Kevin Hollinrake MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  They had no choice!

• 14 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The chair of the working group on anti-Muslin hatred/Islamophobia, Dominic Grieve, who was appointed by the Secretary of State, has previously stated a preference for a definition of Islamophobia that would shut down talk of religion in cases like the grooming gangs scandal. All other members of that committee—again, appointed by the Secretary of State—are adherents of the Muslim faith. Does the Secretary of State not share our concerns that their report and recommendations will be seen as predetermined and biased?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Incendiary language? I was merely stating the facts; that is the reality. The right hon. Lady is right in one regard: freedom of speech is on the line. The current position is that the report will be for Government eyes only, and that the decision on a definition will be taken in private. Will she at least commit to making the full report publicly available so that it can be scrutinised in the House and elsewhere before a decision is taken?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Lady on being a hen harrier parliamentary champion; I am the puffin parliamentary champion, so we have something in common. She talks about somebody other than landowners managing biodiversity rather in these landscapes. Who would that be, who would pay for it and how much would it cost?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  In Thirsk and Malton—

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  As instructed by you, Mrs Harris, I will restrict my comments only to the impacts of grouse shooting on Thirsk and Malton, due to my role on the Front Bench. I am very keen to speak in this debate, as I have lived in the area my whole life, and grouse shooting is hugely important there. I also declare an interest in that I have been grouse shooting once, although not very successfully. My biggest concern right now for Thirsk and Malton is that it is a tinderbox, as its geography and landscape pose a risk of wildfire. Clearly, that is largely because of the exceptionally dry weather that we have had over recent weeks and months. I am also concerned that the policies pursued by Natural England are exacerbating the problem. I am keen to speak because, having read the petition and its claims, I think the 400 people in my constituency who signed it have been misled. The petition describes driven grouse shooting as “bad for people, the environment and wildlife”, and bad for the economy—I want to talk about that in the context of Thirsk and Malton. The petition states that “grouse shooting is economically insignificant when contrasted with other…uses”, but it does not set out what those other uses are. The only ones I could find to replace the industry of grouse shooting were perhaps wind farms, forestation or sheep farming. My dad was a sheep farmer, and there is plenty of sheep farming in Thirsk and Malton. It is not particularly prosperous and I cannot imagine that the revenue attached to it would make up for the revenue loss if grouse shooting ended. With wind farms and forestation, a completely different cohort of people would potentially get employment from those uses, but it would be nothing like the extent to which my constituency benefits from grouse shooting today. Hundreds of people in my constituency are directly employed in the grouse shooting industry and the jobs and businesses connected to it. Others have mentioned the same. I will mention one or two of my highest profile hostelries: the Star at Harome, somewhere very close to my heart; the Black Swan at Helmsley; the Talbot at Malton; the Owl at Hawnby; and the Feversham Arms at Church Houses. Those beautiful hostelries in a beautiful landscape very much contribute to the attractions of tourism in Thirsk and Malton. Many people in this House and people I meet all around the country have visited. There are also the connected shops, such as Carters in Helmsley, and the caterers, the beaters—which my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), mentioned —the loaders and the picker-uppers. Not only do all these people get an income from grouse shooting, but the industry builds a community in our location and in communities around it. That is hugely important, and a mixture of people are present in the sector. I have beautiful moorland, including in Hawnby, Bransdale, Farndale, Snilesworth and Bilsdale—I am very proud of those areas and have visited a number of times. So I do not believe that grouse shooting is bad for those people in my constituency—far from it. I also do not believe that it is “bad…for the environment”. What would be bad for the environment is a serious wildfire. We saw a very serious wildfire at Saddleworth in 2018. It was unmanaged locations that led to that wildfire, which affected 5 million people who were breathing in things like lead and cadmium that were released in it. Dozens of people passed away early because of that wildfire and its effect on air quality. The peat in those locations has been irreparably damaged. Let me read a comment from a parliamentary briefing last year on wildfires. It explained that “older heather burns with greater intensity”, and that to prevent wildfires “vegetation management must be conducted continuously”. That is why Saddleworth ran out of control, and that is why there was a serious fire on the edge of my constituency at Fylingdales in 2003. That was the only area of moorland that was not being managed, and a fire happened in that location. Peat is so important in carbon sequestration, but much of the carbon was released because of the wildfires. We saw on our TV screens recently the horrific wildfires in Los Angeles that destroyed properties and businesses and, of course, caused deaths. That was a result of negligence by the local authorities. I believe the policies being pursued by Natural England are a deliberate attempt to close down things like grouse shooting in my constituency and those of others. There are potential risks for the Peak district. A report stated that there was “the frightening potential of fire... reaching extremes both in the rate of spread and flame lengths far beyond the capacity of control” of the fire and rescue service. The report continued: “Little can be done to control the topography of the area or the increasingly fire-supportive weather, but fuel loading can be addressed.” But that is not being addressed and it will get worse—that is my point. I think that this is an ideological position being taken by our regulator. In terms of the benefits to wildlife, again, the petition states that grouse shooting is “bad…for wildlife”. Not at all: after grouse shooting ended in the Berwyn special protected area, the population of curlews dropped by 79% and the population of golden plovers dropped by 90%, but the population of corvids, such as crows and the like—which can, of course, be very destructive to wildlife—increased by 600%. I am very concerned about the position that Natural England has taken. It is very important that the Government make sure that Natural England does the right thing, because there are many other measures that Natural England are considering that would further undermine grouse shooting in Thirsk and Malton. For example, Natural England is consulting on changing the definition of deep peat. Currently, if deep peat is 40 cm or more, burning cannot be used to control the fuel load. Natural England is considering a consultation on reducing that figure to 30 cm. That would mean that the vast majority of the fuel load on the North York moors would not be able to be controlled by burning. Natural England’s solution is mowing, of course. Could mowing be a potential solution? The Scottish Parliament hearing on this issue with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service warned that mowing excess vegetation can “leave a dry layer that actually encourages the spread of fire”. However, winter burning “is by far the most effective because it removes a fuel in its entirety”. But Natural England has banned winter burning, which is causing the increased fuel load. We can add that to other issues, such as the withdrawal of general licenses for vermin control and the withdrawal of general licenses for the release of game birds in special protection areas, in terms of that burning. There is also a consultation now on raising the bar for getting a shotgun licence. That would mean that many people would not be able to get a shotgun licence, which would reduce the number of people participating in grouse shooting in areas such as Thirsk and Malton. If we add all these different things up, there is a clear picture: in my view, it is a back-door attempt to end grouse shooting across the country, not least in Thirsk and Malton.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  I question how the Minister defines sound advice, because the advice that I have seen, from people who manage the moorland, is that if Natural England gets its way and changes the definition of deep peat from 40 cm to 30 cm there will be half—

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, Mrs Harris, but this is about my constituency. In half of my constituency, the moorland will not be able to be managed. The fuel load will increase, wildfires will occur, and it will make my constituency completely unviable for grouse shooting. Is the Minister not concerned that Natural England has a hidden agenda that will affect constituencies such as mine?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is he also concerned, as I am, about the proposed change in the definition of deep peat? Currently, it is defined as peat deeper than 40 cm, but there is a proposal to reduce that figure to 30 cm, which would mean that much of our moorlands cannot be managed through burning, leading to a much greater fire risk.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and the failures of the London Mayor to build more houses are well documented. What is perhaps not a surprise is that Reform would take the further step of supporting the London Mayor in the pursuit of Labour votes. We have grave concerns about the enhanced compulsory purchase order powers for councils, mayors and even Natural England, without hope value or market value. This undermines one of the most important principles of our economy: property rights. Not only is this unfair, but it will face legal challenge after legal challenge in the courts. During the passage of the Bill, we attempted to work with the Government to make sensible changes to make it fit for purpose, but to no avail. Let us not be seduced by false choices. We do not have to choose between development and democracy, between homes and heritage, or between ambition and accountability. We can build and we must build, but we must do so in a way that listens, respects and safeguards. I urge the Government, yes, to be ambitious, but also to think again. They should rethink the Bill, and restore the local voice and reinstate environmental protections. Let us chart a path to progress that honours our need for homes, our obligation to communities and to the environment, and our duty to future generations. In its current form, we cannot support this Bill.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I thank the Minister for all his hard work? He is an incredibly decent and polite man. He may be misguided at times, but we cannot agree on everything. I thank him and his team for all their work, and I thank my shadow ministerial team who did a fantastic job of subjecting the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny, the other Front-Bench teams, the Committee and the Clerks. I also thank hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their contributions. We are told that this Bill is about accelerating house building, unleashing growth and meeting a national target of 1.5 million homes in England alone in this Parliament. On the face of it, those aims are worthy, but what price are we prepared to pay for the Deputy Prime Minister’s ambition? Make no mistake: what is being proposed could fundamentally and irrevocably alter the character of our towns, our villages, and the green and pleasant land that makes Britain what it is. This is not an attack on new homes—I am unashamedly pro-business and pro-development. Unlike the Secretary of State, the Minister and half the Cabinet, I have never objected to a housing development in my constituency. Let me be clear: we need homes. We need homes for first-time buyers, for young families, for key workers and for the next generation, but we need the right homes in the right places, shaped by the right principles. Instead, we are being offered a top-down model driven by arbitrary targets and central diktat. The result is soulless settlements, identikit developments and rows of uninspiring concrete boxes that bear no relation to the history, the heritage or the hopes of the communities they are built in. Crucially, in the Government’s “centralising zeal”—as the excellent shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), calls it—local voices are being sidelined. Local councillors, and those who live in, love and understand their communities best, are being cut out of the process, with their role reduced and their judgment overlooked. The individual has been subordinated to being a cog in the machine. The Bill in its current form is not just flawed, but dangerous. It risks eroding trust in the planning system and widening the gulf between the Government and the governed. The Bill must be considered in conjunction with the changes to the national planning policy framework. The Government’s approach of shifting housing targets from urban areas to rural areas is cynical and economically illiterate. While I welcome the restoration of mandatory targets in principle, raising targets by up to 400% in rural areas while simultaneously reducing them by over 11% in London, 30% in Birmingham and Newcastle, and over 50% in Coventry is unfair and wrong-headed. Their grey belt policy—presented as a few disused garage forecourts and wasteland in green belts—is a con. What they have actually done is remove important protections that prevent villages from merging into nearby villages and towns. Of course, there is also the matter of the environment. Anyone who cares about our natural world knows that once a habitat is destroyed, a woodland torn up or a biodiverse landscape bulldozed, no cheque can bring it back. There is zero confidence on this side of the House that Natural England can successfully mitigate the significant environmental harms that will ensue through the environmental delivery plans. That is why we propose that they be delivered locally through local or strategic plans. The truth is that we cannot concrete our way to community, we cannot meet our housing needs by overriding the very people we are building for, and we cannot call it progress if the Bill leaves our countryside degraded and our communities disempowered.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the Secretary of State has had some difficult negotiations this weekend with her colleague the Chancellor. The spending review is critical for the funding of the affordable homes budget. In the past, the Secretary of State has praised the Chancellor’s generosity, as she puts it, not least for providing the extra £2 billion for the affordable homes budget, but will she admit today that that budget is decreasing from previous levels under our Government? Will she say—even if it is after the spending review—exactly how many affordable and social homes she expects to deliver during this Parliament?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As the Secretary of State has said, Saturday marks the eighth anniversary of the Grenfell tragedy. As she knows, I can confirm to her that I will work constructively with her and her colleagues to deliver remediation, building safety and the best outcomes for local communities. The previous Government committed over £5 billion for remediation; will the Secretary of State confirm that the spending review will continue to provide such financial support? Will she also confirm that she will meet the previous Government’s pledge to co-fund with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea the renovation of the Lancaster West estate, and that the £85 million from central Government needed and promised to finish the works will be provided?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Chinese Embassy Development · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this very important urgent question. Question after question, and letter after letter, the Government have consistently treated Parliament with complete disregard on this matter. They have stonewalled legitimate inquiries about national security, ministerial discussions and warnings from security bodies. I get that the Minister is compromised, in that he has a quasi-judicial responsibility here, but his colleagues in the Home Office and the Foreign Office do not, and they could answer these questions. As the Government know, their own cyber-security experts, Innovate UK, have warned about the threat to the City of London from the embassy. The Wapping telephone and internet exchange is surrounded on three sides by the new embassy, and there are fibre cables carrying highly sensitive information running beneath the site. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said yesterday that these matters could be dealt with in the planning process, but the inquiry has ended, so they cannot. If the Government are considering moving the cables, how many millions of pounds of public money will that cost? I recently sent yet another cross-party letter to the Prime Minister, signed by 59 parliamentarians, urging him to pause and reconsider. Since then, the US and Dutch Governments have both sounded the alarm. Have MI5 and GCHQ been able to submit their own warnings to the planning inspector? Does the inspector have access to unredacted plans of the embassy, which the Chinese Government have refused to make public? Have the Government assessed the potential sinister uses of the secret basement in the so-called cultural exchange building? What discussions have taken place with the Bank of England, given its role in cyber-security regulation in the City? Why will the Government not follow the example of the US, Australian and Irish Governments, who vetoed similar embassies that threatened their national security? The Government are on the verge of making a decision that will lead to a huge risk that will persist for decades. Will they change course before it is too late?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Tomorrow.

• 13 May 2025 · Local Housing Need Assessment Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the hon. Lady’s giving way. By way of correction, during the period of our last 10 years in office, there was an average of 207,000 net new home additions every year, which was higher than in the 1970s.

• 13 May 2025 · Local Housing Need Assessment Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. He mentioned some of the incentives for first-time buyers. Through the stamp duty discounts, we saved the typical first-time buyer around £6,000 on their purchase, which helped about 640,000 young people get on to the housing market. Is he saying that he is not interested in that and that it was the wrong thing to do to help those first-time buyers on to the housing ladder?

• 13 May 2025 · Local Housing Need Assessment Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Good for the hon. Gentleman for reading our manifesto—not enough people did, I am afraid. He is right: we did set a more ambitious target, which I am not against. As I said right at the start, I am in no shape or form a nimby. However, I am for honesty and fairness. The point is that the housing targets have been moved away from certain types of area where people tend to move. They tend to move from rural to urban to take their first job or start their first business, as I did, but the targets are going from urban to rural. The Minister faces many challenges alongside the huge number he has set himself. The Office for Budget Responsibility and Homes England have said that the number targeted is impossible. Let us see. I wish him well for delivery, although not on the skewed figures that we have discussed today. There are real challenges here, as the Minister knows: things such as the Building Safety Regulator; the skills issue; small and medium-sized enterprises, which build a far smaller proportion of homes than they used to; and making sure that we get first-time buyers on to the housing ladder. We have tabled a number of amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that will solve all these problems, and I very much hope that the Minister will look at them. One of them proposes no solar on any best and most versatile land. I am sure that the Minister will look at that, because it would potentially leave space for more British farmland to produce fantastic food. We have also tabled amendments on protected landscapes—my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has a significant section of protected landscape in his patch, which is bound to constrain supply, but no recognition has been made of that—and on ensuring that there is no plus or minus beyond 20% in any of these targets, which would be fairer. We will also seek to amend the national scheme of delegation, which disgracefully removes votes from councillors, and restore the protections for the green belt. As some in this excellent debate have said, we need a better mix that is more suited to demand in local areas. I very much hope that the Minister will support those amendments, but, because I feel that he will not, I will make one plea to him: please, look at the Building Safety Regulator. There is a queue of 18,000 homes with planning consent that are waiting six months or more for an answer from the Building Safety Regulator. That is a huge bottleneck in supply. I hope that the Minister will at least touch on that point.

• 13 May 2025 · Local Housing Need Assessment Reform · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) and congratulate him on securing this important debate. I am afraid this is just another example of the two-tier society that this Government are presiding over. We have had two-tier taxes and two-tier justice and now we have two-tier targets. That is the reality, and it militates against the basic British principle of fairness. I will go through the numbers in a second, but Labour’s own council leaders have called the Minister’s targets unrealistic and impossible to achieve. The leader of West Lancashire council used exactly those words: “impossible and unrealistic”. The targets are unachievable. I am in no way, shape or form a nimby. Unlike 15 of the Minister’s colleagues in the Cabinet, I have never objected to any developments in my constituency as a Member of Parliament or as a member of the public. I am absolutely on the side of young people who want to get on the housing ladder and those on lower incomes seeking affordable homes. The only way to deliver that is to deliver more homes. I am not against the Minister’s 1.5 million target, but it will be very challenging. We should look at the data: over the last 10 years we were in office, average net housing additions were 207,000 a year. That was the highest level for 50 years—even higher than in the 1970s, because we were knocking down an awful lot of houses back then. The targets have been driven by the change from assessment of housing formations to a measure of stock already delivered in an area, with a multiplier on top for affordability, but they are totally unfair. London has seen an 11% decrease in its target, Leicester a 32% decrease and Birmingham a 38% decrease. Coventry has seen a 55% decrease in its housing target, yet the neighbouring authority of North Warwickshire has had a 123% increase. That is despite the fact that North Warwickshire, like my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said of his authority, has over-delivered on its housing targets. Nuneaton, another bordering authority that is over-delivering, has had a 75% increase in its housing target compared with Coventry. I am trying not to be too parochial but in my neck of the woods, York, which has been under-delivering massively against its housing target for years and years, and had not had a local plan since 1956—it has just got one in place, thank God—has seen a 19% increase, yet neighbouring North Yorkshire, which is my local authority, has had a 199% increase, despite significant over-delivery. Of Members who have spoken in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has had a 100% increase in his area; the hon. Member for Horsham a 48% increase; the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) a 63% increase; the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) a 72% increase; and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) a 66% increase. I like the Minister and we get on very well, but his authority in Nottingham has had a 32% decrease. How can that be fair? It is against the basic principle of fairness. Yes, there is a 50% increase in delivery across the board, but why have some targets been decreased and others massively increased? That is simply unfair. Those are not anecdotal cases. Based on information from the House of Commons Library, across the board, mainly rural areas are seeing an average 71% increase and urban areas an average 15.6% increase. On top of that there is the duty to co-operate and strategic planning, which is likely to see even more houses going into rural areas. There is no justification for that unfairness. It also sits against the principle that the Government say they adopt, as we did, of a brownfield-first approach. Brownfield development is the least controversial approach, and it is what we would all like to see, but it is complex and costly, particularly in a world of increased costs of delivery. Over the past few years, developers have seen a 40% increase in costs of building. On top of that is the building safety levy, the Building Safety Regulator, biodiversity net gain, the future homes standard, section 106, the community infrastructure levy and the remediation of brownfield sites. Those things, and the Government’s policy on grey belt, will mean that more and more development will be pushed from urban areas into greenfield and green belt. What the Government are doing with the national planning policy framework cannot be divorced from the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the Trojan horse that they called grey belt. What they sold to the public as being a few former garage forecourts or wasteland is far from that. It is greenfield and green belt. The Minister cannot shake his head. There used to be protections between villages to stop them merging, and they have gone. There used to be protections to stop villages merging into towns, and they have gone. This is not about grey belt; it is a fundamental change to green belt. Of course, this is not about targets. It would be pointless to have this debate and just talk about targets—we have to talk about delivery. The 1.5 million homes are a huge ask. The reality is that to hit that target for England, for the rest of this Parliament, delivery will need to hit not 207,000 a year, which we averaged, but 375,000 a year. That is a 180% increase—a doubling.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Residential Estate Management Companies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this important debate; the strength of feeling from the people speaking has been strong. Companies such as FirstPort should take note of that when it comes to the services they offer. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will keep my remarks brief to give the Minister plenty of time to respond—the ball is very much in his court, as he knows—but I also might give time for interventions from Members who have not been able to make speeches in the main debate. It is safe to say that I will not mention every speech by name, as that would take too long, but I very much agree with the essence of all the contributions today. I have come across these issues in my constituency, in estates in Malton and Easingwold. FirstPort was invariably the managing agent causing many of these difficulties. The best regulator is always competition. We need to make sure that it is easier for people to manage their own freehold estates and to swap between different managing agents. The speeches today have had in common references to high and sometimes spurious charges, as well as poor and obscure service. That is something I certainly recognise. I also recognise, and am frustrated by the fact, that local authorities have moved to the model of granting consent for what have become known as fleecehold estates. It seems that residents on these estates do not understand why they have a two-tier system, paying council tax and for the management of the freehold estate, when other people in their locality do not. It is time look at this in more detail and to act. I am happy to have a cross-party conversation with the Minister on how we might work together to make sure this situation does not become worse. We should all note the excellent work of the Competition and Markets Authority on making sure that the default position is to have adoptable standards. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) for highlighting a point I do not believe anyone else did: the work of conveyancers. Conveyancers have moved towards a shed-based service. It used to be there was a local, friendly solicitor who would give good advice on a buy and the implications of it, but much of that has gone. We need to make sure our conveyancers are doing the right thing in terms of pointing out to someone buying a fleecehold property the potential problems for which they might have to take responsibility. As has been mentioned, we legislated in this area in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. This gives the potential to challenge charges, makes the right to manage easier, and opens the door to first-tier tribunals on charges and to an ombudsman scheme. This is where I would like to ask the Minister some questions. He has a role in implementing the provisions of the Act, which will require secondary legislation. As I think was stated in his White Paper, consultation may also be required, both on right to manage and on potential access to ombudsman oversight of the companies managing these estates. He needs to approve an ombudsman scheme and publish guidance. To what timescales does he expect implementation to take place? For the residents Members across the House have discussed, there is clearly a pressing need. Regarding the White Paper and the potential of the leasehold and commonhold reform Bill, I am interested in which specific further steps the Minister intends to take on oversight of these fleecehold situations. We also need to be clear on exactly where he is going with leasehold reform. The manifesto the Minister stood upon said very clearly that Labour would “finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end”. If that is his intention, is he talking purely about new leases or about existing leases? Clearly there are difficulties around those. Finally, there is talk about a cap on ground rents. We have previously talked about a peppercorn charge. Where exactly is the Minister going with that? People need to know exactly what his intentions are.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Birmingham: Waste Collection · Hansard source

  More

  It is astounding that the Secretary of State, having had to resort to calling in the Army to cover her blushes for her failure to resolve the situation, was not intending to make an oral statement to the House and had to be dragged before it by means of this urgent question. She is failing—failing to stand up to the unions, failing to protect the residents of the UK’s second city and failing to protect the reputation of our nation—and now resorting to being bailed out by our brave armed forces, which I note the Minister did not even mention. It is a national embarrassment. I realise that the Minister and the Secretary of State were not born until 1980, but many in this House and in the wider country remember very well the 1970s and the winter of discontent. It is clear that with this Government we risk going back to those days. To prevent that from happening, I offer the Minister and the Secretary of State our support, if the Minister will clarify and confirm the following. What is the projected cost to the taxpayer of the military’s involvement? Will he rule out the humiliation of service personnel ever having to collect refuse? Will he commit to using provisions in the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 to ensure that residents receive a basic level of service, and to reinstate legislation that would allow the council to commission agency workers to clean up the city until the strike is resolved?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Birmingham: Waste Collection · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on the disruption to waste collection and the deployment of the military in Birmingham.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Horizon Redress and Post Office Update · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement, and for advance sight of it. I also thank the campaigners on this issue, with whom I worked for more than five years—both as a Back Bencher and as a Front Bencher—and, indeed, I thank Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot for their work on the Horizon compensation advisory board, which we established on a cross-party basis during our tenure. I agree with the Minister that, although good progress has been made, there is much more to do. It is good that £892 million has been paid to 6,200 sub-postmasters, a tenfold increase on what we saw only a couple of years ago. It is clear that most of that has gone out of the door because of what this Parliament did last June, when it overturned the convictions by statute, and because of the introduction of fixed-sum awards, which have revolutionised the ability to pay compensation quickly. I am proud to say that we did all that in the House on a cross-party basis, and it was the right thing to do. I worked with the then shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade and with this Minister and others in their former roles, and our work was strongly supported by the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), the then Business Secretary, who is now Leader of the Opposition, and the then Chancellor and his Ministers. I am therefore a little disappointed that the Minister has sought to suggest that he took over a crisis. We have made much progress on this matter on a cross-party basis, and my remarks today will continue to be made on that basis, but for all the progress the Minister talked about in his statement, I did not hear about a single aspect of the Horizon programme that was not already in train under the last Government, in conjunction with the then Opposition. The Minister mentioned a three and a half-fold increase in July, which I welcome, but as he will no doubt concede, it happened as a result of the overturning of the convictions by Parliament and the introduction of the compensation schemes. The redress scheme, for example, was set in train by the last Government with the co-operation of the then Opposition, as was the investigation of Capture. The Minister says that the compensation was not budgeted for, but that is not right. Last year’s Budget simply said that the money had been reallocated from departmental expenditure to annual managed expenditure. He implies that the money was not there to pay out to postmasters, when the work had been done on a cross-party basis. It is absolutely wrong to give that impression to people out there who are still waiting for redress. The HSS appeals system was something that we advocated for and put in place, as were the fixed-sum awards for overturned convictions and the Horizon shortfall scheme. The Minister talks about the unstable leadership of the Post Office. We thought it was right to put a new chair in place, and we have every confidence that Nigel Railton, whom we put in place, will do a fantastic job. We support his transformation plan and the move to a fully franchised network, which we think is the right thing to do. I will ask the Minister some questions, if I may. It is not clear what he will do about victims of the Capture programme, even though it has been acknowledged that the Post Office was at fault in some of those cases. Will he bring forward legislation to overturn their convictions by statute? I know the advisory board believes that that is the right way forward. On compensation, when I was in the Minister’s role, I said that a named individual should oversee the compensation schemes, and the Business and Trade Committee has advocated for that. There should be one individual to oversee all the schemes, who will put their reputation on the line for delivering compensation. Although the fixed-sum awards are working, the full assessment route still has problems. Something that the Minister did not mention in his statement, but which we looked at, was a pilot of a more tariff-based scheme, whereby people who have suffered from mental health difficulties could be paid more rapidly, rather than going down a full assessment route. The Minister mentions the timescales. Currently, there is a time parameter of 40 days for a response from the Department to a new claim, but the clock is reset when the claimant says that the claim is at the wrong level. Will he look at that? What progress has the Minister made on an interim payment from Fujitsu? What progress has been made on establishing what Ernst and Young should have done in 2011-12, when it was aware of the huge liabilities that the Post Office had on its books due to this particular problem? Will he be ambitious on the banking framework to make sure that postmasters get a good deal, and what progress has the chair made on his commitment to reduce the highest-paid roles in the Post Office’s central management tier to make sure that more of the revenue that flows into the Post Office flows out to postmasters?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady still has not explained why she has not visited the city to look at this issue at first hand. The right hon. Lady’s manifesto sets out the issue of preserving the green belt. In this very House, she said that she would transform grey-belt land such as wasteland or old car parks, but also that she would protect the green belt. In its report accompanying the spring statement last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility stated that most of the additional homes delivered—up to 500,000, according to her—will be built on the green belt. Is it not the case that she has conned the public with her grey-belt policy, and that she has unintentionally misled this House?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The effects of the Birmingham bin strike have been declared a major incident, they are a national embarrassment, and with 21° temperatures forecast for later this week, they will become a public health emergency. While Labour Members in Birmingham are busy campaigning for an airport in Pakistan, the Secretary of State is unwilling to visit the city or take on Unite. Is that because of the tens of millions of pounds that her party receives from Unite, or, indeed, because of the £10,000 that she received for her own election campaign?