we can to support her in facing down those members sitting behind her who still do not get it.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →