Kevin Hollinrake MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is right to express her concerns. What everyone wants to see is fairness. We would expect everybody to carry a fair share of the extra housing, but that is not what is happening. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members should go and have a word with the House of Commons Library if they do not agree. They can check the numbers out. The fact that housing delivery provided by new towns will not contribute to the targets will shock many councillors and local residents alike. Neighbourhood plans do not have to be consistent with the NPPF; they merely have to “have regard to” it. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether that will be changed? There is nothing in Labour’s plans about adequately resourcing or having process reforms of the Planning Inspectorate, which is clearly a key part of the system. Why has she scrapped all the work we did on design codes to move away from identikit housing towards building more beautifully? We welcome the greater emphasis on local plans, but we would like to see more ambitious requirements for sites to be made available for small builders and for self-build. Currently, it is a 10% requirement on local authorities, but we would like to see a 20% allocation, as requested by the Federation of Master Builders. We would also like to see Homes England’s remit extended to include micro-builders.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. The increase in this country’s population is part of the reason why we have a rising need for housing, as well as for temporary accommodation. That all impacts on the system.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. What have the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor got against first-time buyers? We helped 1 million first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder through Help to Buy and discounts on stamp duty. The Government scrapped both those schemes.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge that there were quite a few different housing Ministers during Labour’s previous tenure as well, but he makes an interesting and important point that I am happy to answer. Of course we want to build more houses to tackle affordability problems. I say that in relation to social housing, because during those 14 years, as well as delivering 2.5 million new homes, we delivered 750,000 affordable homes.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not disagree that there were some flaws in the scheme. Nevertheless, around 340,000 people made it on to the housing ladder through that process. They include people in my constituency and probably people in the hon. Member’s constituency. We recognise the need to go further. That is why we commissioned work by Charles Banner KC on speeding up the planning and delivery of national infrastructure projects, and Nick Winser’s review on accelerating energy infrastructure. We are grateful to them for their work. When we compare their recommendations and others with the Bill, we believe that the Bill’s benefits have been significantly oversold. For example, on the infrastructure consenting process, measures to reduce decision times are welcome, but consideration should be given to removing specific critical projects, such as airports, reservoirs, nuclear power stations and national transport schemes from the judicial review process altogether. The nature restoration levy and environmental delivery plans to be delivered by Natural England could be welcome if they allow developers successfully to discharge the requirements of the habitats regulations, but there are key questions. What incentives are there for Natural England to set levies that are proportionate to the impact on the environment? Will they just become another tax and another deterrent to building?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Plan for Neighbourhoods · Hansard source

  More

  Value for money.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Local Government Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister mentions local government reorganisation. On 5 February, the Deputy Prime Minister stated: “We are postponing elections for one year, from May 2025 to May 2026” —[ Official Report , 5 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 767.] but on 17 February, the Minister, in a written parliamentary question, said that “new unitary…government will be established or go-live in 2027” or 2028. Will the Minister confirm that these elections are not being postponed, and that they are, in fact, being cancelled for up to three years, meaning that councillors will serve terms of up to seven years? Will he also confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister may have unintentionally misled the House, and will he correct the record?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I will try again. The Government’s manifesto promised to preserve the green belt. Then grey belt came along, which was supposed to be a few garage forecourts. Now it turns out that grey belt will mean 640 square miles of green belt—the size of Surrey—are to be built on. Is this simply another broken promise?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Help to Buy helped 350,000 young first-time buyers and the stamp duty discount helped 640,000 first-time buyers get on the housing ladder with discounts of up to £11,000. Both are now scrapped. Is the Secretary of State pulling up the housing ladder behind her?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report · Hansard source

  More

  May I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement and the Government’s response to the phase 2 report? I echo the Deputy Prime Minister’s sentiments, which are shared across the House. The tragedy of Grenfell, which claimed 72 innocent lives—54 adults and 18 children—will always remain a scar on our national conscience. I thank Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his team for their work. I join the Deputy Prime Minister in offering my deepest apologies to the bereaved, the survivors and the Grenfell community for the failures that led to that horrific night in June 2017—we all remember where we were that night. I also thank them for their constant and constructive campaigning. The inquiry’s findings—decades of systemic failure, dishonesty and negligence—are a damning indictment of successive Governments, regulators and industry. The Government’s response, with its acceptance of all 58 recommendations, is a step forward, and I welcome the commitment to action. The creation of a single construction regulator, the appointment of a chief construction adviser and the consolidation of fire safety functions under one Department are long overdue reforms. So too is the focus on professionalising fire engineers and reforming the construction products sector, which the inquiry exposed as riddled with systemic dishonesty from firms such as Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex. The Green Paper on construction products reform is a promising start, but it must deliver real accountability. Unlimited fines and prison sentences for rogue executives and, where appropriate, Government officials, cannot remain mere rhetoric. Ambition must be matched by urgency and scrutiny. Nearly eight years have passed since Grenfell, yet thousands still live in buildings with unsafe cladding and other fire safety defects. Although I welcome the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has accepted the majority of the recommendations, why has she not accepted the inquiry’s recommendation for a single regulator to oversee the testing and certification of construction products, leaving that instead with conformity assessment bodies? I remind her that the Building Research Establishment, which is itself a conformity assessment body, was strongly criticised for its conflicts of interest. The remediation acceleration plan is welcome, but its targets of assessing all buildings by July 2025 and completing works by 2027 relies heavily on developers stepping up voluntarily. What actions will the Deputy Prime Minister take if they do not comply? Will she work to deliver solutions for non-qualifying leaseholders and those at risk as a consequence of other fire safety defects? This House needs concrete assurances that no resident will be left behind. I question the phased approach to implementation stretching beyond 2028. Justice delayed is justice denied. The Grenfell community has waited long enough for change. Why must they potentially wait another parliamentary term for full delivery? What discussions has the Leader of the House had with parliamentary colleagues on the establishment of a public inquiries Joint Committee to monitor the implementation of public inquiry recommendations? What is the timetable for the new publicly available record on all public inquiry recommendations since 2024? On social housing, the extension of Awaab’s law and new standards are positive, but the Government must go further to address the inquiry’s wider lesson. Residents’ voices were ignored. Tenant empowerment must be more than a panel or a campaign; it needs legal teeth to ensure landlords act on concerns swiftly. Justice demands accountability. The Metropolitan police investigation has our full support, but the pace must quicken. Those who profited from cutting comers or were criminally negligent must face consequences—not just fines but criminal charges where evidence allows. Grenfell must be a watershed—a legacy of safety, transparency and respect for every resident. I make our clear commitment to work with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government, on a cross-party basis, to meet that promise.

• 5 Feb 2025 · English Devolution and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for giving me advance sight of it. Although we support the principle of devolving power to local areas, we are totally against the Secretary of State’s plans to abolish every county council and district council in England, and we are against the unprecedented mass postponement of local elections for at least one year. Today is a very worrying day for democracy in this country. The Secretary of State is making local government less accountable to the people and more accountable to her. Contrary to her statement, she is not doing away with a two-tier system; she is simply creating a new tier of Orwellian-sounding strategic authorities that are closer to her and closer to Whitehall, for her to use as a pawn to implement this Government’s deeply unpopular socialist agenda. The reality is that this is delegation, not devolution—not devolution but a clear centralisation. As Dr Andy Mycock of Leeds University set out in his recent paper on the Secretary of State’s plans, there are clear concerns about the potential “power drain of back-bench local councillors if local government is seen increasingly as a delivery agent.” Let us be clear that this announcement is a huge upheaval of local government right across the country. This was not a Government manifesto commitment, and the Secretary of State has no mandate for it. These are her choices, and she has put a gun to the head of local councils to force them into a decision with little regard for local people. This is not the invitation she claims in her statement; it is an instruction. No council should be bullied or blackmailed into local government restructuring. Local government should be local to residents and respect local identities. We have a proud record of supporting devolution and, rather than this top-down approach, we have worked with local people to deliver devolution from the ground up. The Government have tried to claim that they are taking a bottom-up approach—indeed, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution said exactly that on the Floor of the House on 20 January—yet the Secretary of State admits in her statement that “all two-tier areas should be making plans to move to simpler structures”. Imposing Whitehall diktat on local people, rather than the locally led approach we followed, is prone to problems, especially when rushed. How exactly will this restructuring put more money into people’s pockets, as the Secretary of State claims? What evidence does she have that it will mean lower bills for taxpayers? How is this consistent with the Prime Minister’s claim in March 2023 that council tax would not increase by a “single penny” under a Labour Government? Does the Secretary of State accept that she has no electoral mandate for this huge upheaval? Does she also accept that these changes, which will mean that every single council employee in two-tier areas has to reapply for their job, will have an impact on local services, including planning delays? How will this impact on her plans to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament—a 50% increase on the 50-year record levels delivered by the previous Government? Councils in areas of the country included in this announcement are carrying very high levels of debt—Woking and Thurrock, to name but two. What support will the Secretary of State give to authorities facing eye-watering levels of debt, and will this debt be written off? What is she doing to ensure that, as a result of today’s announcement, authorities do not embark on reckless asset disposal programmes and spending sprees? Can she confirm that elections will be delayed for a maximum of a year, or is it the case, as we have heard, that elections could be delayed by up to three years?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  Utter rubbish.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  Rubbish.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  It is interesting, because the loss of the rural service delivery grant cost my local authority £14 million, so it depends where we draw the line and what the priorities are. The change in the rural services delivery grant is robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is the reality.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  May I first put on record my admiration for the fine work of councils, councillors and officers right across the country? That work is often carried out at the most challenging times against a backdrop of real financial pressures on those local authorities, not least the rising demand for adult social care, special educational needs, temporary accommodation and others. I do not think there was ever a time when we appreciated councils more than during the covid crisis—as well as during the cost of living crisis—when we saw the fine work they did and how important it is to have those councils and councillors helping local people. I welcome the extra money provided in the spending review—a 6.8% increase in core spending power. I welcome the approach that the Minister intends to take with the multi-year settlement. That is a sensible way forward. I also put on record my respect and admiration for the Minister. He always takes a considered and responsible approach and has huge knowledge of the sector. I promise him that we will work across parties wherever we can on the things we agree on to try and make it easier for local councils to do the fine work that they do.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was talking about fairness, which we all believe in. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) will have a different perspective on fairness from other people. The reality is that there is a political division here. One thing that we must agree on is that the statutory duties on councils should be properly funded. My concern is that that will not be the case, and lots of those pressures fall differently on rural councils compared with urban councils.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I can only reiterate what the hon. Gentleman has said and what I said earlier: they do fine work and most do not do it for money but because they have the interests of their local communities at heart. That should always be the case, and those are the kind of councillors that we want. Where people have expenses to do their jobs, that needs to be properly compensated for. Will the Minister accept that the majority of the extra money provided through the settlement is raised through council tax increases, which are effectively taxes on local taxpayers—that is, working people? As he is sensible and considered, does he regret the fact that the Prime Minister stood on a stage in Swindon on 30 March 2023 with the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, stating that he would freeze council tax for the first year they were in Government? That has not been the case. The Prime Minister quite clearly promised “a tax cut for the 99 per cent of working people who are facing a rise in their council tax”. His words were also that there would be “not one penny on your council tax”. We said then that those promises were not worth the paper they were written on. How right we were. Under Labour, typical council tax bills are to rise by 5% in April 2025, in another increased tax on working people. That means that the average household faces an above-inflation increase of around £100 in their council tax bills in that year. All that will do in many cases is fill the black hole in council finances that Labour is creating due to an increase in national insurance contributions. Furthermore, it is quite clear that Labour is deliberately funding largely Labour-led urban areas at the expense of rural areas.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I will come on to that, but we do have a different perspective. The point that I am making principally right now is that there are rising costs on councils, both in direct costs through national insurance and through indirect costs, which are not fully covered by this settlement, and I think the Minister accepted that fact earlier in his remarks. The reality is that rural areas will face higher council tax increases to make up for reduced central funding, despite the cost increases of providing services in rural areas. To give the House an easy example of this, my local authority, North Yorkshire council, spends more on school transport than it does on the whole of children’s social care. That is the cost of delivering services in rural areas. Despite that, the Labour Government have chosen to scrap the rural services delivery grant. They have said that they are repurposing it, but it is now clear that this has not been repurposed to support rural areas in the way that the delivery grant used to do, despite the higher cost of service delivery in those areas. The chairman of the County Councils Network, Tim Oliver, has warned that rural areas will lose hundreds of millions of pounds due to Labour prioritising urban areas over rural ones in the way that it distributes funds. The Government are moving distribution away from a needs-based formula to one based on deprivation. He has warned that Labour’s funding formula will mean that rural councils would lose an estimated £190 million in a single year. He has also stated that, when taking into account the moneys needed to cover the costs of the national insurance increases, this is the worst settlement for county councils in four years.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I do not want to be party political, but it is not us who are changing the formula. The reality is that this Labour Government are robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is a zero-sum game. If they move the formula around, some councils will be worse off and some will be better off. I want everybody to be treated fairly, but this is a very difficult situation against the current spending round. The Labour Government’s approach is particularly worrying given their intention to move to a new fairer funding formula. “Fairer to whom?” we might ask, given the point we have just made. Labour’s broken promises on this are clear and follow similar promises broken on the fully costed and fully funded manifesto: the family farm tax, the family business tax, the winter fuel allowance, the rise in employer national insurance contributions and, of course, that statement about “not one penny more on your council tax,”

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Of course there are some needs around deprivation, but that is not the entirety. The major cost drivers for local authorities are the things that I outlined earlier: adult social care, special educational needs and temporary accommodation. There may be some crossover, but the reality is that simply basing that on deprivation will not work for all authorities; some will be worse off as a result of moving from need to deprivation.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I have spoken before about the financial pressures all councils are under. That is principally due to rising demand on services; that is the reality. Eighty per cent of discretionary spend is on the three areas I referred to earlier. There is no doubt that there are challenging circumstances. Nevertheless, the vast majority of money raised through the settlement is through council tax, and much of the money raised for core spending power will go on national insurance rises. There are direct costs, but there are also indirect costs that are not covered. Many councils will be worse off as a result.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  We all have different views on this matter. Many parts of my constituency are not wealthy and have deprivation that is not sufficiently catered for by some of the formulas. That is what we are concerned about. We are keen to see fairness across the board, so we will scrutinise Labour’s plans very carefully on that basis. The Labour Budget promised a big increase in council spending and the return of the sector to sustainability through a comprehensive set of measures to support local authorities in England. As I said, the Government also promised multi-year settlements, and we support those intentions. However, most of the money provided to local councils under the settlement will be through council tax rises for working people. A number of the rises breach the 5% referendum limit principle. Referendums on council tax rises of up to 9.9% have been waived by the Secretary of State, so local people cannot have a say on these dramatic increases. That means that local residents in the Windsor and Maidenhead borough, Birmingham, Bradford and Newham all face increases of more than 5%. Birmingham is notable due to the mess that Labour made there, which Labour is now forcing residents to pay for, rather than taking responsibility. The Liberal Democrats are also raising council tax without allowing Windsor and Maidenhead borough and Somerset residents a say on how they feel about the increases. Council tax rises make up the bulk of the settlement, and rather than Labour delivering on its claims that it would fairly fund local government, it is pushing the burden on to taxpayers. The Government have also increased that burden with their jobs tax, which will negatively increase costs on local government finance. Although they have provided £515 million to cover the direct costs of employer’s NI, the Local Government Association has estimated that the national insurance contribution hike will cost another £1.13 billion for increases being forced upon providers of outsourced services. The costs of those outsourced services will inevitably increase, but the Government are providing no money to cover that. Councils and residents will have to pick up the bill. Council tax receipts in 2025-26 are forecast to be in the order of £50 billion, yet Labour’s nonsensical Chagos islands deal is rumoured to cost up to £18 billion. That is equivalent to a one-off £820 deduction from a typical council tax bill. Alternatively, it could have paid for a council tax freeze for the whole of this Parliament. As with all things, Labour is wasting taxpayers’ money rather than giving them a tax cut. The settlement will make it more difficult for councils to deliver on residents’ priorities, be they social care or potholes, which I note Conservative councils have a better record of filling in. It is an undeniable fact that Labour and the Liberal Democrats deliver worse services and charge more. From Whitehall to town hall, under Labour, people pay more and get less.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Holocaust Memorial Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is my privilege and solemn duty to open this debate on behalf of the Opposition. I thank the Minister for his very thoughtful remarks. The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day, “For a better future”, encourages us to reflect on the lessons of history and on the steps we must take to ensure that such atrocities never happen again. This Holocaust Memorial Day also marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, a place where more than 1 million Jewish people lost their lives—part of the 1.1 million victims who also included the disabled, members of the gay community and political opponents of the Nazi regime. We should always strive to stamp out the evil that is antisemitism. It has no place in our society, or any society. Earlier this month, like others, I was honoured to sign the Holocaust Educational Trust’s book of commitment, and today I am honoured to speak in this important debate. I pay tribute to the trust for its outstanding work in keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive through educational outreach and keeping the Holocaust in our curriculum for more than 30 years. I also thank the survivors of the Holocaust for the work they have done to educate past, present and future generations on the horrors of the past and to give us lessons for the future. My party will always support the Jewish community, so it was encouraging to see the Leader of the Opposition engaging with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Community Security Trust to discuss the challenges facing the Jewish community. As part of my role as shadow Secretary of State, I am meeting the Jewish Leadership Council in February, and I look forward to engaging with it and other Jewish organisations in the future. Our party will continue to engage with the community in opposition, and together we reaffirm our commitment to tackling antisemitism, promoting community cohesion and holding this Government to account on these critical issues. This debate and this period of reflection come at an important moment for the middle east, which we hope will usher in a sustainable end to the conflict. Every single hostage must be returned safely home and reunited with family and friends after 15 months of the most unimaginably cruel captivity at the hands of Hamas. We have firmly in our thoughts the victims of the 7 October terror attacks—those who lost their lives, and those whose lives have been changed forever. This was the worst terror attack in Israel’s history. We are all relieved to see the first returns of hostages back to their loved ones under the recent ceasefire agreement, including, as the Minister says, the British-Israeli national Emily Damari. We pray for their good health, and I sincerely hope they can now begin to rebuild their lives after the most unimaginable trauma. None of the hostages or their families ever deserved to be put through this nightmare. Remembering the Holocaust is something that we must continue to do every day and every year; it cannot be forgotten. This debate is just one way of doing that, and it is the responsibility of all of us to do so in our own way. Indeed, my wife and I took our children to the Holocaust galleries at the Imperial War Museum, which was a very solemn and sobering experience for us all. That day we also visited the Kindertransport memorial at Liverpool Street station. How proud we should be of those people, such as Nicholas Winton, who played their part to help Jewish people flee the horrors of Nazi persecution, saving countless lives and offering hope to those facing darkness. It is also important that we take this opportunity to remember all those killed in genocide around the world. We remember the atrocities in Rwanda, where over 800,000 people were murdered. This year also marks 30 years since the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia, where more than 8,000 mainly men and boys were killed in just a few days by Bosnian Serb forces. Most were killed in an organised and systemic fashion, blindfolded and shot. While it was mainly men and boys who were murdered, thousands of women and girls suffered unthinkable violence and sexual abuse, including rape and torture, with thousands more, including children and the elderly, abused and displaced. Those horrors remind us of the vital importance of standing against hate wherever it arises. That is why this debate on Holocaust Memorial Day is so important. We must stamp out antisemitism and stop it impacting the lives of British Jews and Jews around the world, but we also owe it to the memory of all victims of genocide to educate future generations and to work tirelessly to prevent history repeating itself. Let us honour their memory by building a better future, free from hate, division and violence.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Secretary of State agree that everyone should be treated equally and be seen to be treated equally before the law, including planning law?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Great. Why, then, is it that the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have all intervened in the planning application for the Chinese super-embassy, overriding the wishes and concerns of local residents, the local planning authority, the Metropolitan police, the security services and, most likely, the incoming US President?