Samantha Dixon MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is only a matter of time. As Members know, we have accepted the review’s recommendation for a moratorium on the use of cryptoassets as political donations in order to safeguard the integrity of our political finance system from foreign interference, and we have been clear that the Government will bring forward their own amendment on this important matter in due course. In doing so, we will work closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure that our proposals are robust and provide sufficient protection for our democracy. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire asked when the moratorium would end. We intend for it to end once the Electoral Commission and Parliament are confident that the regulatory environment around cryptoassets is robust enough to protect the integrity of our political finance system from foreign interference. I have noted her comment about the FCA. For those reasons, I ask that the hon. Member withdraw her new clause. New clause 20 would require registered political parties to compile and submit a one-off report to the Electoral Commission detailing donations received by the party made in cryptoassets for the last five years. We agree that cryptoassets present a significant risk, different from other forms of donation. In line with the recommendations from Rycroft, the Secretary of State has announced the moratorium, which we will bring forward in an amendment to the Bill. I recognise that that amendment would result in the Electoral Commission examining donations already made via cryptoassets before the moratorium was in place. We are reducing the risk going forward, but I should highlight that there have already been some safeguards in place with regards to donations made with cryptoassets before the moratorium. Both existing law and guidance from the Electoral Commission are clear that that the rules and regulations for political donations made in fiat currency also apply to donations made via cryptoassets. It is an offence to attempt to evade the rules on donations by concealing information, giving false information or facilitating an impermissible donation. It would be an offence to cash in cryptocurrency and then use the resulting funds to make a donation, if that were knowingly done to conceal or disguise a donation from an impermissible donor. As such, it is an offence to attempt to evade the rules on donations. Guidance from the Electoral Commission also makes it clear that recipients must be alert to donors appearing to circumvent permissibility rules, such as by making multiple donations beneath reporting thresholds. I also highlight the fact that the Electoral Commission already has existing investigatory and enforcement powers when there are grounds to suspect illegal activity, including the power to request information or required documentation.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  He did. I invited him to come and talk to me about the Bill; other Members received their letters and came. Putting that to one side—I am being slightly flippant—this has been a very fast-moving environment, and policy has been formulated very quickly in response to Rycroft. I undertake to work collaboratively with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley and Members of all parties as we go forward with the Bill—this is not the end of its passage. I note the comment made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about having a longer Committee stage, but I am mindful that the implementation of other areas of policy needs to continue—so that we can, for example, introduce votes at 16 in time for the next general election. Although we want to go longer, we also want to go quicker. We will work collaboratively as we go forward.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My officials work very closely with the Electoral Commission and would not have acted without consideration and with consultation with it. I remind the Committee that decisions about the resourcing of the Electoral Commission fall to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. That is the route by which it is funded. We would not want to make regulation too burdensome, but correspondingly, the Electoral Commission reports to the Speaker’s Committee regularly about its resourcing needs. Indeed, mostly recently, it returned money to the Speaker’s Committee that it did not feel it needed. To reassure Members, officials work closely with it to ensure there is sufficient resource. Our policy ambition is for these legislative changes to be consistent across reserved and devolved elections and to be commenced in a way that provides clarity to campaigners on how the rules will be enforced across all elections. Clause 68 provides for that, as it allows the Secretary of State to make provisions that could otherwise be made by Scottish or Welsh Ministers, but only with the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers. In practice, subject to the agreement of the devolved Governments, that will enable us to introduce a uniform set of changes to the role and power of the Electoral Commission in relation to local government elections in Scotland and Wales. I turn to clause 69. The Electoral Commission currently lacks an explicit statutory gateway to disclose information to other regulators and law enforcement bodies. The lack of an explicit legal basis for information sharing forces the commission to rely on incidental powers or bespoke memorandums of understanding to disclose information. Those arrangements create unnecessary complexity and delays, and make information sharing more burdensome than it ought to be. They have embedded unnecessary friction into the system, slowing co-operation between regulators on important cross-cutting regulatory issues, and frustrating the very bodies charged with upholding the integrity of our democratic processes. To underpin our wider reforms to strengthen enforcement, the clause provides a clear legal basis for information sharing, enabling the commission to disclose information to specified regulators and enforcement bodies. It will nurture an environment of collaboration between relevant bodies on cross-cutting issues such as foreign interference, data protection and digital campaigning. To ensure that the information-sharing gateway remains effective as the regulatory landscape evolves, the list of bodies can be amended by the Secretary of State, following consultation with the Electoral Commission and subject to parliamentary approval via the affirmative procedure. The Government note that one of the recommendations of the Rycroft report is to build on this measure and make the information-sharing gateway reciprocal, to provide clarity that the Electoral Commission can also receive information from relevant bodies. We are carefully considering all the recommendations from the Rycroft review. We will issue a full Government response in due course, and, where appropriate, we will introduce new amendments to the Bill. With those assurances, I commend clause 69 to the Committee. I will allow other Members to speak to the new clauses and I will respond to them in due course.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  A number of points have been made, which I thank hon. Members for. I can reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, that we have worked closely with the Electoral Commission on these proposals. All my officials talk to the Electoral Commission constantly, so its capacity to take this on board is understood. In terms of consultation, we always work with the parliamentary parties panel. However, as I was coming into this position, I reached out to all the leaders of the opposition parties and invited them to come to talk to me about the Bill prior to its Second Reading. Not all took up the offer; however, I was pleased to meet those who did. Turning to the point about the two sets of returns, it is still important to address the point raised by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. It is important for returning officers to receive returns and declarations, because having those available for inspection at the local level remains an important part of our democracy. I would not want to see that taken away. That is why we are proposing both the EC and returning officers receive them. On new clause 47, the Government fully recognise the importance of greater transparency over the source of political donations, and we are already taking that forward. Work to activate donor source declarations is underway as part of our wider political finance reforms, and the Government have been clear that those measures will be delivered in this Parliament. The new clause would not change our direction or add new policy substance. I understand that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove is eager to see this implemented quickly, and I want to reassure the Committee that this is a Government priority. However, imposing a fixed deadline risks cutting across the careful sequencing needed to implement reforms coherently. We need to align commencement with the broader package, ensuring that guidance and systems are ready, and give campaigners proportionate lead-in time. That speaks to the point made by the shadow Minister that this is about not just the established parties but smaller parties as well. A rigid statutory date risks poorer implementation without adding any new substance to what the Government are already delivering. Our approach is to activate donor source declarations in step with the wider package in the Bill, so that parties can have clear and workable rules and the Electoral Commission is operationally prepared. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member will feel able not to push the new clause to a vote. New clause 48 seeks to lower the criminal threshold for two political finance offences so that a party treasurer or a responsible person would commit an offence when it could be proven that they had “reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting” that a declaration accompanying a campaign or referendum expenditure return was false. Currently, prosecutions for such offences are possible only when it can be proven that the offender “knowingly or recklessly” makes a false declaration. That threshold was designed to reflect the seriousness of criminal liability and ensure that sanctions target deliberate and clearly irresponsible wrongdoing. The Government welcome Philip Rycroft’s comprehensive and well-reasoned report on foreign financial interference in our democracy, which includes relevant recommendations in this space. Any proposal to amend the knowledge test for relevant offences will need to be considered with great care to ensure that party treasurers and responsible persons are not unduly exposed to potential criminal sanctions for administrative errors or inadvertent admissions. It is also important to consider the political finance regime in the round to avoid amendments creating inconsistencies between parts of the statutory framework. The Rycroft review provides a valuable basis for broader consideration and the Government are actively working through its recommendations to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose. For those reasons, although we do not support new clause 48, we will continue to assess the review’s findings carefully and will set out a full Government response, including whether making further amendments to the Bill would be appropriate. Given that reassurance, I hope the new clause will not be pressed. The integrity of political finance depends on measures that are both effective and proportionate. That is why the Bill introduces stronger due diligence expectations and tougher rules for institutional donors. Our general approach has been to address weaker points of the framework where there is greater risk. While the intention behind the new clause is acknowledged, reducing the declaration threshold to £500 does not follow that risk-based approach and could end up weakening the system. In that respect, I share the views of the shadow Minister because I believe the new clause would create a large volume of low-value declarations and, in doing so, divert the time and energy of donors, recipients and the regulator on to lower-risk activity. We want resources to be focused on higher-risk activity, such as the enhanced due diligence that we want donors to undertake when they receive larger donations. The Government believe that the risk-based approach that we are taking in the Bill is the right one. It ensures that further scrutiny will be applied where it matters most. New clause 50 seeks to increase the maximum criminal penalties that can be imposed for various false declaration offences under the political finance framework. In the Bill, the Government are acting on long-standing recommendations to strengthen the Electoral Commission’s power and extend its remit to ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law, while remaining proportionate. However, we recognise that we cannot be complacent, so we welcome the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy’s recent report and Philip Rycroft’s independent review on foreign financial interference in our democracy. They both include relevant recommendations regarding the enforcement of political finance offences. Any proposal to increase sentencing for such offences will need to be considered carefully to ensure that criminal penalties remain proportionate. It will also be important to consider the political finance regime and its enforcement in the round to prevent amendments from creating inconsistencies between parts of the statutory framework. The Rycroft review provides a valuable basis for that broader consideration and the Government are actively working through its recommendations to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose. Noting that new clause 50 covers ground similar to one of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations, we will assess the review’s findings carefully and set out a full Government response, including whether to make further amendments to the Bill in the light of that work.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I now move on to clause 2, which extends to 16 and 17-year-olds the existing legal incapacity to vote that applies to convicted prisoners—with the exception of those imprisoned for contempt of court or in default of paying a court-imposed fine. It is right that those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody cannot vote. The provisions in this Bill simply reflect that well-established position and ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds are treated the same as all other electors. That is in keeping with the core principle of the policy that 16 and 17-year-olds must have the same rights and responsibilities as all other electors. That must include being accountable for their actions, including their disenfranchisement upon being convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody. To give effect to this intention, this clause ensures that the relevant definitions of youth detention accommodation account for all of the institutions in which convicted prisoners aged 16 and 17 may be held. I would like to draw hon. and right hon. Members’ attention to the part of the clause relating to secure children’s homes. It is important to note that this does not have the effect of disenfranchising a young person who is not a convicted prisoner but who is resident in a secure children’s home. The application of this clause ensures that young convicted prisoners may not vote in UK parliamentary elections, police and crime commissioner elections, elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and all local elections in England or Northern Ireland. However, these provisions do not apply to elections for which responsibility is devolved, that is, elections to the Senedd Cymru, Scottish Parliament or local elections in Wales or Scotland. I will also speak to new clause 9, tabled by the Green party. This new clause is intended to allow convicted prisoners serving a sentence of up to four years to vote. The Government have a clear view on this issue: those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody should not be able to vote. We have no plans to extend the franchise to prisoners. I understand that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, who tabled this amendment, and her party advocate for a restorative approach to justice, and the Government agree that rehabilitation is an important part of the justice system. Prisoners must be prepared to return to society. As the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), said during the passage of the recent Sentencing Act 2026, the Government wish to ensure the justice system rehabilitates and turns offenders away from crime. It is important to note in this context that that Act introduced a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or fewer, unless an offender has breached a court order, there is a significant risk of harm to an individual, or there are exceptional circumstances. Rehabilitation is not the only part of our justice system. Justice is also about delivering appropriate and proportionate punishment for individuals who have committed crimes where the crime committed is grave enough to warrant imprisonment. The Government are clear that part of that punishment should include the loss of the right to vote. The new clause aims to grant voting rights to those serving sentences of up to four years, and would allow individuals who had committed serious offences to cast ballots. Such a change would be disproportionate and would water down the important principle that prison sentences are there to punish behaviour that we as a nation have decided is not welcome in our society. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the new clause, and I commend clause 2 to the Committee.

• 12 Jan 2026 · National Register of Electricians · Hansard source

  More

  The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 require people to be competent or under supervision, while building regulations require domestic electrical work to be conducted safely. The Government see no need to establish a statutory national register of electricians, who may be listed on the registered competent person electrical register already. None the less, the Government will continue to work with the Building Safety Regulator on reforms of the competent person scheme to improve public and building safety.

• 12 Jan 2026 · National Register of Electricians · Hansard source

  More

  The Government take electrical safety very seriously, but the risks with gas and electrical work are different. Circuit breakers can shut down electrical systems in milliseconds, protecting people from shock or fire, whereas the consequence of a faulty gas system could be an explosion or carbon monoxide poisoning. The health and safety and electricity at work regulations already exist, and the IET wiring regulations serve as an accepted code of practice.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on with my speech. The NPPF further states: “Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality…Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects…of pollution on health, living conditions”—

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on. In relation to decision making, the framework requires mineral planning authorities to “ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety”. The cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites or a number of sites in a locality should also be taken into account. Mineral planning authorities should also make sure that “any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties”. As well as policies specifically on minerals, the NPPF includes policies in relation to air quality, which was raised by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and pollution. They make it clear that both planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of air pollution.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to take any interventions. The NPPF continues: “and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development.” That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes).

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Dr Murrison. I know that the issue of increased HGV movements and congestion is important to hon. Members. Although quarry development can often result in additional HGV movements, where necessary, access roads can be constructed and routeing agreements can be made to reduce the impact on local roads, residents and the environment.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  With your indulgence, Dr Murrison, I would like to continue. As part of the planning application process, applications and supporting information, including statutory environmental assessments where required, are consulted on with stakeholders and the public. Where issues are identified, the imposition of conditions can assist in mitigating impacts to acceptable levels. Where planning conditions are breached, including during quarry operations, and issues arise as a result, the mineral planning authority has powers to take action to make sure issues are addressed. Although much of today’s debate has focused on the negative impacts of quarrying, I would like to thank the hon. Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for recognising the vital role that quarries play in providing the raw materials needed to support our society. The Government have an ambitious growth agenda, which cannot be delivered without a sufficient supply of minerals to feed our construction and manufacturing sectors. The intrinsic link between growth and the provision of minerals is recognised in the national planning policy framework, which is clear that we need a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. The framework also sets out that, when determining planning applications, great weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy, except in relation to coal extraction. Importantly, what distinguishes quarries from most other forms of development is that their location is driven by geology, which is fixed. In this context, minerals can be worked only where they are found, which influences where quarries can be located. Working of minerals is a temporary land use, and all planning applications for extraction will require an approved restoration and aftercare scheme. The NPPF indicates that mineral planning authorities should provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity, to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Dr Murrison, it is not my intention to offend anybody. I have previously referred to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. If he writes to me, I am sure his concerns can be addressed in the appropriate way. The Government do take these issues seriously, as is reflected in our robust planning framework, which protects communities and the environment while enabling industry to get on with the job of providing the minerals that we need to build 1.5 million new homes and new infrastructure, and to support our growing economy.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing the debate, his constituents for attending, and all hon. Members who have spoken. A number of hon. Members have raised concerns about the development of quarries and referred to specific planning applications in their constituencies. They will understand that I am unable to comment on specific cases, but I hope that the position I am about to set out will provide some reassurance. I recognise that proposals for new or extended quarries are often controversial and unpopular locally. Once permitted, minerals extraction at individual sites can often take place over very many years, so if it is not planned for and managed in an appropriate manner, communities living nearby can be faced with the impacts associated with the development for a long time. However, I want to reassure hon. Members that the planning system provides a robust framework to make sure that the impacts of minerals development are appropriately considered and addressed through both the plan-making and decision-making processes. Chapter 17 of the current NPPF sets out policies on facilitating the sustainable use of minerals to support that. In relation to plan making, the framework is clear that planning policy should “set out criteria or requirements to ensure that permitted and proposed operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health, taking into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality.”

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I refer to my earlier comments about the consultation due to be launched on the national planning policy framework, which I hope the CPRE and all local communities will participate in. Restoration also offers the opportunity to enhance the environment. Possible uses of land, once minerals extraction is complete, include the creation of new habitats and biodiversity, and use for agriculture, forestry and recreational activities, such as surfing centres. I conclude by once again thanking the hon. Member for South Leicestershire and other hon. Members for participating in this debate. I want to reassure them that the Government take planning policy for quarries and the concerns that they and others have raised very seriously. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire has set out a number of issues and put a number of questions to me—

• 10 Dec 2025 · Draft Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I point out that, since the new leadership took over at the BSR, progress has been significant. For example, between September and 24 November, a record 40 new build applications were processed from the previous model caseload, with the majority approved, allowing construction to begin on 10,000 homes since September. Overall performance continues to improve, with a record 578 cases closed since August 2025. The Government are completely committed to the safety of residents. The Building Safety Regulator has seen a fundamental change in the built environment. The draft regulations will enable the BSR to move forward from the HSE and take us on the journey towards a single construction regulator, which is a key recommendation of the Grenfell inquiry. Question put and agreed to.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Draft Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. The establishment of the Building Safety Regulator was the most significant reform to the building safety regime in decades. The BSR has removed significant risk from the system and placed residents at the heart of house building. The regulator is an important and non-negotiable part of our built environment, particularly as we deliver 1.5 million new safe homes and accelerate the remediation of unsafe buildings. The BSR was first established within the Health and Safety Executive, and I want to express my gratitude for the invaluable leadership and experience the HSE has provided during its establishment and early operations. It is now time for a new phase for the BSR. In June, my Department announced reforms to the regulator that included investing in strengthened and dedicated leadership; operational improvements, including the creation of a new innovation unit to improve the processing of gateway applications; and bolstered long-term investment in the capability of the BSR and its capacity to work with industry.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Planning: Floods Resilience Taskforce · Hansard source

  More

  This Government are making a record £10.5 billion investment to deliver the largest flood and coastal investment programme in history. The floods resilience taskforce brings together experts and decision makers from across the UK Government, as well as from non-government and industry organisations at local and national level. The work of the taskforce will be considered as part of our ongoing planning reform programme.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Planning: Floods Resilience Taskforce · Hansard source

  More

  This Government will maintain the highest levels of flood protection, while taking decisive action to fix our broken planning system and to deliver 1.5 million homes through our plan for change. We will consider whether further changes are necessary to manage flood risk when we consult on planning reform, including national policy relating to decision making, later this year.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Houses in Multiple Occupation: Planning Consent · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing today’s debate. I appreciate his speaking about this important issue with force and passion on behalf of those he represents. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I acknowledge the concerns that my hon. Friend raises on behalf of the residents of Mansfield about the concentration of houses in multiple occupation in some parts of his constituency. As he mentioned, houses in multiple occupation provide relatively low-cost accommodation for rent and can play an important part in the housing market, as hon. Members from both sides of the House acknowledged. However, it is right that local authorities should be able to take action where necessary to minimise any negative impacts that concentrations of such accommodation might have on local areas. As we have heard, national permitted development rights allow existing homes to change use to a house in multiple occupation for up to six people without the need for a planning application. Such smaller HMOs are also able to change to a standard family home under similar rights, but we acknowledge that those nationally set permitted development rights are not necessarily suitable in all areas. Therefore, local authorities can remove permitted development rights in a specific area by introducing an article 4 direction after consultation with the local community and an assessment of the local evidence that such a direction is required. The introduction of an article 4 direction would mean that any change of use to large or small houses in multiple occupation would require an application to the local planning authority for planning permission. All applications for planning permission are considered by the local planning authority, in line with the development plan for the area and in consultation with the local community. A clear policy for HMOs can support the assessment of future applications. Indeed, when I served as a ward councillor on Cheshire West and Chester council, we took through an article 4 direction relatively smoothly and with the support of the local community, and it is still in force in that area. Whether or not Mansfield district council chooses to consult on introducing an article 4 direction to remove the permitted development right that enables existing homes to change use to a smaller HMO will be a decision for the council to take locally. It is not something the Government should seek to influence. Having experienced it myself, I can say that the process is not costly or burdensome. Approximately 75 other councils have put in place article 4s for HMOs in parts of their boroughs. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield to continue to discuss this issue with the council if he believes that such a direction would be appropriate. None the less, if the existing powers are not working—we have heard evidence of that today from hon. Members on both sides of the House—we want to engage and find out why. It is important that HMOs are managed well, which is why all HMOs are subject to management regulations. Those regulations set out duties for managers to take safety measures, maintain the supply of gas, electricity and water, and maintain common parts and living accommodation. In addition, all local authorities are required to license HMOs with five or more people from two or more separate households who share facilities such as a kitchen or bathroom. Through additional licensing, local authorities also have the power to license HMOs with three or more people from two or more separate households who share facilities. That means that most HMOs can be licensed, providing local authorities with the means to address concerns around how they are being managed. I note that Mansfield district council recently introduced selective licensing in designated areas, and since 12 June this year landlords have been able to apply. I hope that that begins to improve the issues that we have heard about today. Local authorities have strong powers where landlords breach HMO regulations. These include powers to prosecute, to impose penalties of up to £30,000 as an alternative to prosecution, and to seek banning orders for the worst offenders. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield for a useful and constructive debate. I hope that I have set out the measures that we have in place to enable local authorities to control HMOs in their areas, and that I have made it clear that the Government are keen to engage to see how the existing powers are being exercised and how they can be improved.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Social Housing: South Cotswolds · Hansard source

  More

  I will certainly consider that. The national planning policy framework sets out that local plans must deliver, where practicable, the amount, type and tenure of homes that communities actually need. That requires carefully striking a balance between enabling necessary development, and protecting and enhancing the natural environment.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Social Housing: South Cotswolds · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to that point for the hon. Member’s benefit. A crucial first step is ensuring that local authorities plan for the right number of homes. That means assessing housing need and then identifying how much development is realistically deliverable, taking into account land availability, environmental constraints such as flood risk and protected landscapes, and other relevant factors. Local authorities can choose to go beyond their assessed need to support wider goals, such as economic growth and infrastructure investment, and to accommodate housing from elsewhere. We expect local authorities to explore all options, including maximising brownfield land, collaborating across boundaries and, where necessary, reviewing green-belt land.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Social Housing: South Cotswolds · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to give way again, I am afraid. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds raised very real concerns about flooding. Flooding can have a devastating impact on communities, homes and infrastructure, which is why we take it seriously. The Government’s approach is guided by the NPPF, which is designed to protect people and property from flooding. It sets out a clear expectation that inappropriate development in flood-prone areas should be avoided. The sequential test aims to ensure that new development is directed to areas of lower flood risk wherever possible. Where development must occur in higher-risk areas, the exception test requires that it delivers wider sustainability benefits and is made safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Those safeguards are in place to ensure that new homes are not only safe but resilient to future climate impacts. We are also committed to delivering more sustainable drainage systems through the planning system. As set out in our plan for change, we are firmly committed to delivering the biggest boost in a generation to social and affordable house building. To achieve that ambitious target, we need every part of the sector, including councils and housing associations, to be working in lockstep and delivering to their full capacity. We are taking steps to create the conditions to ensure that providers across the country can once again deliver social and affordable housing at scale. That includes supporting councils to update their local plans, locating sites for future development, balancing homes with infrastructure like schools and healthcare, and actively engaging communities through public consultation. Since coming to office, we have sought to engage with the sector at every opportunity. We have listened carefully to the views of social housing providers and their tenants on the problems they face and how best to resolve them. But we have not only listened; we have acted. At the spending review, the Chancellor announced a record package of investment designed to ensure that councils and registered providers can increase development of social and affordable housing. As has been highlighted, the decade of renewal represents a step change in our ambition to deliver social and affordable housing, setting out a long-term vision for building more homes, improving quality and strengthening communities. We recognise that for many, the reality on the ground has yet to match that ambition, but we are committed to bridging that gap through practical action. Step one of the decade of renewal has been to deliver the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent times. We have confirmed a new 10-year, £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. During its lifetime, we hope to deliver around 300,000 new homes, with at least 60% for social rent. That would result in around 180,000 homes for social rent—six times more than the decade up to 2024. We also recognise that certain types of much-needed social and affordable housing can cost more to deliver, particularly in areas with environmental constraints or infrastructure gaps. The programme has been designed to be flexible in order to ensure that it works not just for large urban developments, but for small-scale rural projects. We encourage applicants to be ambitious when coming forward with bids. The programme’s full prospectus will be published in the next few weeks and open for bids in the new year. I encourage all prospective providers to review their supply plans now—to think bigger, be bolder and come forward with ambitious plans. The hon. Lady should be assured that we understand the scale of the challenge and that we know the strength of this sector, which is why we have pledged to forge a renewed partnership with the social and affordable housing sector to support building at scale. She raised many other points, to which I will fully respond in writing, with the support of my officials. The important point to stress is that together we can deliver the homes our communities need, not just for today, but for generations to come. Question put and agreed to.