Louie French MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 18 Dec 2025 · Jane Austen · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this debate on the literary and cultural legacy of Jane Austen. I also thank everyone in the Public Gallery and those around the UK, including my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who champion her legacy. Two hundred and fifty years after her birth, Jane Austen remains not just a cornerstone of English literature but a distinctly English voice rooted in place, tradition, social order and moral responsibility—a true Tory perhaps. Her wit and insight are timeless. As she wrote: “It is not what we say or think that defines us, but what we do.” That line captures something profoundly serious beneath the comedy: an emphasis on conduct, duty and personal responsibility. Those values feel increasingly relevant to Members of this place. It is sometimes forgotten that Jane Austen was, by instinct and upbringing, a conservative figure in the truest sense of the word. She was, as we have heard, the daughter of a Church of England clergyman, deeply embedded in parish life. She was respectful of established institutions and sceptical of radical upheaval—she wrote in the long shadow of the French revolution. Her novels consistently defend the importance of social stability, inherited responsibility and moral restraint. She sought not to overturn society but to understand it and, where necessary, gently challenge and correct it. Her characters are judged not by fashionable opinions but by their behaviour towards others. Her heroines are not radicals attempting to dismantle the world around them, but thoughtful, intelligent women navigating society as it was in their time, valuing good judgment, self-control and integrity. Their flaws are acknowledged, their virtues earned, and their happy endings never accidental. Jane Austen’s life was firmly rooted in England. She was born in Stevenson in rural Hampshire and wrote arguably her greatest works in Chawton. She lived for a time in Bath and was laid to rest in Winchester cathedral. She drew deeply from parish life, village society and the rhythms of provincial England. Those connections remain visible today across Hampshire, Bath, Southampton and beyond. Jane Austen’s legacy continues to make a real economic contribution. Her house in Chawton attracts tens of thousands of visitors each year, as my right hon. Friend said, while Austen-related tourism supports jobs in hospitality, heritage and the creative industries. Her novels, which earned her just over £600 in her lifetime, now generate millions through book sales, film adaptations and cultural tourism. Her reach has grown further through adaptation: more than 70 films and television series have been inspired by her work, from faithful period dramas to modern reinterpretations, introducing new audiences to her stories and projecting a distinctively British cultural inheritance across the world. Her place in our national life is reflected not only in festivals and exhibitions but quite literally in our pockets. Since 2017, Jane Austen has featured on the £10 note—a quiet but fitting recognition of her contribution to our cultural and literary heritage. Yet despite Jane Austen’s popularity, there have been attempts to sideline her work and that of other literary greats from parts of the curriculum. That would be a mistake. Jane Austen is not an optional extra in our cultural inheritance; she is central to it. The then Education Secretary said in December 2012: “I do not see anything wrong with having the 19th century at the heart of the English curriculum. As far as I am concerned, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy—not to mention George Eliot—are great names that every child should have the chance to study.” —[ Official Report , 12 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 583.] Two hundred and fifty years on from her birth, Jane Austen’s work endures because it speaks the permanent truths about human nature, society and the value of continuity over chaos. She reminds us that progress does not require rupture or revolution, and that civilisation is sustained not by grand theories but by character, restraint and responsibility. That is a literary and cultural legacy well worth defending and celebrating. At the end of my short speech, I would like to thank everyone for their contributions. I wish them all a merry Christmas, and I hope this Government can find some sense and sensibility in 2026.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  Given the seriousness of the pending strikes, it is understandable that the Secretary has decided to focus his comments today on the BMA and this upcoming strike. I ask the Health Secretary this question constructively: what assessment has he made of the impact of the giveaways he has just announced on the likelihood of future strikes and on other NHS staff, particularly nurses, who are already feeling hard done by following last year’s pay rise?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister refers to the accidental or deliberate release of this information, but we know that on 14 November the press were briefed, clearly with incorrect information. Will he confirm to this House today who gave authority for that press briefing to go ahead, which misled not only the press, but the country?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) (No. 2) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for that intervention. I agree with his sentiment, and I will come on to explain why. The approach that the Government are taking, of carving out holdings of 5% or less in quoted companies, reduces the risk further. However, will the Minister tell us about the work that has been done by her Department to ensure that even in the unlikely event of foreign-state investors seeking to circumvent the rules, this has been ruled out? As my noble Friend Lady Stowell said in the other place last week, the path to getting to this point has been rather longer than any of us expected or would have wished. Delay has a price for investors and vendors, as well as for the readers and journalists of our newspapers. My noble Friend took the opportunity to ask about whether and when we might expect a conclusion to this for the sake of The Daily Telegraph, and more broadly, whether His Majesty’s Government will look again at the Enterprise Act 2002 regime to ensure that future scenarios do not have to play out at such length. We are all aware of the underlying need for investment in our newspapers, national and local, if they are to continue to flourish and perform the job that they do, which is vital for public discourse and democracy in the UK. That is why it is important that we get the rules right in the regulations before us, and that we maintain a framework that properly protects this essential part of our democracy, while still giving room for responsible investment. We need a regime that safeguards independence and free speech, but that also ensures that our newspapers and media organisations have the ability to grow and thrive for years to come.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) (No. 2) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Jardine. I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks in outlining the regulations. The Opposition broadly welcome the regulations, to which His Majesty’s Government committed during discussions on the No.1 regulations before the summer recess. My first question is on the 5% carve-out. In the other place, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee quoted the correspondence it has had with the Minister’s Department about the carve-out and the way in which it will be used. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said: “Our judgment is that the possibility of the carve out being misused is remote”. We can appreciate where the Government are coming from. Even though the scenario that the previous Government initially looked at—of multiple countries getting together and each seeking to acquire a 15% stake—was perhaps a little far-fetched, it was not entirely implausible. So it is right that this Government have listened and now acted to close that loophole.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Child Poverty Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Despite assurances to the contrary, children in my constituency have had their school courses cut and parents across the UK have lost their jobs because of this Government, with over 180,000 jobs lost over the past year. If unemployment and taxes continue to rise, how many more children does the Secretary of State expect to grow up in poverty—or is this just the price that the welfare party expects families to pay?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does he agree that this is just the latest example of this Labour Government trying to push through something that was not in their manifesto, and that this House must therefore do all it can to stop it becoming a reality?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Gambling: Regulatory Reform · Hansard source

  More

  As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. For transparency, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Regulation of gambling must be a careful balance to avoid unintended consequences. Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to take a gamble on this regulated industry, and on the lives of some of the most vulnerable people, who are at risk of gambling harms. She took an ideological position instead of a practical one. Despite clear warnings, she chose to fuel the black market, where there are no protections for problem gamblers, and to jeopardise thousands of jobs and livelihoods in the regulated sector as a result, as we have heard today. Labour’s tax raid was not just anti-gambling industry; it was anti-consumer and, we believe, anti-common sense. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this debate, so that we can properly interrogate the facts and the impact that the Chancellor’s actions will have on the more than 22 million people across the country who safely enjoy a flutter each month. To put that number into context, it is more than 34,500 people per constituency represented in this House—enough to enjoy a majority anywhere in the country. Whether or not Members like gambling, the facts are clear. The highly regulated gambling sector in the United Kingdom supports tens of thousands of jobs, contributes billions of pounds in tax each year, and sustains industries and sports, from horseracing to the high street betting shops that sit firmly in the fabric of the communities that we all represent. The choices the Chancellor has made will, according to modelling by EY, result in an estimated 16,000 job losses throughout the UK. Those will be particularly concentrated in areas where large operators are based, such as Stoke, Warrington, Leeds, Sunderland, Manchester, Nottingham and Newcastle-under-Lyme, before filtering through to betting shop closures on high streets throughout our constituencies. The Labour party has so far failed to explain how those missing jobs and business rates will be paid for—perhaps by even higher welfare spending and taxes. We are all aware that, particularly in recent years, the debate about gambling and its regulation has been dominated by those who see gambling exclusively through the lens of harm. It is, of course, right to support those who struggle with addiction, and I am proud to support a range of specialist charities in that space that do fantastic work on the frontline, helping people across the country. However, the vast majority of punters enjoy a bet safely each week. We cannot and should not build a regulatory system that assumes that every person who gambles is high risk. That is simply untrue. It is the nanny state on steroids from the left of British politics. From buying a weekly National Lottery ticket to a casual acca with your mates on the 3 o’clock kick-offs and beyond, there is a spectrum of risk and reward, as well as exposures, the complexities of which we must appreciate and understand. The oversimplification of the issue does far more harm than good. We can learn how that happens from neighbouring countries such as the Netherlands. At the start of this year, the Dutch Government raised their gambling tax on gross gaming revenue from 30.5% to 34.2%—a much smaller rise than that which this Government have announced, with another rise planned. The Dutch Government combined it with much tighter restrictions, strict spending caps, deposit limits and sweeping advertising bans. Within months, the Netherlands has seen regulated gambling revenue collapse by around 25% and tax receipts fall significantly, despite the higher rate, which has left a €200 million shortfall. The percentage of gamblers using regulated sites dropped below 50%, and the Dutch regulator itself reported that illegal gambling sites now receive more visits than regulated ones, with searches for the “100 best illegal gambling sites” surging. That is the reality of the situation in a comparable European country. Over-regulation and excessive taxation have driven gamblers to the black market. We can see the same pattern developing here in the UK, with even the OBR highlighting that the black market will gain from those tax choices. That is before we even consider debating outstanding issues such as affordability checks. In the black market, there are no affordability checks, no safer gambling tools, no self-exclusion and no protection at all for punters. We can see that moralistic and heavy-handed regulations simply displace gambling into the unregulated sector, rather than reducing gambling rates and risks of harm. The sector could not be clearer: once punters have entered the black market, they are unlikely to come back. That would be a lose-lose situation for the Government that could result in lower tax revenue and fewer jobs, a loss of revenue for bookies and sports that rely on their sponsorship, and a loss of consumer protections for the public. Sadly, however, that is where the Government are now heading fast. There is another area where the Government’s policy is simply not functioning: the new statutory levy. The industry has spent the past three years implementing more than 60 measures from the gambling White Paper. The statutory levy, introduced in April this year, is one of the most significant and most costly. Operators have now made their first payments under the mandatory system, totalling more than £100 million, but there is still no clarity about how charities such as Gordon Moody, GamCare, Betknowmore UK and others that do fantastic work in the treatment and prevention space can actually access any of that. We have warned the Government about that, privately and publicly, for many months. That is why we did not feel that we could support the gambling levy legislation as drafted. To date, only UK Research and Innovation has published basic guidance. Organisations that were promised long-term certainty have no idea how, when or even if they will be able to bid for levy funds to continue their vital work. Frontline charities supporting people suffering from gambling harms tell us that they cannot plan ahead, cannot recruit or even retain staff, and in some cases cannot continue services at all because the system remains so opaque. Before the Government bring down another wave of major reforms, impose the most aggressive tax rises in Europe, and throw operators and charities into further uncertainty, should they not first ensure that the levy is actually up and running properly? Should they not ensure that charities with experts who have decades of experience are not forced to close because of the ongoing ideological madness in Westminster, which has stacked the deck against those with more pragmatic views about gambling and how we prevent harms? It makes no sense—literally none—to introduce new burdens when the existing regulatory framework is still incomplete and not functioning as the Government promised. Perhaps if the Minister could get his ministerial colleagues to properly engage with anybody in the sector, the Government might have a clue about what is happening: they are gambling with lives. Protecting consumers means keeping them in the regulated domestic market if they choose to gamble: that is a very simple truth. I am all in favour of bashing the bookies—it is a long-established British tradition—but I want it to be done by the punter, not by this anti-fun Labour Government. Hon. Members should already know that British operators, although not perfect, prevent the use of credit cards, enforce 18-plus age verification, operate GamStop self-exclusion, display prominent safer gambling messages, use data to identify markers of harm, adhere to the strict advertising rules that are in place, and provide stable funding for research, education and treatment. The unregulated market that the Government are fuelling to the tune of £6 billion in extra stakes does none of that. Once someone has moved into that unregulated environment, there is no longer any meaningful ability to protect them from gambling harms. Will the Minister personally review the commissioning of prevention and treatment to ensure that it is being managed fairly and that charities are not being deliberately excluded? Will he commit to a formal review, across the House, of affordability checks and of the pilot that has been extended by the Gambling Commission? Does he believe that the £26 million of funding given to the Gambling Commission is sufficient to stop the growth of the black market? Lastly, what message does he have for the thousands of employees at risk of losing their jobs this Christmas because of Labour’s tax raid?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Women’s and Girls’ Sport: Greater Manchester · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Sport England’s role as a statutory planning consultee promotes participation in grassroot sports, including by girls and women, by protecting vital playing fields across the country from development, including in Greater Manchester. However, this Labour Government are aiming to bulldoze protections, and concrete over grassroots provisions for young people. How will removing the protections in place for playing fields help to improve participation by girls in grassroots sport?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Women’s and Girls’ Sport: Greater Manchester · Hansard source

  More

  No commitment there to stop the concreting over of sports pitches. Alongside the National Lottery, the regulated gambling sector provides more than £400 million of crucial sponsorship to British sports, whether that is horseracing, the Betfred Super League, Sky Bet EFL, William Hill’s sponsorship of Scottish football, or direct funding for grassroots programmes. After Labour’s short-sighted £1 billion tax raid yesterday, which will fuel the illegal black market, will the Minister tell the House how her Department will fill the black hole in funding for British sports, and say what impact assessment it has made on that and on job losses across the sector?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Ministerial Code · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister boasted to ITV at the weekend that he had strengthened the ministerial code and the powers of the ethics adviser, and that any Minister who makes a mistake must refer themselves to the adviser. The former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), was referred for breaching the ministerial code, so why has the Prime Minister not referred himself? It this just more Labour double standards?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Neighbourhood Police Officers · Hansard source

  More

  More than 5,000 people in Bexley have signed my petition to stop Mayor Khan closing the overnight counter at Bexleyheath police station. Will the Minister tell us who is to blame for the £260 million of funding cuts now facing the Met police: the Labour Government or the Labour Mayor of London?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Independent Football Regulator · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her involvement in the appointments process for the chair of the Independent Football Regulator.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Independent Football Regulator · Hansard source

  More

  Last Thursday, the Commissioner for Public Appointments published his report into the appointment of the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. That report found that the Secretary of State breached the governance code for public appointments, updated by her Government, not once or twice, but three times. The Secretary of State has claimed that she did not know about Mr Kogan’s donations, but the commissioner’s report clearly shows that she was briefed twice by her Department regarding this conflict before she decided to appoint him to a role that must be independent. The report also makes it clear that Mr Kogan was not shortlisted by the previous Government and that it was this Government who put him in the running. Not until the Secretary of State had already recommended Mr Kogan’s appointment—and the night before his appearance before the Select Committee on 7 May—did she conveniently consider checking whether she had also taken thousands of pounds off him. I find that highly unlikely, and the commissioner makes it clear that the Secretary of State was in a position readily to ascertain the details of donations made by Mr Kogan before she made her choice, but that she failed to do so. It was after the political fallout and six days later that she finally recused herself from the end of the process. To show how brazen this crony appointment was, her Department confirmed it while the independent investigation was still taking place—really shameful stuff. This was not a fair and open recruitment process. The report confirms that Mr Kogan was her preferred candidate, subject to No. 10 giving the green light, and that Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials were asked to make the necessary arrangements for an appointment without competition. The Prime Minister’s fingerprints are also clear from the commissioner’s report. We understand that Mr Kogan donated to the Prime Minister’s constituency Labour party as well as to his leadership campaign. I almost feel sorry for the Secretary of State; she has apologised to the Prime Minister for three breaches of the rules for choosing his candidate. How is it proper for the Prime Minister personally to have given the green light to a donor? Surely, if the Secretary of State was meant to have been recused for the 2020 donation of Mr Kogan, that must apply to the Prime Minister too—or does the Prime Minister believe that the offside rule does not apply to him? Who is to blame for this sorry mess? How much did Mr Kogan give to the Prime Minister, and did he declare it? Does the Secretary of State agree that Mr Kogan’s deeply flawed appointment must be rescinded, given the risks to football? Finally, will she stick by her words and say that rule breakers cannot be rule makers?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. During today’s urgent question, the Secretary of State provided a number of answers that seem to contradict parts of the commissioner’s report, particularly around the role of the Prime Minister. In particular, she made reference to a conversation between herself and the new chairman of the Independent Football Regulator before his appearance at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I have read the report very carefully, and I cannot find any reference to that conversation in the commissioner’s report. I seek guidance from you on how hon. Members can find out why that is not in the report.

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. We need to unlock brownfield sites in the interests of current and future generations that want to own a home. If there is any surplus profit in the situation I was describing, the developer will lose it, but if they make a loss, the number of affordable homes required will not be reduced. For a decade, London Conservatives have warned that this policy will harm house building. Today, we see the consequences. Sadiq Khan’s failed London plan has created a perfect storm, compounded by failing demand, policy costs and regulatory delays.

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the argument the hon. Lady is trying to make, and I am about to come on to some suggestions to hopefully help the Government. The mayor has had strategic planning powers in the capital for nine years, and he was awarded £9 billion of affordable homes money by the previous Government. We have to be clear about where blame in the capital lies.

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman making one of his well-respected interventions in this important debate. We have to make sure that across the country, we are building the homes that people want to live in and that people can afford, including people in older age. Demanding that 35% of homes built privately are affordable has made house building in London unviable. The higher 50% target for industrial land also applies to public land, which, again, has effectively blocked development in the capital. This policy may seem like a good way to get London building more social housing, but it has hugely backfired. The policy is effectively a tax on house building. It makes some development unviable and deters investment. It ultimately means fewer homes and higher costs. If a developer cannot afford the target, they face six burdensome checks on the project’s viability before, during and after construction.

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  This has been a healthy cross-party debate, even if we have disagreed on some of the diagnosis. I thank the Minister for his response. I hope he will take away some of the points that have been raised on a constructive basis. I think we all agree that we have to get London building on brownfield again. People have a right to somewhere they can call home. I thank hon. Members for their contributions. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for housebuilding in London.

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for housebuilding in London. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank all hon. Members who enabled me to secure this important debate. It could not be more timely, as house building in London has collapsed. In the first nine months of 2025, construction began on only 3,248 homes. Molior London predicts that just 9,100 homes will be built across 2027 and 2028—that is under 5% of the Government’s target for London. London is supposed to deliver more than a quarter of the Government’s 1.5 million homes target, but given the construction slowdown, that target appears to be dead in the water. That is the inevitable consequence of the Mayor of London’s disastrous London plan and the Labour Government’s anti-growth policies. Three things have gone wrong. First, Sadiq Khan’s London plan has comprehensively failed to get London building. With more than 500 pages and 123 planning policies, the London plan makes it more complex and expensive to build in London. A 2024 review found that it takes seven weeks longer to determine major planning applications in London than in the next four largest cities. Sadiq Khan’s planning requirements also add to the cost of building in London. For example, the London plan goes beyond the national energy requirements, imposes carbon targets, and has policies on overheating and energy statements. Whatever the merits of those policies, they all add to the cost of building homes. In places, Sadiq Khan’s planning policies actively restrict house building. For example, the London plan effectively bans house building on large swathes of industrial land, often within walking distance of public transport.

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  Again, I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady is trying to make. I have already outlined the Bexley position in response to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), so I do not need to go back into that—Bexley has been delivering affordable homes. What can be done now? I am afraid that the recent measures announced by the Government and the Mayor of London—without consulting London’s 32 boroughs—to unlock house building are too little, and potentially too late. They will give developers only temporary, targeted relief from the community infrastructure levy on brownfield sites, but not from the more expensive mayoral levy. The changes to the affordable homes targets do not go far enough; at 35%, demand is still placed on industrial and public land, acting as a blocker on these sites that could host thousands of homes. While a temporary fast-track route for homes that provide 20% affordable housing is welcome, it is a minor amendment to a system that has ultimately failed. More concerning are the proposals to give the Mayor of London the power to call-in applications for 50 homes or more and for developments on green belt and metropolitan open land. It is undemocratic to withdraw planning powers from local communities. It will backfire, eroding the little remaining public trust in the Greater London Authority, and it will confirm to outer Londoners that Labour’s plan is not to unlock building on well-connected brownfield sites, but to concrete over our precious remaining countryside.

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the hon. Lady’s defence of her mayor, but I do not believe that most would recognise her statement.

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to make a bit of progress, because I have been up and down quite a lot, and I am not fit enough to keep doing it. Under this Labour Government, more and more first-time buyers are unable to afford a home, and they are the primary market for new builds in London. Over 3,700 new homes are sitting unsold. This is not a market where developers will build more. The Labour Government were wrong to slash first-time buyers’ stamp duty relief, costing first-time buyers up to £11,250 more in taxes. That is why the Conservatives’ plan to abolish stamp duty is the right one, and the Labour Government must rule out further market-suppressing tax rises. Developers also face excessive policy costs—section 106 payments, community infrastructure levy payments, mayoral community infrastructure levy payments, carbon offset levies, biodiversity net gain requirements and the new building safety levy. The collective cost of those demands makes it too expensive to build. To make matters worse, on top of the burdensome London plan, the well-intentioned post-Grenfell Building Safety Regulator is now delaying building in the capital. It has rejected 70% of building safety designs, and some completed projects have had to wait 18 months for approval before people can move in.

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that we should have a brownfield-first approach, seeking to protect our green belt and countryside wherever possible. I understand my right hon. Friend’s concern and her representations on behalf of her constituents. The Home Builders Federation warns that the London plan’s net zero requirements are imposing carbon offset payments of £3,000 a home. Even when building on brownfield land is allowed, it is fraught with problems. The mayor requires 50% of homes to be affordable, which, given the remediation costs on those sites, makes development unviable. Altogether, the London plan review in 2024 found that Sadiq Khan’s policies frustrated, rather than facilitated, development on brownfield land. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government stopped the mandated partial review of the London plan a year ago, saving their mayor’s blushes. Secondly, Sadiq Khan’s affordable homes target has made many housing projects unviable in London. By demanding that 35% of homes built privately are affordable, he has made house building unviable in London.

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  Since May 2022, Bexley council has built 1,836 homes. Of those, 619 are affordable, making up 33% of all new housing, so I do not agree with the statement the hon. Gentleman just made.