Written questions by Morton.

Communities and Local Government, whether there is a maximum period for which an affordable housing start may remain uncompleted while continuing to be treated as a valid start for statistical purposes; and if there is no such limit, how the integrity of the affordable housing starts series is maintained.

Published statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, which can be found on gov.uk here, are broken down into starts and completions. Individual units are not tracked from start-on-site to completion. This is because the data provided directly by local planning authorities is collected on an aggregate basis to reduce burden while providing sufficient detail for use. The integrity of the data is maintained through thorough quality assurance checks, including cross checking with other data sources, while consistency and comparability are ensured through the detailed published guidance for each question. The affordable housing supply statistics have been assessed by the Office for Statistics Regulation and at the last assessment their continued Accredited Official Statistics status was confirmed.

Communities and Local Government, under what circumstances affordable homes recorded by the Greater London Authority as started under the 2016 to 2023 Affordable Homes Programme may be reclassified, adjusted, or removed from official affordable housing starts statistics; and whether any such cases have occurred to date.

Published statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, which can be found on gov.uk here, are broken down into starts and completions. Individual units are not tracked from start-on-site to completion. This is because the data provided directly by local planning authorities is collected on an aggregate basis to reduce burden while providing sufficient detail for use. The integrity of the data is maintained through thorough quality assurance checks, including cross checking with other data sources, while consistency and comparability are ensured through the detailed published guidance for each question. The affordable housing supply statistics have been assessed by the Office for Statistics Regulation and at the last assessment their continued Accredited Official Statistics status was confirmed.

Communities and Local Government, how many affordable homes recorded as started by the Greater London Authority under the 2016 to 2023 Affordable Homes Programme remained uncompleted at the end of the most recent reporting period; and of those, how many had recorded no further construction activity in that period.

Published statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, which can be found on gov.uk here, are broken down into starts and completions. Individual units are not tracked from start-on-site to completion. This is because the data provided directly by local planning authorities is collected on an aggregate basis to reduce burden while providing sufficient detail for use. The integrity of the data is maintained through thorough quality assurance checks, including cross checking with other data sources, while consistency and comparability are ensured through the detailed published guidance for each question. The affordable housing supply statistics have been assessed by the Office for Statistics Regulation and at the last assessment their continued Accredited Official Statistics status was confirmed.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the transparency of local authority budget-setting processes in instances where increases in council tax are accompanied by reductions in discretionary services and increases in fees and charges; and if he will require councils to publish a standardised breakdown of the household-level financial impact of such combined measures.

The Department has not made an assessment of the adequacy of the transparency of local authority budget-setting processes. It is for individual councils to decide their level of council tax, the discretionary services they deliver, and their fees and charges. In doing this they should take into consideration a range of factors including the impact on taxpayers. Councils are required to publicise their decisions with their residents in accordance with legislation.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the cost ranges set out in Table 1 of the costed proposals report, what assessment the Client Board has made of the historical accuracy of P50 and P80 estimates in comparable UK major projects; whether the inflation-adjusted cost ranges for Full Decant and EMI+ adequately reflect recent construction inflation volatility; whether the optimism bias applied sufficiently accounts for heritage, asbestos and live-estate risks; and what estimate it has made of the potential fiscal exposure to the taxpayer should cost escalation exceed the upper P80 range.

The recent report from the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Client Board, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576), provides costs and schedules as ranges at different confidence levels (P50 and P80). This is in line with major programme best practice and guidance from the National Audit Office (NAO).In addition, the R&R Programme carries out benchmarking against UK and international comparators.The R&R works and construction costs have been benchmarked against 14 international Parliamentary projects and 18 heritage building projects, including Kings Cross Station regeneration, Manchester Town Hall, London Olympics, Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line) and others.Benchmarking of cost estimates has also included benchmarking against other comparable types of work, for example asbestos removal (including in heritage sites), hospital mechanical and electrical work, or Salisbury cathedral stonework where appropriate; the types of cost and levels of risk allowed for in estimates against the Canadian Parliament and other comparable Parliamentary projects (including UK Parliament projects) and complex restoration projects; and management costs against other major programmes. Risk has been calculated and incorporated into estimates in line with Infrastructure and Projects Authority (now the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority) and NAO guidance for programmes.The inflation profile follows the Bank of England Monetary Report (November 2024) which remains constant at 2% from 2028/29 onwards in line with Bank of England targets. Sensitivity analysis looking at the impact of construction inflation outstripping Bank of England targets was also considered.The R&R Programme has recognised the heritage, asbestos and live‑estate challenges inherent in the Palace, and elements of these risks have been incorporated into its contingency planning. However, the independent assurance findings indicate that some of these factors are not yet fully reflected in the quantitative modelling, and a portion of the remaining exposure is currently covered through Optimism Bias. As the design matures and further survey data becomes available in the proposed next stage of the works, the Programme will refine these allowances to ensure they are fully and accurately captured.Under section 7 of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, the two Houses are required to approve both the Delivery Authority’s proposals for the Palace restoration and a total funding envelope before the Programme can move to phase two. Furthermore, under section 7(4), once that approval has been obtained, any significant subsequent changes to the design, timing or funding of the works would require further approval from the Houses.Costs will be monitored closely throughout the delivery of the R&R Programme. Wider funding for the R&R Programme is subject to formal scrutiny from the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission with input from HM Treasury, and audits by the NAO. The Public Accounts Committee can and has scrutinised R&R including its current inquiry announced in December 2025. The R&R Client Board, R&R Programme Board and R&R Delivery Authority Board also scrutinise costs to ensure value for money. Reports relating to R&R delivery and costs will continue to be publicly available, and there will be regular ongoing scrutiny by Members and Member-led Boards.

What statutory role combined authorities will have under the Railways Bill in relation to service levels, timetabling and rolling stock deployment; what mechanisms will exist for regional leaders to challenge or appeal operational decisions made by Great British Railways; whether she expects the creation of a nationally managed rail body to increase central control over decisions previously taken at operator level; and what assessment she has made of the potential impact of nationalisation on rail devolution in mayoral combined authority areas.

GBR will be required to consult Mayoral Strategic Authorities (MSAs) where decisions on passenger services or rail infrastructure could have a significant impact on their areas. GBR will also have regard to the Local Transport Plans of MSAs to ensure local priorities are considered. The Bill enables cooperation between GBR and MSAs, allowing for information sharing and the ability to enter into arrangements regarding railway functions. This will enable close partnership working, providing opportunities for MSAs to shape local services and integrate rail with other modes. In addition, the Bill establishes the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) as a robust and independent appeals body, providing a clear route for appeal of GBR’s access and charging decisions. GBR will offer single-point local accountability for Mayors, with empowered local management as part of Business Units responsible for track and train. Local influence and control will need to be balanced with GBR taking decisions in the interest of the wider regional and national network.

What empirical evidence her Department relied upon in concluding that public ownership of train operations would improve punctuality and reliability; what modelling has been undertaken on the expected impact of public ownership on cancellation rates and passenger satisfaction over the next five years; what international comparators were used in developing the Government’s policy; and what measurable performance targets have been set for Great British Railways during its first three years of operation.

Great British Railways (GBR) will be a directing mind for Britain’s railway. The Impact Assessments for the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill and the Railways Bill set out the rationale for reform. We continue to look at international best practice and work with industry on targets.

What assessment she has made of the likely impact of public ownership on fare levels in the West Midlands over the next five years; whether fare-setting powers will change substantively under Great British Railways compared with the previous franchising model; what analysis has been undertaken of the relationship between ownership model and passenger satisfaction; and what steps she is taking to ensure that passengers in the West Midlands will not experience a reduction in service frequency or capacity as a result of asset reallocation decisions.

Passenger affordability is a top priority for this government when setting rail fares. That is why this year we have taken the historic step of freezing regulated rail fares for the first time in 30 years, putting money back in hard working people’s pockets and delivering savings for passengers across billions of journeys. It is important that we strike the right balance between affordability for passengers and reducing the burden on taxpayers. As set out in the Government’s response to the consultation on the Railways Bill, future fares policy under Great British Railway (GBR) will be guided by strategic parameters and guardrails, set by the Secretary of State and aligned to GBR’s financial settlement, providing GBR with greater autonomy and flexibility compared to today. These will reassure passengers that their fares will remain affordable, while ensuring sustainable use of taxpayer money on the network.

What safeguards are in place to help ensure that rolling stock currently allocated to services operated by West Midlands Trains remains allocated to those routes following transfer into public ownership; and what criteria will be used by Great British Railways when determining the geographic allocation or reallocation of rolling stock.

The Department for Transport (DfT), and the Department’s Rail Operator (DFTO) currently have no plans to reallocate rolling stock in use by West Midlands Trains and, as part of the recent transfer into public ownership, all leases have been extended until at least 2028.Under Great British Railways (GBR) we expect it to be easier to move rolling stock in response to changed circumstances than it is today. The criteria for such decisions will be developed in due course ahead of GBR’s establishment.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the cumulative infrastructure impact of developments approved on appeal on former green belt land, including pressures on local roads, GP provision, school places and drainage; whether inspectors are required to quantify those impacts against existing local capacity; and what steps his Department is taking to ensure that local objections, including those submitted through statutory consultation processes, are given material weight in appeal decisions.

I refer the Rt Hon. Member to the answers given to Questions UIN 26508 on 05 February 2025 and UIN 90834 on 21 November 2025.

Whether any minimum allocation guarantees have been provided to regional authorities; whether combined authorities or mayors will have any formal consent or veto role in decisions relating to the permanent reassignment of trains; and what assessment she has made of the potential economic impact on the West Midlands should rolling stock procured for that region be reassigned elsewhere.

There are no minimum allocation guarantees in place. Mayors currently have varying roles in rail matters affecting their areas, and the detail of future arrangements has not yet been decided.No assessment of the potential economic impact of moving trains away from the West Midlands has been made because the Department for Transport, and the Department’s Rail Operator (DFTO Ltd), currently have no plans to reallocate rolling stock in use by West Midlands Trains and, as part of the recent transfer into public ownership, all leases have been extended until at least 2028.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, what assessment it has made of the cumulative cost impact of scope additions relating to visitor experience, public engagement and new-build interventions; whether these elements materially increase the risk of programme delay; and whether removal or deferral of such elements could materially reduce the headline cost range and decant duration.

In 2024 the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Client Board (the two House Commissions meeting jointly) considered the scope of the R&R Programme: that is, the improvements and benefits to be achieved in the end-state Palace, to which both Houses of Parliament will return. Having considered various scope levels, the R&R Client Board decided against the most "transformational" scope but selected a scope which it agreed would deliver improvements while maintaining value-for-money.The majority of the construction costs for the Palace relate to the priority areas which both Houses agreed for the R&R Programme in 2022 – namely, fire safety and protection, building services, asbestos, and building fabric conservation. 84% of the Palace construction costs for the full decant option and 86% of the Palace construction costs for the EMI+ option relate to these priority works. This is set out in Annex B of the R&R Client Board’s recent report, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576).The proposed education centre and works to improve public participation account for less than 1% of Palace construction costs under full decant and less than 3% under EMI+.These works would largely be delivered through adaptations to existing spaces rather than wholly new construction, repurposing existing office space as an education centre for example. Overall, while these scope elements do introduce some additional complexity and cost, they do not fundamentally change the critical works required for programme or the associated risk. The removal or deferral of these elements is unlikely to deliver a material reduction in the headline cost range or decant duration as the underlying refurbishment and mechanical and electrical works would still be required in the areas being utilised.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, whether it has undertaken a formal value-for-money assessment of discretionary scope items including new visitor infrastructure, plaza construction, reprovision of the Education Centre and major entrance reconfiguration; whether each of those elements has an individually approved business case; and whether Parliament will be given the opportunity to vote separately on discretionary enhancements distinct from essential fire, safety and structural remediation works.

Section 2(5) of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, which established the framework for the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Programme, requires the Programme to have regard to (amongst other things) the need to ensure the Parliamentary building works represent good value for money, the need for improved visitor access to the Palace of Westminster after completion of the works, and the need to ensure that educational and other facilities are provided for people visiting the Palace after completion of the works.In 2024 the R&R Client Board considered the scope of the R&R Programme: that is, the improvements and benefits to be achieved in the end-state Palace, to which both Houses of Parliament will return. Having considered various scope levels, the Client Board decided against the most "transformational" scope but selected a scope which it agreed would deliver improvements while maintaining value-for-money.While there are no standalone business cases for individual scope elements within the Palace, all such elements will be included within the Programme Business Case, which will follow a decision by the Houses on the preferred way forward. Chapter 7 of the R&R Client Board’s recent report, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576) sets out the Client Board’s view on what the Houses should be invited to approve. The exact form and content of any motion put before the Houses is to be decided.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the costed proposals report and in particular the proposed new main security entrance and enhanced search and screening facilities, what assessment it has made of whether existing security infrastructure could be upgraded without major structural reconfiguration; what proportion of total Programme cost is attributable to the creation of new security entrance infrastructure; whether security services formally requested this as an operational requirement; and whether a staged upgrade to current screening arrangements was evaluated as a lower-cost alternative.

The preferred scope for all options under the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Programme will deliver a fit-for-purpose and accessible visitor arrival space, including higher capacity security search and screen areas that will reduce the likelihood of queuing outside, A wide range of potential locations within the Palace were assessed for the search and screening facility, including enhancing the current arrangements. The search and screening facility is proposed within a structure that is already part of the broader programme of works to create new plant space. The location has been selected to improve secure routes through the Palace and support new accessible visitor routes. Because of this it would be difficult to construct in stages or to retain the current search and screening location for now and relocate it in future without significant disruption, inefficiency, or duplicated cost.Overall security measures account for 3% of Palace construction costs across all options. This is set out in Annex B of the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Client Board’s recent report, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576).

What operational and financial risks were identified ahead of the transfer of West Midlands Trains into public ownership; what additional costs are expected to arise in the 2025–26 and 2026–27 financial years as a result of that transfer; whether any contingency arrangements have been put in place in the event of performance deterioration following transfer; and whether staffing arrangements, industrial relations frameworks or pension liabilities will change as a consequence of the move.

The Department considered all relevant circumstances of West Midlands Trains’ (WMT) position prior to transferring its services into public ownership on 1 February 2026. The Department does not expect WMT’s cost base to rise as a result of the transfer. With any change in operator, private or public, there are always some implementation costs, which will be determined in due course. However, these are expected to be offset by future payments to outgoing private sector operators falling away. The Department does not expect performance to deteriorate and WMT will be required to meet agreed performance targets included in a Services Agreement. There are no changes to contracted staff terms and conditions including pension arrangements because as part of the transfer into Public Ownership, a full TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment) process was undertaken.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the impact of Planning Inspectorate decisions overruling local councils in respect of development on land designated as green belt; how many such decisions have been taken since July 2024; what proportion of those decisions relied on the application of “grey belt” or similar reclassification; what guidance has been issued to inspectors on the evidential threshold required to justify such reclassification; and if he will publish all correspondence, internal guidance and ministerial submissions relating to the interpretation and use of “grey belt” in decision-making.

From 1 July 2024 to 31 December 2025, the Planning Inspectorate overturned the 849 Local Planning Authoritiy decisions on cases concerning the Green Belt. 811 of these are Planning and 38 are Enforcement. 2523 decided cases were identified as within Green Belt, over that time period. No Ministerial correspondence or guidance has been provided to the Planning Inspectorate on the evidential threshold required to justify reclassification on Green Belt. Inspectors deal with appeals on a case-by-case basis having regard to relevant development plan policies, national planning policy and guidance, and any relevant material considerations. I otherwise refer the Rt. hon. Member to the answers given to Question UIN 111723 on 24 February 2026 and Question UIN 36396 on 12 March 2025.

What estimate she has made of the total capital value of rolling stock introduced on West Midlands routes since 2018; what proportion of that funding was supported by public funds, government-backed financing, or regional contributions; what assessment she has made of the potential financial implications for regions which have benefited from recent investment should those assets be reallocated under a nationalised model; and how rolling stock assets will be accounted for within the balance sheet and regional reporting structures of Great British Railways.

There has been no estimate made of the total capital value of rolling stock because all WMT trains are leased from rolling stock companies who own the rolling stock. WMT's rolling stock lease charges make up approximately 12% of its cost base. Overall WMT's costs are greater than its fares revenue with the difference being made up by taxpayer support of approximately £289m in 2024/25. There was no government backed finance for this new rolling stock, nor any regional contributions. No assessment of the regional financial implications of reallocating assets has been made because the Department for Transport (DfT), and the Department’s Rail Operator (DFTO) currently have no plans to reallocate rolling stock in use by West Midlands Trains. Organisational design work on Great British Railways is ongoing, with the accounting and reporting arrangements being a function of final design.

Communities and Local Government, with reference to the Written Statement of 27 January 2026 on Commonhold and leasehold reform, HCWS1278, what exemptions his Department is considering to the proposed ban on new leasehold flats; what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the ban on (a) housing supply, (b) development viability and (c) build-to-rent schemes; whether he has had discussions with (i) institutional investors and (ii) SME builders on the proposed ban; and what steps he is planning to take to prevent the policy reducing (A) flat construction and (B) increasing prices.

I refer the Rt Hon. Member to the ‘Moving to commonhold: banning leasehold for new flats’ consultation launched on 27 January 2026. It is available on gov.uk here and will remain open for responses until 24 April 2026.

Communities and Local Government, with reference to the Written Statement entitled Resetting the S106 system, HCWS1286, published on 28 January 2026, whether additional legal, valuation, and planning resources will be made available to local planning authorities.

The Planning and Infrastructure Act includes powers that allow the Secretary of State to delegate planning fee-setting to local planning authorities, enabling them to recover costs and reinvest to provide a more efficient and responsive planning service, including in respect of making timelier decisions. At the Autumn Budget 2024, the Chanceller announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-2026. At the Budget on 26 November 2025, the Chancellor announced a further £48 million of investment over three years to support local planning authorities to attract, retain and develop skilled planners over a sustained period. Of this, £28.8 million has been allocated to MHCLG’s Planning Capacity and Capability Programme, equating to £9.6 million additional per year for the next three years. This allocation will supplement existing budgets. In total, the Programme now aims to deliver around 1,325 planners by the end of this Parliament, significantly exceeding our original manifesto commitment to deliver 300 new planning officers. Wider cross-government recruitment and investment in planning capacity and capability will increase this figure further to approximately 1,400 planners. The new funding will support both graduate and mid-career entry routes into planning, including by means of expanding the Pathways to Planning Graduate Scheme and establishing a Planning Careers Hub.

Communities and Local Government, with reference to the Written Statement by the Minister of State for Housing and Planning of 27 January 2026, HCWS1278, what enforcement framework will replace leasehold forfeiture; how landlords and managing agents will recover legitimate arrears under the new regime; what assessment has been made of the potential risk of increased non-payment or moral hazard; what assessment has been made of the potential impact of these policies on tribunal and court caseloads; and whether he plans to take steps to help ensure building finances remain sustainable.

The draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill includes provisions that abolish the right to forfeit a long residential lease for breach of covenant and introduce a new statutory lease enforcement scheme. An Impact Assessment for the draft Bill will be published in due course.