English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 46—Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority.

Government new clause 49—“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”.

Government new clause 50—Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence.

Government new clause 51—Standards relating to the suspension or revocation of a regulated licence.

Government new clause 52—Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence.

Government new clause 53—Further provision about standards.

Government new clause 54—Guidance.

Government new clause 55—Relationship with existing licensing legislation.

Government new clause 56—Regulations.

Government new clause 57—Interpretation.

New clause 1—Consent for local government restructuring—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may only make an order or regulations to create, change, or dissolve a strategic authority with the consent of all 6 constituent councils.

(2) The “constituent councils” are any county council, district council, town council or parish council.’

This new clause would mean local government restructuring could not take place without the consent of the constituent councils.

New clause 6—Local authority oversight over management of land of community value—

‘(1) A local authority is responsible for overseeing the management of land of community value in their area.

(2) If the relevant local authority identifies deliberate neglect or mismanagement of land of community value by its owner, the authority may—

(a) exercise compulsory purchase powers, or

(b) refuse planning changes in relation to the land.’

This new clause would require local authorities to oversee the management of land of community value in their area and enable them to exercise compulsory purchase powers in instances of mismanagement.

New clause 10—Community ownership fund—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which establish a community ownership fund within six months of the passage of this Act.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative procedure.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for any strategic authority to apply for funding of up to £2 million to support any—

(a) voluntary and community organisation, or

(b) parish or town council,

to purchase of an assets of community value they determine is at risk in their area.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Community Ownership Fund to which strategic authorities may apply for funding.

Amendment (a) to new clause 10, at end insert—

‘(4) On the day on which regulations are first made under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(a) how a strategic authority can apply to the community ownership fund;

(b) how the community ownership fund is governed and administered;

(c) any other information which in the opinion of the Secretary of State assists strategic authorities and other persons in understanding the purposes of and application process for the community ownership fund; and

(d) a timetable for when applications to the fund may be submitted, and by when they should be responded to.’

New clause 11—Local public accounts committees—

‘(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment of a public accounts committee in each mayoral strategic authority area (“a local public accounts committee”).

(2) Regulations made under this section must—

(a) make provision relating to the membership of local public accounts committees, including appointment; tenure; and arrangements for chairing of committees;

(b) make provision about support for local public accounts committees by the relevant local audit services;

(c) empower local public accounts committees to require the provision of information from all providers of public services in the mayoral strategic authority area;

(d) make provision about the functions of local public accounts committees, including the power of the committees to report on—

(i) the effectiveness with which mayoral strategic authorities exercise any of their functions;

(ii) the effectiveness with which any local partners exercise functions on behalf of the strategic mayoral authority.

(iii) the effectiveness with which any local partners collaborate with the mayoral strategic authority.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “local partner” has the meaning given in section 17B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (as inserted by section 21 of this Act).”’

This new clause would require the introduction of Local Public Accounts Committees within one year of this Act coming into force. LPACs would ensure scrutiny and accountability across the whole of the local public service spending and activity.

New clause 12—Assets of negative community value—

‘In the Localism Act 2011, after section 92 insert—

“92A Assets of negative community value

(1) A building or other land in a local authority’s area is of negative community value if, in the opinion of the authority, the asset—

(a) has been the subject of a measurable and sustained increase in anti-social behaviour in the locality,

(b) has caused material disruption or harm to the amenity, cohesion, or wellbeing of the local community, or

(c) has been vacant or derelict for a continuous period of not less than three years, and during that period no meaningful attempt has been made by the owner of the asset to restore it to use.

(2) A local authority may maintain and publish a list of assets of negative community value in its area.

(3) Where a local authority has listed an asset of negative community value, the authority may—

(a) take such steps as may be prescribed by regulations to secure temporary management or community stewardship of the asset;

(b) invite community groups, charities, or other qualifying organisations to bring forward proposals for its use or stewardship;

(c) exercise such enforcement or compulsory acquisition powers as may be made available by regulations made pursuant to subsection (5).

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) make provision as to the procedure for listing an asset of negative community value;

(b) confer rights of appeal on owners or occupiers of listed assets;

(c) provide for safeguards to ensure proportionality and fairness in the designation and management of such assets;

(d) make further provision for the disposal, management, or transfer of listed assets to qualifying community groups.

(5) For the purposes of this paragraph “community group” has the same meaning as in section 86D of this Act (as inserted by schedule 19 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025).”’

This new clause would create a parallel category to “assets of community value” by enabling local authorities to designate “assets of negative community value” (ANCVs). Designation would trigger a framework for temporary community stewardship or pathways to transfer into community use. Further provision would be made via secondary legislation.

New clause 13—Duty relating to community empowerment—

‘(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, and each year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report assessing the effectiveness of Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 (Community empowerment).

(2) The report must—

(a) consider the effectiveness of the provisions in Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 against the criteria in subsection (3), and

(b) set out a plan for better meeting those criteria, including potential legislative provision.

(3) The criteria are, in relation to people in England—

(a) access to a clean and healthy environment;

(b) access to land or space to play, roam, and swim;

(c) access to land for food growing;

(d) the ability to contribute to and challenge decisions made at a local level;

(e) access to, use of, and ability to propose acquisition of assets of community value.

(4) Within the period of 21 days beginning on the day in which a Report under this section, a Minister of the Crown must move a motion in the House of Commons that the House has considered the Report.

(5) In reckoning any period of 21 days under subsection (4), no account is taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than four days.’

This new clause would require the Government to report annually on the effectiveness of community empowerment measures under the Localism Act 2011. It requires that Ministers assess how well communities can access land, green space, and local decision-making mechanisms. The report must include plans to strengthen these rights, including potential new legislation.

New clause 16—Funding for local authority governance reorganisation—

‘The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded for any purposes relating to the reorganisation of cabinet governance structures that are required or enabled by this Act.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure funding is available for any rearranging of councils’ governance models.

New clause 17—Resource and support for local authority implementation of the Act—

‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that relevant authorities are provided with the resources and support necessary in order to carry out any functions conferred on, or required of, them by virtue of this Act.

(2) Any resources and support provided by the Secretary of State must be sufficient to ensure that there is no delay to the holding of any future local elections resulting from the implementation of, or delay to the implementation of, this Act.’

This new clause would ensure local authorities are provided with the resources and support they need to deliver the content of this legislation with specific regard to preventing any further delays to future local elections.

New clause 18—Councillors: proportional representation vote system—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a proportional representation vote system in elections of local authority councillors.

(2) The regulations in subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.’

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to introduce a proportional representation voting system for local authority councillors.

New clause 19—Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners: alternative vote system—

‘(1) Within three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the use of the alternative vote system in elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners.

(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause would require the introduction of the Alternative Vote system for elections of mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections within three months.

New clause 20—Training for councillors—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require a strategic authority to provide training for councillors following the designation, creation, or merger of any class of strategic authority.

(2) Regulations under this section must—

(a) make provision for training within six months of any designation, creation or merger, and every four years thereafter.

(b) make provision for training to apply to all levels of local government within the area of the newly designated strategic authority,

(c) provide that training under addresses any changes to the strategic authority’s governance practice, and

(d) specify a period during which councillors must complete the training under subsection (2)(a).

(3) The Secretary of State may create guidance for strategic authorities regarding the content of the training in subsection (2)(a).’

This new clause would create a requirement for councillors to receive training following the designation, creation or merging of any class of strategic authority. It allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the content of this training.

New clause 26—Local authority acquisition of dormant assets—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument enable a local authority to carry out functions relating to compulsory acquisition of land under section 226A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by Schedule 15 of this Act) where the local authority is satisfied that any land of community value to be purchased within the authority area is dormant.

(2) Land of community value is considered dormant if—

(a) the land has been included in the authority’s list of assets of community value under section 86A for five years continuously,

(b) a notice of relevant disposal under section 86M was issued at least once during the five year period under sub-paragraph (a),

(c) there has been a preferred community buyer whose offer was rejected despite the buyer offering the value price determined under section 86T or an agreed price with the owner by the end of the negotiation period (see section 86S(4)), and

(d) the owner has not entered into a relevant disposal of the land with any other buyer during the permitted sale period under section 86M(6).

(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority to engage the compulsory acquisition function under Schedule 15 of this Act if the land is considered dormant.

New clause 27—Community right to challenge: duty to undertake joint reviews—

‘(1) In Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011, omit Chapter 2 and insert—

“80A Duty to undertake joint reviews

(1) A relevant authority must conduct a joint review if a request is submitted by a relevant body.

(2) A joint review under subsection (1) must—

(a) enable the relevant body to shape the provision, commissioning, or design of the service through a set period of consultation with the relevant authority;

(b) be concluded within a reasonable timeframe, as prescribed in statutory guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State following consultation with community organisations and public bodies;

(c) produce outcomes that, following the conclusion of the review, should be enacted by the relevant authority through any necessary changes to the provision, commissioning or design of the service.

(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the form and conduct of consultation under paragraph (2)(a), which must include measures to ensure that a relevant body can participate meaningfully in the decision-making process.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

“relevant authority” means any public body responsible for delivering a local service;

“relevant body” means—

(a) a voluntary or community body;

(b) a body, person, or trust which is established solely for a charitable purpose;

(c) a parish council;

(d) a group of at least ten users of a local service;

(e) two or more persons who are employed by a relevant authority;

(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause replaces the duty to consider an expression of interest in the Localism Act 2011 with a duty triggering a joint review and requiring local authorities to work collaboratively with communities and service users to shape local services.

New clause 34—Councillor standards—

‘(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to establish a recall process for councillors who have been found to have breached their council’s code of conduct.

(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a recall process for Councillors who have been found to have breached their council’s code of conduct.

New clause 35—Consideration of impact on local elections—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must take steps to ensure a relevant activity does not—

(a) delay,

(b) postpone, or

(c) lead to the cancellation of,

any election of members to any local authority affected by the relevant activity.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “relevant activity” means the making of an order or regulations, or any other exercise of power, relating to the reorganisation or restructuring of one or more local authorities under this Act.’

New clause 38—Land quality assessments—

‘(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to enable a local authority to facilitate an assessment of the quality of an area of land within its area where the conditions in subsection (2) apply.

(2) The conditions are that—

(a) an application has been made to a local planning authority for planning permission for development on the area of land,

(b) the area of land has not been allocated for development in a local plan or any Land Use Framework,

(c) the area of land has been used for agricultural purposes,

(d) two or more Agricultural Land Classification assessments have been undertaken in the last 10 years, and

(e) the planning applicant and the current owner of the area of land are in disagreement regarding the quality of the area of land.

(3) An assessment under subsection (1) must—

(a) be conducted by an independent surveying organisation, and

(b) determine the area of land’s suitability for development.

(4) The costs of an assessment under subsection (1) must be divided equally between the planning applicant and current owner of the area of land.

(5) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

New clause 42—Procedure relating to postponement of elections—

‘(1) Section 105 (Orders and regulations) of the Local Government Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (6), after “9N” insert “87”.’.

This new clause would require any order postponing a local election to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

New clause 47—Rutland: status as ceremonial county—

(1) The Lieutenancies Act 1997 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, in the Table, after “Nottingham” insert as a new row—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I am inclined to the view that there are two separate issues here. He will have heard my earlier comments about statements being made to this House first and how deeply regrettable it is when statements are made to the media ahead of being announced to the House. However, with specific reference to the Minister’s comments yesterday, I believe they would far better be addressed as a point of debate. I am sure the shadow Minister will want to raise that later on in this afternoon’s debate.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Today I will continue to highlight our concerns on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The Labour Government spend a great deal of time telling the country that they are putting power back into the hands of communities and say they are on the side of local leaders and delivering locally led renewal, but when we examine the powers that the Bill actually grants, it is clear very quickly that they risk doing the opposite.

Through this Bill, power is being snatched upwards and away from local voices. It strengthens combined authorities and concentrates power with a statutory authority mayor at the expense of constituent, unitary, parish and town councils. It enables key planning decisions to bypass local authorities and gives Ministers sweeping powers to redraw governance arrangements without genuine local engagement. Local leaders, parish councillors and residents see that, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches certainly see that.

If we are to empower our communities, as this Government promise, this legislation needs to be improved. That is what we seek to do with the amendments we bring forward today, just as we did yesterday. Let me begin with our primary measure, new clause 17. The Government really cannot keep coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that they want locally led delivery while creating legislation that puts responsibilities on councils without giving them money or support to do the job. That just does not add up. The truth is that without even considering devolution, councils are currently not funded properly. Every single one, regardless of political leadership, is under unprecedented strain, and many are on the brink of effective bankruptcy. Some have declared section 114 notices, and others are warning that they may not last the financial year. Even more are raiding reserves, cutting services to the bone and desperately firefighting rising demand in social care, temporary accommodation and children’s services.

Instead of addressing this crisis with the urgent, national level of investment for which local government was calling out for years under the Conservatives and now this Government, the Government seem committed to perpetuating this problem, albeit now with a different approach of giving to one council by taking from another. We see that clearly in the rather inaptly named fair funding review, which does not increase funding from central Government, but simply redistributes an already insufficient pot. It is a winless exercise dressed up as equality.

Council leaders from across the political spectrum are all deeply worried that this Bill is a continuation of that same approach. It asks councils to do more, take on more and deliver more, all without serious new funding models, and nowhere is that clearer than in west Surrey. This Government have imposed a new local governance model that local leaders have warned will be financially unstable and structurally incoherent. Instead of listening to local authority leaders and residents, the Government pressed ahead with a structure that groups multiple councils facing extreme financial pressure—the legacy of current and former Conservative Administrations—leaving the new West Surrey council with roughly five times the debt of neighbouring East Surrey council.

What is the Government’s answer to the question of how West Surrey council is to manage its significant debt and financial instability? Their answer is that West Surrey should pool its budgets, sell its assets and harmonise council tax. They may as well have suggested tackling the debt with hopes and prayers. We simply cannot redistribute a crisis. We cannot create a strong structure on foundations that are already breaking under debt, demand and chronic underfunding, and that is exactly why our new clause 17 is so vital. If we ignore local leaders and refuse to fund local government properly, we do not empower councils; we set them up to fail. I call on MPs from across this House to back new clause 17 and back our local councils.

Funding alone is not enough; devolution relies on democratic legitimacy. That brings me to new clause 35, which would safeguard the integrity of local democracy by ensuring that residents could hold their leaders to account at the ballot box. Our new clause would ensure that when Government restructure local governance, shift power or redraw boundaries, they must explicitly consider the impact on local elections.

In Surrey this year, as in many places, we have seen clearly what happens when elections are cancelled or postponed. The failing Conservative Administration has been allowed to remain in office not because residents have endorsed them, but because the Government and the local Conservative leadership came together to deny residents their chance to remove them. Based on local by-election results, it is clear that the Administration would have been removed, had the elections taken place in May.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Wrigley]

There is another aspect in which this Bill is lacking. In Devon, where we have a county and district system, the city of Exeter is ruled by a district council, which will be absorbed into the unitary council, leaving Exeter—unlike the rest of Devon—without a town or parish council. The same thing would happen in Torbay, should Torbay unitary be changed and moved to cover a wider area. That would leave Torquay and Paignton without town councils, while Brixham has one. Does my hon. Friend agree that my new clause 63, which would require re-parishing or the introduction of town or parish councils in those areas that lose them in this way, is a good thing that would prevent far-off unitary councils being overwhelmed by the minutiae and issues of an individual city?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We have a lot of speakers this afternoon. If Members make long interventions, we will simply not get through everybody.

[Zöe Franklin]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of our fantastic parish and town councils, and I hope that Members from all parts of this House will support that new clause.

We have tabled new clause 70 because neighbourhood planning only works if communities can afford to take part. Without support, neighbourhood planning becomes a slogan. With support, it becomes genuine grassroots devolution. We believe that new clause 70 would plug that gap and ensure that real community voices are heard.

Finally, the Liberal Democrats are seeking to plug yet another gap that the Bill sadly leaves wide open, and we return to the theme of parish and town councils. Under the Bill, those could be sidelined, merged or absorbed without proper public consultation. New clause 41 closes that loophole by protecting parish and town councils from being swept aside in the rush to build bigger, centralised combined authorities. If the Government claim to trust communities, they must protect the governance closest to those communities, and new clause 41 delivers just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I think some of those points might have been stretching my patience on scope somewhat. I do not intend to put on a fixed time limit. However, Members might like to consider whether they can stay within the bounds of about six minutes, so that I can get everyone in.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to argue the case for Wessex. [Laughter.] No, I don’t.

I originally came in to support new clauses 67 and 68, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), on the licensing of cabs and others. Unfortunately, he had problems printing out his speech and arrived late, so he is unable to speak directly to them, but I am sure he will intervene on the subject.

Things have moved on since we first drafted new clauses 67 and 68, and I am really grateful. The Government have brought forward a series of amendments—new clauses 49 to 54, I believe—that deal with national licensing. That is a huge step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) eloquently put the arguments for why those provisions are needed, and moved the argument on as well, because out-of-borough licensing is the big issue that is hitting us at the moment.

I declare an interest as a member of Unite—it is in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The genesis of our involvement is that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and I convened a meeting of cab drivers who were all members of Unite. The GMB has taken an important role in this as well. It is the first time I had seen a united front of cab drivers, with black cab drivers and other drivers representing all areas of this sector of the economy united in this one demand on proper national licensing and out-of-area provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Dr Ben Spencer.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Yesterday, my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), asked the Minister whether Surrey will get a mayor. He did not get much of an answer—we can only imagine what has led the Government over the past year to get cold feet on the election of mayors going forwards. I want to talk about new clause 1 and amendment 2, on consent for change, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on behalf of the official Opposition.

Surrey and others have been working with the Government to maximise the opportunities of devolution locally. As part of that, there has been quite a debate over the unitary model and whether there should be two, three or one unitary authorities. On the face of it, ideally, going for one unitary would mean savings, but the Government have decided that is not possible, so, through various processes, the decision has been made to have two unitaries. That has all been done in pursuit of a mayor.

A mayor would make a big difference in ensuring that Surrey can, as the Government put it, unlock devolution. It is frustrating that we have got to this stage—all this work has been done—but there has still been no firm commitment that Surrey will get a mayor, particularly when a unitary model is being adopted purely to seek a mayor when, actually, a better model locally would be a single unitary. I see the Minister nodding; I am sure she can see that conundrum and how there is frustration about the fact that a mayor has not yet been announced.

A mayor would bring huge benefits in leading on strategic projects such as the River Thames scheme that I have been trying to push to be built as soon as possible. It would also bring benefits in health, with accountability for integrated care boards—again, I have been calling for that—and on transport locally. I have been calling for a duty to co-ordinate, which I think a mayor with powers would also be able to deliver for Surrey. In housing, I am calling for the prevention of inappropriate local development, which is blighting areas across Runnymede and Weybridge and which will affect both the east and west unitaries when they are set up. In policing, given that the Government have announced that they will wrap up the police and crime commissioners, we need a mayor to take on the role at the cut-off date of 2028.

I beg the Minister to announce, either in winding up, via a written ministerial statement or otherwise the confirmation of a mayor for Surrey and a guarantee that next year’s elections will go ahead. Will she also explain how my constituents can be shielded from other councils’ debt as part of the unitary reforms that are going ahead?

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I am pleased to speak to several amendments, tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues, that relate to community assets, planning and local democratic engagement. These are practical proposals designed to strengthen the community empowerment provisions in the Bill and make them work in our communities.

The Bill removes the long-standing duty for councils to publish notices in printed local newspapers. In a constituency like Stratford-on-Avon, that is a serious concern. Not everyone is online, especially in our rural villages, where digital connectivity is still patchy, and many older residents rely on the local newspaper for essential information. Printed notices remain one of the clearest ways that residents hear about planning applications, road closures, licensing changes and council decisions that affect their daily lives. They also support a local press sector that has played a vital role in maintaining transparency and scrutiny and informing citizens. I have tabled amendment 28 to keep that requirement in place. It is a simple safeguard to ensure that residents are not excluded from the democratic process because they happen to live in an area with poor broadband or simply prefer print.

Turning to community assets, I have tabled amendments 30 and 32 because the current system contains a glaring flaw. Once listed, an asset of community value drops off the register automatically after five years, regardless of whether it is still important to the community. For many villages and towns, the asset might be the local pub, the village green, the village hall or a community shop. These remain part of the fabric of local life for decades, yet community groups often discover only after the fact that the listing has expired, and they have lost the right to bid.

Amendments 30 and 32 would remove the automatic expiry so that protection does not vanish simply because a bureaucratic deadline has passed. It shifts the burden away from volunteers and neighbourhood groups and ensures continuity for assets that people rely on. It is exactly what the community value regime was meant to achieve.

Linked to that is amendment 33, which concerns planning decisions affecting assets of community value. At present, even if an asset is listed, there is no obligation for planning authorities to give that status special weight. Communities see treasured buildings or spaces demolished or redeveloped despite having taken the trouble to secure recognition. Amendment 33 would allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance requiring planning authorities to consider community value properly and give this weight when determining applications.

New clause 6 goes one step further in safeguarding these community assets once listed. It gives local councils a clear duty to oversee how land of community value is managed. If an owner lets the land fall into neglect or deliberately runs it down to justify redevelopment, councils would have the tools to intervene, including compulsory purchase where necessary. It creates real accountability for absentee owners and ensures that assets meant for community benefit remain so in practice.

Taken together, these amendments reflect a simple principle: devolution cannot just be about shifting powers upwards to remote large combined authorities; it must also strengthen the tools available to people and places at the most local level. Communities know best what matters in their area. They should not have to fight to keep their village hall or their community green space because of arbitrary deadlines or loopholes in planning policy.

Local people have the ability to revive and strengthen the places that they call home, but they can only do that if power is shared with them, rather than concentrated in the hands of a few distant mayors. If Ministers are committed to meaningful community empowerment, they should take these proposals seriously and accept them, along with the wider set of amendments tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Olivia Blake.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

I place on record my sincere thanks to the Secretary of State and Ministers for the constructive, open and thoughtful way in which they have engaged with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), as well as local leaders from the council in Sheffield, throughout the passage of the Bill, to solve an issue of great importance to my constituents.

More broadly, the Bill and the amendment before us today mark a significant step forward for local democracy in Sheffield and beyond. The Bill strengthens community voice, empowers local leaders and brings decisions closer to the people that they affect. We can all celebrate its commitment to clearer, more responsive pathways for devolution. It also tackles big issues, such as the national standards that we need in taxi licensing. I declare an interest as a member of the GMB, which has been campaigning on the issue for many years. I am glad that the Minister has grasped the nettle on the tricky issues relating to local government audit, which those of us who have served on the Public Accounts Committee know has been an issue for many years.

I am especially pleased that the Government have tabled amendments 152 and 153, which will allow Sheffield to retain its committee system, and not just for a protected period but beyond that. The amendments reflect a core principle of effective devolution: to enable local areas to shape the governance structures that best suit their needs and democratic traditions, especially when there has been a referendum, as in Sheffield. I pay tribute to the residents who tirelessly advocated for that and worked alongside us to find the best possible outcome.

For Sheffield, the committee system, agreed to by referendum, is rooted in transparency, co-operation and collective decision making, and embodies the values that our residents strongly support. This is a particularly important moment as it highlights the positive partnership that can be built between central Government and local people. It shows what meaningful devolution can achieve, focusing on shared goals and delivering the best outcomes for communities, and that the Government have listened and Sheffield’s voice has been heard.

The Bill is transformational and I am confident that it will help local leaders to deliver our values and priorities, and the aspirations of the people that they serve. I thank all the campaigners, including those involved in It’s Our City, for campaigning on the issue for many years, including in response to the Bill.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

We now come to King’s consent. Do we have a Privy Counsellor present?

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

King’s consent signified.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.

Clause 2

National policy statements: parliamentary requirements

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 2, and Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2.

Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 31, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 32, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 33, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 37, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 38, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 39, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 40, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 4 to 30, 34 to 36, and 41 to 117.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity our country needs and the higher living standards working people deserve. That is why it has always been this Government’s No. 1 mission. This landmark Bill, which will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, is integral to the success of that mission, and it will play a vital part in delivering the Government’s plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. The Government are therefore determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible, and I am pleased that the House has an opportunity today to renew its commitment to this vital legislation and express its firm opposition to attempts to undermine its core principles.

Before I turn to the amendments before us, let me put on record once again my heartfelt thanks to Baroness Taylor for her prodigious efforts in guiding the Bill through the other place, and my gratitude to peers collectively for the comprehensive and rigorous scrutiny to which they subjected it. The Government made a number of important changes to the Bill in the other place, with a view to ensuring that it will work as intended, that its full potential in respect of unlocking economic growth is realised, and to provide further reassurance that a number of its key provisions will achieve the beneficial outcomes that we expect. In the interests of time, I will update the House briefly on the two most significant areas of change.

The first concerns the package of measures we introduced last month to maximise the growth potential of the Bill. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill’s impact assessment estimates that it could benefit the UK economy by up to £7.5 billion over the next 10 years. That is an assessment, it should be noted, that was made prior to the incorporation into the Bill of several important pro-growth measures, including the removal of the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for nationally significant infrastructure project applications—a change that could result in cost savings of over £1 billion across the pipeline of projects in this Parliament. The package introduced last month further bolsters the growth impact of the Bill. It included provisions that further streamline the consenting of reservoirs, clarify Natural England’s strategic advisory role, and facilitate the deployment of up to three additional gigawatts of onshore wind and secure the billions of pounds’ worth of investment into UK services that come with that.

The second area of change concerns the package of amendments we tabled in July in respect of part 3 of the Bill, which directly addressed a range of issues that were highlighted in the advice the Government received from the Office for Environmental Protection on the new nature restoration fund. They provided for a number of additional safeguards, strengthened and made more explicit those that were already in the Bill on its introduction, and further clarified how the NRF will operate going forward. I emphasise that none of the changes made will affect the process by which house builders interact with an environmental delivery plan, namely by paying a levy to discharge specific environmental obligations through it, and nor do they undermine the strategic approach that underpins the model.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Apologies, but I want to go back to the point the Minister was making about Lords amendment 1. As Chair of the Transport Committee, I am slightly concerned that we will get less opportunity and time to scrutinise major infrastructure projects. Had these proposals been law when High Speed 2 was first being considered, instead of a hybrid Bill, it is likely that HS2 would have come under them, and the third runway at Heathrow, plus the national infrastructure network, will do so. Does he not agree that this House and its Committees should have sufficient chance, not just to wait for the Minister’s convenience—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady will know that that is a very long intervention.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I recognise the point my hon. Friend makes, but I do not agree that the change will mean Select Committees do not have the opportunity to feed their views into Government. As I said, what we are trying to do with the clause is ensure that the scrutiny provided is proportionate to the changes being made. These are, in most cases, minor and reflective changes. They do not entail the full amendment of a national policy statement; that would have to come via the normal route. I hope my comments on what we expect of Minister’s attendance at Select Committees and in other areas provides her with reassurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not, I am afraid, as I am bringing my remarks to a close, but I am happy to respond to any points when winding up the debate.

I appreciate the leave you have given me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to set out the Government’s position on the large number of amendments before us. I urge the House to support the Government’s position, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

My right hon. Friend tempts me to fast-forward to a point that will arise later on.

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the end of her Budget statement last year that she was wiping the slate clean, and from here on in it was on them, she was absolutely right. If we look at the impact that the measures taken have had on the deliverability of housing and infrastructure, and the rising costs of government driven by the colossal borrowing spree that has been embarked upon by this Chancellor, there is no question. A Government who have borrowed £100 billion this financial year alone are not in a position to talk about a businesslike approach to delivering housing and infrastructure.

The Opposition share the concern that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) set out in her intervention, highlighted in Lords amendment 1. Ongoing accountability is crucial. We know there will be trade-offs, whether it is on Heathrow—an issue that affects her constituents and mine—or High Speed 2, which has been very much debated, the delivery of new cross-Thames infrastructure to the east of London, new ports, new airports or new roads. There is a significant parliamentary interest in all those issues, and that process provides an opportunity to explain to the public where those trade-offs sit.

On heritage sites and reservoirs, the Lords have done some excellent work. I am grateful to the Minister and the Government for their willingness to embrace the debate about electric vehicle charging, and I know noble Lords have been extremely keen to support the work being done to deliver that net zero agenda. However, so many elements of the Bill incorporate a tendency to centralisation. The lack of community-level accountability and lack of ability for local residents to have their say about what is happening in their area—for example, on assets of community value—remains a fundamental concern. If we want those communities to embrace development and new homes, they need to be able to see the benefits and opportunities that a development will bring to their lives.

Another issue covered in the Lords amendments is chalk streams. I declare for the record that the River Colne, which borders my constituency, is a chalk stream, the majority of which are in southern England. Given the work done by my party in government, we are determined to ensure that there is an appropriate level of protection enshrined in legislation. We would choose to develop brownfield first. We seek the swifter redevelopment of brownfield sites, including here in our capital city, rather than intruding on the green belt, which is critical for nature, is important for the health of human beings and for leisure and is often a site of sports facilities and agriculture, supporting the lives of our communities. That is another area where, sadly, this legislation falls far short.

It is clear that this Government have a heavyweight majority. Through the measures that are being implemented, the Government are using that majority to deliver a left hook of reducing community voice and community say in planning applications. They are following that with a right hook of reducing protections on the green belt and building on virgin land—as we heard from the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who is no longer in his place—rather than previously developed land being recycled. That is followed by the uppercut of wholesale top-down council reorganisation, and then a jab demanding that local plans the length and breadth of the country be changed through the national planning policy framework changes, without there being remotely the capacity at the Planning Inspectorate to deal with those in a timely manner.

A number of Members have said, “Why is this happening, and what do you think needs to be done to address it?” The knockout blow to our housing market in the last 12 months has been delivered by the massive hike in national insurance introduced by this Government, which is leading developers, builders, the whole supply chain and local authorities to fear that they will have to throw in the towel, because it is simply not possible, under such a business-unfriendly Government, to deliver homes and infrastructure that require a pro-business environment.

As the Bill proceeds, pummelling our first-time buyers, hammering our homeowners, bashing our builders, and duffing up our developers, on behalf of the Opposition I simply say this to the Minister: there is an opportunity this afternoon to begin to change course, and to signal that he believes, and we believe, that a different course of action is possible that will deliver the homes and infrastructure that the British people expect. I always enjoy meeting the Minister across the Dispatch Box, and I always keep my spare Conservative party membership form handy just in case he should ever need it—his high standards of professionalism suggest that one day he will make the journey to the dark side. Minister, take the opportunity to say to your colleagues that it is time to add to so many poor U-turns, a good U-turn. Let us get on with the job of delivering the homes and infra- structure that the British people need.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to those in the other place for their work in getting us to this stage. I am conscious of time—it is a Thursday, and many Members want to speak—so I will not go into great depth on the amendments. However, I welcome the changes that the Government have made in the other place, and the work of Ministers to reach a compromise to get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible. I particularly welcome the series of pragmatic Government amendments on environmental delivery plans. It is critical to ensure that any system to protect our environment is robust, and the measures outlined by the Government will go some way to quelling some of the fears outlined not just in the other place but by Members across this House on Report. I also welcome reforms to address water supply and encourage the building of badly needed reservoirs, as well as measures to ensure that developers have extra time to commence work when a court grants a judicial review. That sensible and proportional approach will ensure that permissions do not expire through no fault of the developer, and avoid any unnecessary repetition of the whole planning process.

As Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I wish to touch on two points that relate to the scrutiny we have in this place for planning and infrastructure. The first relates to Lords amendment 1, which is identical to amendment 83, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) on Report. As the Minister said then, this is

“about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made,”. —[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 756.]

However, we must be honest and say that even amendments to statements can have a massive impact on our communities up and down the country. Sometimes that impact is even bigger than that of Bills, which are subject to the full weight of parliamentary scrutiny.

I understand the point that the Minister made in Committee, which is that the system has led to unacceptable delays, sometimes for several months. I also know as much as anyone that just because a Committee recommends something to Ministers, it is far from a guarantee that the Government will change their policy. However, it is important that this change is not used to ride through significant changes without Committees having the chance to carry out proper scrutiny into how the measure will impact the lives of people up and down the country. It must also not be used to bypass scrutiny when a statement is amended so much over time as to become a de facto new statement. That is part of the role that we were elected to carry out by this House, and it is something that helps give confidence to the whole House that we have properly considered the statements before us. I heard the Minister indicate earlier that the Government will not accept Lords amendment 1, but I gently ask whether he can assure the House that Committees will still be included in the process of amending statements, and that they will not be sidelined when we engage proactively and in a timely manner with that process.

The introduction of this Bill is long awaited, after years of failing to unblock a broken planning system and to build on the scale that we desperately need. Research from Crisis found that nearly 300,000 families and individuals have ended up without a home of their own, while previous Governments failed to act, and as we know, some children do not even have a room in which to learn to walk or crawl. In reality that will not end overnight; it will end only when we have a system that consistently builds the affordable and social homes that we desperately need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Gideon Amos.

[Gideon Amos]

The Liberal Democrats welcome a number of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, but it is disappointing that my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock’s proposal, which was aimed at ensuring that all unsafe residential blocks are fully remediated, and my noble Friend Lord Foster’s proposal on curbing the proliferation of betting shops were not adopted in the other place, where unfortunately the Conservatives were unwilling to support them. It is also disappointing that having removed all pre-application regulations for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the Government have not seen fit to plug the gap with a standard requirement to ensure that communities are properly consulted, as we proposed in Committee. Simply sweeping away consultation requirements is not acceptable.

That said, today we are here to debate those amendments that made it through from the other place, and I want first to acknowledge where the Government have listened and made welcome improvements and concessions. Lords amendment 53, a concession secured by my noble Friend Baroness Parminter, imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how Natural England should prioritise different approaches to addressing the negative impacts of development on environmental features, which we argued for in this House. I hope that when the regulations are brought forward, the Government will see the sense of referring to the mitigation hierarchy as the accepted standard approach. I remain confused as to why those words were not included in the amendments. We will continue to push the Government to recognise the mitigation hierarchy as a key environmental principle and development that should be enshrined in environmental delivery plans.

I am also pleased to see Lords amendment 29, and that the Government have listened to the points by Historic England and Heritage Alliance that I raised in Committee. That means that heritage protections remain in transport and works projects. However, there remain amendments that the Government wish to reject that we strongly believe the House should accept, particularly with regard to nature and environmental protection, and the role of communities and their local councillors. Lords amendment 40 would limit the application of environmental delivery plans to issues where approaches at a strategic landscape scale will be effective. I am sure colleagues have received many emails about that amendment from constituents, and for good reason. Indeed, the amendment is essential because it ensures that EDPs are used where they can deliver environmental benefits and address problems effectively on a strategic scale.

In Somerset and my Taunton and Wellington constituency, we see only too well the massive issues caused by phosphates, and an EDP approach for phosphates would genuinely be welcome. That problem operates at a catchment or regional level, and site-by-site solutions are not enough. Protected species and biodiversity are rooted in their habitats, and in particular place and sites, and a simple strategic approach is not enough. We cannot save a protected species from going extinct in one location by creating a habitat hundreds of miles away and expect the same outcome.

Supporting High Streets

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I make it clear that we will be on a six-minute time limit from the first Back Bencher. I call Sarah Olney.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend’s local high street in Camberley is very close to my heart, because my first job was in WH Smith there some years ago now. He is absolutely right about business rates, and I repeat my question to the Government: please, what action are you going to be taking on business rates?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Member should say, “What action are they going to take?” If she says, “What action are you going to take?” that means me, and I am not taking any.

[Sarah Olney]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker: what action are they going to take?

While the last Government did so much damage to our high street businesses, the Labour Government’s national insurance jobs tax has only made things harder for them and for the workers. The Liberal Democrats have voted against the change to employer national insurance contributions at every opportunity, and I once again urge the Government to scrap these measures. The changes to employer national insurance contributions announced in the last autumn Budget are an unfair and deeply damaging tax measure that is hitting small businesses of all kinds—social care providers, GPs—and the lack of sector consultation and business foresight prior to the changes has been hugely damaging to business confidence.

The Government’s handling of the Employment Rights Bill seems to have only compounded that uncertainty. So much of the detail that was expected in the Bill has been left to secondary legislation or future consultation, making it impossible for businesses to plan ahead with certainty. The lack of clarity on probation periods risks piling undue worry on to business managers who are struggling to find the right skills in the first place, for which many of my colleagues have provided evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Billington]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I am interested in her acknowledgment that we have made specific progress in dealing with the botched Brexit deal left as part of the legacy of the previous Tory Government, which she may indeed welcome. For example, our sanitary and phytosanitary deal includes being able to boost exports by slashing red tape and bureaucracy specifically for our farmers and food producers, lower food prices at the checkout and co-operation on energy. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may chunter from a sedentary position, but it is actually really important when you look at how—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady will know that interventions need to be short, and not read off phones.

[Sarah Olney]

I am, of course, delighted that we are making some small progress towards a better relationship with Europe—I welcome that wholeheartedly. However, we could go a lot further. The Liberal Democrats have been pushing for a UK-EU customs union, which would unlock many, many more benefits, but the Labour Government are very reticent. I welcome some of the noises from both the Treasury Bench and many Labour Back Benchers. I find it astonishing the number of Labour MPs I have encountered over the past couple of weeks who are suddenly desperate to tell me how very pro-European they have always been. I am very pleased to hear that, but I would say that I have not always heard that from the Labour Benches. But all progress in this area is welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I was somewhat entertained by the lines about Labour being the new Trojans, which I suppose makes us the Greeks. It might be worth remembering that the Greeks won the war, and that the current Greek Government are generating employment while this Government are cutting it.

While we are telling stories, it might also be worth remembering that there are some really rather good books out there—none of them written by the Treasury team, it is true. A rather good one came out recently on prosperity for growth, written by Dr Laffer, whose name came up earlier in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and two Members of the other place, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell and Lord Hintze—I declare an interest, as Lord Elliott’s daughter is my goddaughter. It is still a good book, despite the fact that there is a connection there. It sets out the principle that we all know—a principle that has been known for hundreds of years—that taxation deters investment, lack of investment deters growth, and lack of growth deters future opportunity to look after all of us, including, in particular, the poorest. What we are seeing on our high streets today is a reflection of that tax policy. We are seeing the increasing ratchet of control—control through regulation, through taxation and through any number of different tools that this Government have brought in.

In wonderful towns such as Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Borough Green—I am sure you could add a few of your own, Madam Deputy Speaker; it would be worth saying that Portsmouth itself—[Interruption.] I have got that completely wrong, haven’t I?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

As a point of information, it might help the right hon. Gentleman to know that my constituency is Romsey and Southampton North.

[Tom Tugendhat]

This explains why I was never welcome in the Navy.

You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there are many other high streets, such as those in Romsey and Southampton, that are doing well despite this Government’s policies. However, we are seeing a series of changes that are costing us all, and I think it is worth focusing on a few of them.

The first affects retail, hospitality and leisure properties, which are seeing their rate relief reduced to 40%, and only up to a cash limit of £110,000 per business. Why is that happening? Well, this is basically just another tax grab. It is just another attempt to ensure that those who are working hard to put food on their tables—and, by the way, to put food on the tables of everybody else in this country by generating that employment—

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am going to reduce the time limit to five minutes, starting after Jim McMahon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

The hon. Member makes a good point about bank closures. Does he agree that the innovation of banking hubs, which we have seen since 2022, is welcome? As of April this year, there were 150 around the country, and they can be a lifeline for many communities. Does he agree that the criteria applied by Cash Access UK for granting a banking hub can be quite narrow? I ask this for the Minister’s benefit. Would the hon. Member join me in urging the Government to reconsider and review some of the narrow criteria? In Portchester, we are campaigning for a banking hub—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Jim McMahon to continue.

[Jim McMahon]

I will. I have heard the right hon. and learned Lady raise that point a few times, and I think it is legitimate. If the criteria do not work for the town she mentions, or for my town, or Royton or Chadderton, then the criteria are the problem, not the towns and communities that need banks. We can agree on that.

In Oldham, there is progress. Sometimes we rush to a deficit model of talking down our places a bit too quickly. The old town hall, built in 1841, was left derelict for decades but has been reborn as a cinema. The grand Egyptian Room has been restored to life. It was once a banking hall where people paid their council tax, but I guarantee that it is a lot more popular today than it was when it was used for that purpose. The old library, built in 1883, was long empty; it is now home to the new council chambers and the inspiring Oldham theatre workshop. Every single week, 600 young people go through those doors to celebrate the arts and culture. The Spindles shopping centre has been transformed with the new indoor Tommyfield market, an events space and the local studies archive. That shows how the community can benefit when we invest in our towns. Of course, as has been mentioned, we should use derelict brownfield sites to build housing for local people. In Oldham, that will mean up to 2,000 new homes in the town centre—decent, safe and affordable places to live—and footfall in the town.

Much though we talk about the household names that have been lost, let us not forget that many of our towns are built on the work of independent traders—local people who give something of themselves, and sometimes their life savings, to invest in our towns. They should be celebrated.

Things are not easy. Online retail now accounts for 25% of retail sales. Business rates changes will shift the balance in favour of the on-street, local, independent traders, and convenience stores. There is also the changing dynamic between out-of-town retail and city centres. We have the benefit of being on Manchester’s doorstep, but it means that it is easy for Oldham’s people to travel to Manchester. In large towns, we have seen the hyper-local becoming more popular. District centres like Royton, where people want to create somewhere to go, are thriving, and our cities are thriving, but the towns, somewhere in the middle, are struggling. We need a strategy for our towns, as well as wider investment.

The same goes for the planning system. Honestly, I am sick to death of seeing low-quality, substandard accommodation being built in my town. Under the previous Government’s free-for-all, office accommodation could be converted in a blink, and there was also conversion to houses in multiple occupation. The concentration of social pressures in town centres and district centres is having a real impact on community safety and the local housing market.

There is a different way. Through Community Britain, we can rebuild our towns, civic pride and confidence. Through co-operation, we can give power to people in the places where they live and that they care about. We can end the top-down model of command and control, in which we tell people what they need for their area. We should give money to communities, so that they can decide matters for themselves and collectively co-produce solutions for their places.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. After the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to four minutes. However, it might be helpful if I draw every Member’s attention to page 5 of “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons”, specifically as it pertains to interventions. It is rude to come into the Chamber and intervene when you have not been here for the majority of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I might return the favour by mentioning the Robert Bolt theatre, which I think is in his constituency. Colleagues will know of “A Man for All Seasons”, and the hon. Gentleman is something of a man for all seasons himself.

As well as bringing more people into the town centre, I think the No. 1 imperative right now is to address the cost of doing business and employing people. There are good arguments against every tax—anyone who has ever worked at the Treasury will know that—and that is why we end up having a blend of lots of different taxes. Business rates are an especially bad tax, because it is a fixed cost being to imposed on businesses. That makes it harder to turn a profit, and crucially it deters new people from coming into business.

In the case of retail and hospitality, we must remember that as well as their roles as businesses, they are volume employers—two of the three biggest volume employers. As well as being the home of workers, they are a big source of customers who will use other businesses.

There was a bit of talk about the national living wage and so on. Of course, it is good that the national living wage goes up. The point is that when that is done at the same time as other things that impose further costs on business, making it harder to employ people, we will see an effect. We are already seeing damage, not in mass lay-offs but in marginal hiring decisions, with employers not taking on some Saturday help and not offering some extra hours. In fact, we see some pubs closing earlier than they would do ordinarily. I am afraid that will all become worse with the Employment Rights Bill, and the biggest impact will be on those furthest from or newest to the labour market. I encourage the Government to think again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. There will be an immediate three-minute time limit.

Pride in Place

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I remind Members to keep questions short so that we can get try to get everybody in. I would not want Members to miss out on the opportunity to speak about their constituency because other Members had taken so long.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the £20 million for Old Farnley, but now is the time for action. Hundreds of people have already completed my survey. I have more than 100 volunteers for the neighbourhood board alone—it will not be that big—and we have plenty of ideas that we want to spend the money on. Given that we are ready and impatient to deliver, will the Minister empower my residents to crack on and spend this money and deliver the change that we know they deserve?

Renters’ Rights Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

With every month of delay and every month that goes by, another 1,000 families are removed from their homes by bailiffs following a no-fault eviction. In the year since we took power, 30,000 households have lost their home to no-fault evictions. It is time to get on with it. To everyone who rents their home, I say: this Government and the Labour party will always have your back.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for presenting the Government’s position on the Lords amendments, as indeed he presented their position on the 92 amendments we tabled in Committee. I only regret that, in doing so, he rejected all 92 of them. I was going to congratulate the Secretary of State on his new position, but he has escaped just in time. I will come to our amendments—the other place took a different view on some of them—but I will first declare my interest in a registered provider of social housing.

A generation have been cut off from the dream of home ownership. After half a century of flogging off council houses—over 4.5 million have been sold off since 1980 by successive Conservative Governments—there are now, in effect, none left for the thousands of families who now need them. That is why the Liberal Democrats have a vision to restore hope to millions who aspire to a decent home by building our target of 150,000 social and council rent homes per year, backed up with a commitment of an extra £6 billion on top of the affordable housing programme budget, funded by fairly reforming capital gains tax so that more people benefit from relief but those who make bigger gains pay more. Alongside that, the Liberal Democrats want a new generation of rent-to-own homes so that people can get on to the ownership ladder. It is the biggest and most ambitious programme since council housing was invented by Lloyd George and Addison back at the beginning of the 20th century.

We have also long campaigned for an end to no-fault evictions and for longer and more stable tenancies for tenants. The Government have put both those key measures in the Bill, and that is why we support it and want to see it enacted. Tenants have lived for far too long with insecurity and the fear that, if they speak up, they might lose their home.

Some of the Lords amendments before us would improve the Bill, while others would weaken it. Lords amendment 11 would require tenants to pay pet deposits, which would pile on new financial burdens, putting the right to own pets out of reach for those already struggling. It is not in the spirit of the Bill, so we cannot support it.

Similarly, Lords amendment 18 would cut the prohibition on re-letting unsold properties from 12 months to six. That might sound like a neat compromise, but in practice it would give cover to any rogue landlord looking for an excuse to evict. A six-month ban would be far too short to give tenants the protection from abuse that they deserve. Lords amendment 26 seeks to raise the bar for enforcement by moving the burden of proof from civil to criminal.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on 28 January and 25 February 2025 on English Devolution, HC 600.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The reasoned amendment in the name of the official Opposition has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

On devolving the ability to run pilots, and following up on the point made by the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), Bristol city council—including Labour councillors—voted cross-party to have the power to pilot rent controls. Recent figures show that typical private renters in my constituency spend 45% of their income on rent. That is not sustainable. This Bill could offer the opportunity for that pilot—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Interventions have become far too long. There are many Members in the Chamber who wish to contribute, which the Secretary of State might think about before she takes more interventions.

[Angela Rayner]

I will pay attention to that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Lady is right that there is a challenge in housing at the moment, which is also contributing to the rental situation for people. That is why we have a big ambition to build more houses. The Bill gives us more powers for strategic planning so that we can get on with building the homes that people need. The Renters’ Rights Bill does start to make progress toward making housing fairer for renters—something that the previous Government promised but failed to deliver.

I will now make progress, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue. We intend to bring forward legislation. Our response to the local government standards consultation sets out our plans for whole-system reform, including empowering local authorities to suspend councillors who are guilty of serious misconduct for up to six months, with the option to withhold allowances and institute premises and facilities bans. We are committed to ensuring that misconduct is dealt with swiftly and fairly across the country at local and regional mayoral levels. We do want to take action on the issue.

Let me be clear that stronger mayors and strategic authorities will not replace councils, nor the crucial work of the House. MPs on both sides of the House will continue to be vocal champions for their areas, and we expect mayors to engage in regular and constructive dialogue with MPs, working together in the best interests of their constituents. Alongside the freedom for mayors to focus on local priorities, my Department is continuing to explore a local Public Accounts Committee-style model to improve the system of accountability and scrutiny of local spending.

The Government expect mayors to use their new powers to deliver real change, not retain the status quo. This is not about grandstanding or making a political point; it is about using the levers of growth to unlock infrastructure and drive investment. The role of local authorities in delivering vital local services and improving local neighbourhoods is essential, and it will continue. We also expect to see strategic authorities working hand in glove with their constituent councils to deliver for their residents.

The Bill will help rebuild local government for the communities who depend on it day in, day out. As a fit, legal and decent foundation of devolution, the Bill will establish the Local Audit Office to help fix the broken, fragmented local audit system. We will also reform local authority governance, requiring councils with a committee system to move to a leader and cabinet model and putting a stop to new local authority mayor roles being created. That change will streamline decision making across all councils and make it easier for people to understand how their council is run. It will also give the Government the tools to deliver local government reorganisation, resulting in better outcomes for residents and significant savings that can be reinvested in public services and improving accountability.

At all levels, we are backing local people to drive growth and greater opportunities for all, because, from top to bottom, the best decisions for communities are made by those who know their area best. That is why the Bill will also give local communities across the country much-needed new powers, like a bigger say in shaping their place through effective neighbourhood governance, with councils required to make sure that this is happening, as well as the tools to transform their high streets and neighbourhoods through a new community right to buy—to save much-loved community assets, like pubs and shops, from being lost and to protect sports grounds, which are at the heart of so many communities and a source of great local pride. The Bill will also support our high streets by banning the unfair practice of upwards-only rent reviews, preventing the blight of vacant shop fronts, because it is only when every community succeeds that our country succeeds.

The Bill and our reforms herald a new era for Britain: a new way of governing that puts politics back in the service of working people. Where previous Governments promised and failed the British people, this Government are keeping faith.

I note the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment. I must say that after they left the country with the worst housing crisis in a generation, I am dismayed that they would oppose a Bill that will unlock housing and planning on a vast scale. This Bill will empower local communities to take back control of their high streets by ending the Tory policy of upward-only rent reviews, and it will end the begging-bowl culture of the last Government.

While the Tories made empty promises to level up the country, this Labour Government are getting on with the job. Within days of taking office, Secretaries of State were passing down newly-won powers for the sake of our towns, cities and villages, with the Prime Minister leading the way. It has not always been easy, but real change takes hard work. We are rewiring Britain and, with it, growth and opportunity. This is how the British people will take back control, and how we will unite our country in times when we have never needed it more. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brash]

I agree that far greater powers are required to hold mayoral development corporations to account, and that may be one way of doing it.

The changes are not just about planning powers: publicly owned assets are being transferred from the council and other public bodies. When Labour councillors demanded that those assets, which include Hartlepool’s civic centre, would be returned to public ownership if they were not developed or if the corporation was wound up, that demand was refused. When we asked whether the council could resist this change, the advice was stark: we could not, there was no veto and it could not be stopped by the council. When the council voted against a mayoral development corporation just down the road in Middlesbrough, it was imposed on the town anyway.

Let me be clear that I am not opposed to the principle of development corporations. I was willing to support the one in Hartlepool in the spirit of cross-party co-operation, but the outcome has become confused, with zero accountability and residents left unclear about who to turn to, especially as more and more houses in multiple occupation pop up across our town centre, put there by an unelected, unaccountable company. This is not power in the hands of the people.

Devolution was supposed to mean decisions made closer to communities, but too often the reality is the opposite: power hoarded and pushed further away from the very neighbourhoods that are supposed to be empowered. That is why I support the We’re Right Here campaign, which asks that power does not stop at the mayor’s office but flows to the people themselves. It is championed by Hartlepool’s own community leader, Sacha Bedding. It is a way forward and I hope that Ministers are listening. We must ensure that there is accountability for mayors. They can be the vehicle for delivering for the public, but the power itself can lie only in one place: with the people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call David Simmonds.

Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Grady]

That is a very good point, and I suggest that the Chair of PACAC picks it up with the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee. There are learnings from what happens in Scotland that we can apply in the rest of our family of nations, and vice versa—although I would say that there are no learnings that we can draw from the SNP Government on running a health service, which is in a catastrophic state in Scotland. Speaking of the health service, which is suffering in Scotland, it is important—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind Members that we really ought to stay in scope and discuss absent voting in Scotland and Wales, and not necessarily the health service.

[John Grady]

I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just coming to the point that this Bill is so important because voters need to be able to exercise their right to vote to express their views on the management of councils and the Government in Scotland, and the Bill enables people to do so. I apologise for appearing to stray slightly, but it was bringing me to that important point. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we have heard enough from me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on all her fantastic work, and on ensuring there is cross-party support for this Bill. I echo the point that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), made about her ability to make such an important change so quickly; we are celebrating it being a year since the general election.

I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Crawley (Peter Lamb) and for Glasgow East (John Grady) for their excellent speeches, which highlighted the importance of this private Member’s Bill. They also pointed out some of the changes that we have already made; for instance, I am proud to have introduced the veteran ID card while in government. There is also a specific proposal in our manifesto to reduce the voting age, so that 16 and 17-year-olds can vote.

The Government share the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith to this Bill, which will give people in Scotland and Wales the same choices for managing their voting arrangements for devolved elections as they already have for reserved elections. Many of us will remember a time when absent voting in the UK was still governed by excessively restrictive criteria; electors had to provide valid reasons, such as illness, travel or occupational constraints, to qualify for a postal vote. Similarly, proxy voting was limited to those with clear impediments to attending the polling station.

This changed in 2001, when postal voting on demand was introduced in Great Britain, allowing electors to freely apply for a postal vote. That change was quickly embraced by the electorate: in the 2001 general election, there was a significant increase in the number of postal votes issued compared with previous elections, and by 2005, the figure had more than doubled. By 2010, over 7 million postal votes were issued across the UK. Now that electors have been given the choice to vote in a way that best suits them and their needs, it has become clear that there is significant demand for flexibility in how people exercise their democratic rights. While it is less commonly used, the option to vote via a proxy has also remained a viable and necessary alternative for many electors across the country.

In 2007, measures were introduced to verify the identity of postal voters. They added a layer of security to the process and ensured that electors could have confidence in the system. These included the requirement for voters to provide personal identifiers, such as their date of birth and signature, when applying for and returning postal ballots. The introduction of the “Register to vote” service in 2014 gave electors the ability to go online and make their application to vote without needing to submit a paper application. That change, much like the changes to absent voting, has proved extremely popular with the electorate; in 2024, over 92% of all applications to register to vote were made using the online service, with less than 8% taking the traditional paper route. The modernisation of our electoral system through the changes I have just laid out has proven popular with electors time and again.

The Bill relates to the online absent vote application service, which, as has been pointed out, went live in October 2023 as a result of the need to modernise the way in which electors apply for their absent votes. Given the enthusiasm that electors have shown for the freedom to decide the method by which they cast their ballot, and the clear preference for using online services to apply to vote, it is no surprise that the new online absent vote application service has also proven popular. Unfortunately, as we have heard, voters in Scotland and Wales can use the new online service to apply for postal and proxy votes only for reserved elections, such as elections to the UK Parliament. The benefits of extending the online absent vote application service to devolved elections for electors in Scotland and Wales are clear. It will allow people in Scotland and Wales the option of applying online for a postal or proxy vote for devolved parliamentary and local elections, or of applying through a traditional paper application.

In Scotland and Wales, voters who wish to apply for a postal or proxy vote in devolved parliamentary or local elections must still complete a paper application form and submit it by post. As we have heard, this Bill seeks to give electors in Scotland and Wales the same choice as others over how they apply for their absent vote for use in Senedd Cymru, Scottish Parliament, and local elections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith has said, the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru will hold their parliamentary elections in May 2026. It would be hugely beneficial both to voters and to electoral administrators in Scotland and Wales alike if access to the online services is made available in time for those elections. There is a great deal of enthusiasm from the Scottish and Welsh Governments about the benefits, as was made clear to me in my meetings in Cardiff this week with the Scottish Government Minister for Parliamentary Business and the Welsh Government Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith said, the Bill has been welcomed by those working in the Scottish and Welsh electoral sectors. My officials work closely with the electoral administration community, and as such I can say with confidence that the Bill will deliver clear benefits for both electors and administrators, in particular by removing the need for duplicate applications to be made for devolved and reserved absent votes. That means less time for electors spent making applications and less time for administrators spent processing applications. We will continue to work closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, including on technical aspects of the Bill’s implementation.

The changes in the Bill represent just one of the ways that this Government intend to encourage electoral engagement and participation. As I have mentioned, we will also lower the voting age, giving 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds the right to shape their future at the ballot box. We will set out plans to further strengthen the integrity of elections and encourage participation in democracy. We are working in partnership with the electoral sector to bring about the changes in this Bill and the many other changes we are seeking to make.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for her tireless work on this important Bill. I am also grateful to the shadow Minister for his and his party’s support for the Bill, for which I am glad there has been wider cross-party support. I am grateful to my hon. Friends and other hon. Members for taking such strong interest in the Bill and for coming here on a Friday to speak in support of it. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith once again for her work, and I look forward to working with colleagues to ensure that the Bill passes. I hope very much that Members will support the Bill’s measures and ensure that it advances to the other place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With the leave of the House, I call Tracy Gilbert to wind up.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Murphy]

Unfortunately, I have another quote, which is from yesterday. With regard to the Opposition’s amendments, can the shadow Minister point to a single measure that would increase the number of homes? All the changes directed at the Bill seem to be designed to impede development. I also want to ask him what he meant yesterday in his opening remarks, when he said,

“The last Government built the largest number of houses in history.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 693.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It might be helpful if I emphasised that we are not here to relitigate yesterday’s debate; we are here to debate the amendments that have been tabled today. I am sure the hon. Member will restrict his comments to that.

[Paul Holmes]

I was expecting so much from the hon. Gentleman, given how he intervened on me consistently in Committee with an encyclopaedic knowledge of my previous quotes. I did not know that he took such an interest in my career up until this point. I know, as a county neighbour, that he is a dedicated and assiduous Member of Parliament who genuinely stands up for his constituents. I will say to him that my comments yesterday were absolutely accurate. Over 1 million homes were approved, and many more first-time buyers were given the chance of owning a home, under the last Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the entertainment he provided throughout the Bill Committee’s proceedings, and for his generosity in the Tea Room. Talking about reflection, however, would he agree that when one looks in the mirror, one does not always like what one sees? The Minister has reflected on many of the proposals that were brought forward in Committee and he has clearly decided that those things would be better left in the national planning policy framework, as opposed to being in this legislation. Would the hon. Gentleman also agree that we do not have more young people buying and owning their own homes now than we did in 2010, and that the reason for that is—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady will have the opportunity to contribute later. Interventions really do need to be shorter than this.

[Paul Holmes]

I know that many of my hon. Friends were concerned to hear about my generosity in the Tea Room. It was simply that we were very tired and I bought an espresso for the Minister, just once. I did offer one to the Lib Dem spokesman, but I have not delivered on that promise—

[Paul Holmes]

I expect to see a “Focus” leaflet—or whatever the Lib Dems put out in Hamble Valley—saying that is a Tory broken promise, but when did we ever take notice of the accuracy of Lib Dem literature? But I will buy him one, I promise. With regard to looking in the mirror and not liking what we see, I wake up daily basis and consider how much weight I have gained in this House over the past four years.

What I will say to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) is that in Committee the Minister consistently said that he would reflect, so she is right; she has accepted the premise of my argument on this. However, not once in this legislation has the Minister made any attempt to take into account our serious concerns. He has not changed this piece of legislation once. This is a parliamentary democracy and there is not a monopoly on brilliant ideas, despite the fact that the Minister likes to think he has one.

If the Minister wanted to make the Bill better, he could look openly at some of our amendments and accept them. I know that when he stands up to make his winding-up remarks, he will not accept them and that this legislation will therefore not be able to be supported by all parties in this House. If he had made some changes that could have delivered to the people of this country, we would have been able to support it. This is a shame, because some of his genuine and well-intentioned attempts to change the housing market in this country will now not be achievable because of the Labour Government’s intransigence.

As I have said, the Minister could have made some decent changes to the Bill. We and the Green party and the Lib Dems had serious concerns on environmental standards—[Interruption.] I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary for a very long time, and I thought that PPSs were supposed to sit and ferry notes for their Minister, and not to contribute to the debate. I am having real difficulty with this consistent heckling from the two PPSs. They are aspiring to high office and I really do not think they should be carrying on in this way; I never did—then again, I was never a Minister, so there we go. I am a big fan of them both, of course.

I shall finish on this point. The Greens, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party had a real disagreement on environment standards, and it is still our contention that environment standards will not be improved under this legislation. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) tabled a number of amendments because experts had clearly stated their concern that environmental standards would be reduced under this legislation. The Minister did not make any concessions. On the centralisation and erosion of local powers for planning committees, we tabled a number of sensible amendments—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The shadow Minister will know that we are debating the amendments that have been selected today, on development corporations and compulsory purchase. Perhaps his final minute could be restricted to those subjects.

[Paul Holmes]

I heed your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Development corporations are an over-centralisation of the measures that the Minister is proposing, and planning committees will lose some of their powers to them. The Minister has not moved once on that. The Bill will do more harm than good to the power of local councils and our constituents, and it will diminish environmental standards.

We stand against the legislation because of the Government’s intransigence. We will continue to stand up for environmental standards and for local authorities; it is a shame that the Minister has not done so. That is why we will not support the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Smith]

All I can say is simply that I have been working with constituents who have been affected by the compulsory purchase orders, and I will continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman and I may disagree about whether that project should ever have gone ahead under the previous Government.

On rural development, where are the future rangers, conservationists and gamekeepers? Where is the next generation of farm hands to deliver environmental land management schemes?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I will keep reiterating the point: we are not going to relitigate yesterday’s debate, and we should be discussing the amendments that have been tabled on compulsory purchase orders, development corporations and extraterritorial environmental concerns. The hon. Gentleman might like to think of a way to weave those topics into his remarks, rather than rehashing either yesterday’s debate or a Second Reading speech.

[David Smith]

I am simply trying to make the point that many of the amendments proposed seem to set up a false dichotomy between the ability to develop our country, including with housing, and to protect the natural environment.

I will give one example of that. Norham parish council in my constituency is trying to open up a plot of land for a small development, because it sees the value of young families moving into the village. That development would go some way towards securing the future of the first school and the community at large. It is not helpful for the parish council to be caught up in red tape, which diminishes the possibility of that development happening. A recent local report said that nearly one in two businesses in rural Northumberland cited a shortage of affordable local housing for staff as a key barrier to business.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Smith]

Absolutely. There need not be this false dichotomy between what development corporations can do and the protection of our natural environment.

Rural Great Britain is crying out for “little and often” development. We can get this right, and the Bill is trying to deliver that by cutting through labyrinthine planning rules so that we can have more homes and more infrastructure. If there is no one left in rural communities, the natural world will be without the stewards and protectors that it requires.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos]

I reiterate my thanks to all members of the Bill Committee and to the Clerks and officials, who I know had plenty to be getting on with during our sittings.

I am grateful for the support of my colleagues for the amendments I have tabled. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 22 on active travel, and new clause 114 on open spaces in new towns and other development corporation developments, and our amendments 88 and 89 on recreational land, form our key proposals for this part of the Bill. All of them urge the Government to go further when it comes to releasing land value for infrastructure that meets community and environmental needs.

On part 5 of the Bill generally, our compulsory purchase proposals included that where major permissions of over 100 homes are not built out, greater powers to acquire that land for housing would be given to councils in a new “use it or lose it” planning permission. I was delighted to hear in the news that the Government are taking up that idea—although I gained a slightly different impression in Committee—even if the promise of more conditionally approved compulsory purchase orders will not give councils the same strong “use it or lose it” power that our amendment would have.

Wary of your strictures to stay on topic, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will briefly allow me to add my welcome to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) of the fact that, following the introduction of his private Member’s Bill, the Government, to their credit, have agreed that all new homes will be fitted with solar panels as standard—his sunshine Bill really is “winning here”—bringing zero emissions a step closer, after all the hard work of Liberal Democrat and Labour Ministers on zero-carbon homes, before the Conservatives cancelled the programme in 2015.

I turn to our amendments on compulsory purchase and development corporations. Our community-led approach is about the essential infrastructure people want to see being put in place ahead of the building of new homes. Clause 104 could support that by helping the building of council and social homes. It would reward landowners with a fair value, rather than inflated prices from an imaginary planning permission no one has ever applied for, as set out in section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Our manifesto supports that for the delivery of council houses, and we are supportive of steps that ensure that landowners are awarded fair compensation, rather than inflated prices, for specific types of development scheme.

However, at my meeting with farmers in North Curry on Friday, there was concern about the idea—possibly as a result of rumours—that under the clause, farmers would lose land to Natural England so that it could carry out its environmental delivery plans, and in return would get only a reduced payment. I am not convinced that is what the clause does, but family farms have had a tough time recently. They provide food for our tables, and they have been hit hard by risky trade deals with Australia and New Zealand under the last Government, followed by a new inheritance tax on small family farms, the underspend of the agricultural budget, and the closing of the sustainable farming initiative.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nesil Caliskan]

I was pleased to be a member of the Public Bill Committee, and I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill. I will also speak to clauses 4 and 46, and to new clause 55 and amendment 1, which I worry will further frustrate the planning process—the opposite of what the Bill tries to achieve. As the Member of Parliament for Barking, I see and hear at first hand the impact of the housing crisis, as others do in their constituencies. Every week, I meet constituents who share with me their personal and desperate stories about overcrowding, years spent in temporary accommodation, poor-quality housing and sky-high rents.

Let me say this about hope. Hope is demonstrated through the actions of a Government who are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes and who will tackle the housing crisis—a challenge that has been absolutely ignored for decade after decade. Supply is one of the fundamental reasons why communities like mine are facing a housing crisis. Our planning system is hindering supply in a housing market that is already experiencing huge demand. It is a planning system that too often blocks or delays the necessary infrastructure that would support new homes being built, particularly as overall business cases for house building are intrinsically linked to infrastructure delivery.

On Second Reading, I spoke about the pre-application consultation requirements for NSIP. Like others, I have previously highlighted the lower Thames crossing, so I will not repeat that example, but it is really important that Members keep in mind the amount of money that is wasted through such processes. That is why I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister considered representations made by me and others in respect of reforming the pre-application procedure specifically. I welcome clause 4—alongside Government amendments 58, 60 and 67, and new clauses 44 and 45—which removes the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for NSIP applications. The changes will mean that delays are reduced and essential infrastructure is consented to faster. That will save up to 12 months from the pre-application stage and millions, if not billions, of pounds. It could make the difference between whether an infrastructure proposal is viable or not, and between whether homes are built in an area or not.

To be clear, that does not mean that applicants will avoid a duty to consult. As the Minister outlined in his statement to the House on 23 April, local communities and local authorities will still be able to object to applications, provide evidence of any adverse impacts, and have their say as part of the post-submission NSIP process. As a vice president of the Local Government Association and a former council leader, I understand all too well how important it is that local people have a voice, but I also understand that a national housing crisis needs a national solution, and this Bill is an important step in trying to achieve that.

At the heart of the debate is a recognition that the housing crisis cannot be solved by individual local politicians seeking to gain political favour by campaigning against new homes in their area. I know how difficult it is for local authorities to develop and agree local plans, but we cannot have a situation in which even though 90% of planning decisions are currently made by planning officers, key projects that would see infrastructure delivered in this country are held up, as are the thousands, if not millions, of homes that we need to deliver. I absolutely support this important Bill, and I look forward—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I rise to speak to a number of the amendments before us. I spent a lot of time with colleagues on the Public Bill Committee, and some of the amendments are very good and some are not so good. I will try to rattle through as many as I can.

I support new clause 43, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). Our villages should have the same protection as our towns. Villages have a unique character across all our constituencies, and I am privileged to represent six of them—Brickendon, Hertford Heath, Great Amwell, Stanstead Abbotts, St Margarets and Goffs Oak. I have seen a local council that has built probably too much development in a village, and I have seen that change the fundamental character of Goffs Oak. We should be trying to protect that character, because when people move to villages, they do so for the rural way of life and their unique character and identity. We should stop urban sprawl, and we should stop villages linking together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I am sorry, I will not give way because there are so many colleagues who still want to speak and we are short of time.

Green MPs gave the Bill a chance on Second Reading, because a secure home is out of reach for too many people. Rents are spiralling, over 165,000 children are living in temporary accommodation and over 1 million people are stuck on housing waiting lists. It is scandalous that just 3% of the housing built in the last decade was for social rent, and there is now a wait of more than 100 years for a family-sized social home. I served on the Bill Committee for the past six-plus weeks and I worked hard to persuade the Government to fix the serious flaws in the Bill, but unfortunately those calls have so far been ignored.

I am profoundly concerned that, in the glaring absence of a social rent housing target, this Government are writing a charter for developers’ greed. That is why Green party MPs have tabled new clause 78, to push for safe, warm homes in the communities we love at a truly affordable price. It would require housing plans to set targets for building zero-carbon social rent housing based on local needs, because without an explicit social housing commitment, big developers will be able to line their pockets even further while ordinary people are still locked out of affording a decent home.

I am hugely concerned, as are so many people and the nature organisations that we all trust. By the way, the Bill rolls back nature protections. That is why I have proposed amendments 24 to 63, which would delete part 3 of the Bill entirely, because the Government repeatedly blocked cross-party efforts in Committee to amend part 3 to reduce its harmful impact on nature.

Part 3 is harmful for three key reasons. First, it weakens and undermines the requirement for nature protection to be achieved to a high level of scientific certainty. Secondly, it creates a “pay to pollute” system, allowing developers to skip straight to offsetting, trashing the long-established principle of the mitigation hierarchy—that is, that development should first seek to avoid harm. Thirdly, it upends the requirement for compensation to be delivered up front and creates wiggle room for developers to avoid paying the true cost of the harm they do.

The Government know the nature crisis in our country is severe, yet they repeatedly voted in Committee to reject a raft of constructive amendments to improve part 3 and ensure a win-win for housing and nature. I remind the House that the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto pointed out that

“the Conservatives have left Britain one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world,”

but part 3 will make that terrible situation worse. It is not just the nature organisations that tell us that; it is the independent expert advice of the Office for Environmental Protection, which says that the Bill constitutes a “regression” in environmental law, directly contradicting the assertion of the Secretary of State.

If Ministers insist on bulldozing ahead on part 3, I urge them at the very least to accept my new clause 26. With cross-party support and wide backing, it seeks to match the current degree of certainty for environmental protection. I also strongly support amendment 69, in the name of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would ensure that improvements are delivered before the damage they are compensating for.

We can and must both protect nature and build warm, affordable, zero-carbon social rent homes. The Government said it is what they want. Sadly, it is not what the Bill delivers. Without urgent change—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I call Alex Brewer.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

The planning system certainly needs change, but local people know their area, which is why local planning authorities must retain their current powers, as outlined in amendment 1. As we have heard, each area is different. In my constituency we are fortunate to have the Loddon and Whitewater chalk stream rivers nurturing ecosystems and sustaining biodiversity.

The Labour manifesto promised

“more high-quality, well-designed, and sustainable homes… creating places that increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery.

Chalk streams in this country are at risk. A third are over-abstracted, a third failed their phosphorus targets, and a third failed their fish and plant assessments. Only 11 have any form of protection. We cannot rely on the local nature recovery strategy or the national planning policy framework to protect those ecosystems. These rivers need bespoke national protection written into primary legislation in this House, as outlined in amendment 16. We cannot make reparation after the fact. Once chalk aquifers are destroyed, they cannot be replaced. When we say irreplaceable, we mean it.

The Government also say they want to make the UK a clean energy superpower. My colleagues and I are thrilled that the Liberal Democrats’ call for solar panels on new homes is finally being implemented. Solar power is a key way to harness the power of the natural environment as we develop infrastructure for our communities. Supporting new clause 7 and putting solar panels on all new car parks would be the natural next step in the right direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that it is hoped that new clause 82 has been selected to be called for a separate decision of the House. My concern is that the House will be denied the ability to have that separate decision.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that the Member who put forward the amendment has the right to withdraw it and has indicated that they will do so. It is at the Chair’s discretion whether a separate decision is called for, and in this case it is my understanding that the amendment is not going to be moved.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that the Member should shout and make it clear on the Floor of the House that he does not wish the amendment to be put to the vote, so that Members can voice their opinion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Member for his further point of order. If I do not call the Member to move his amendment, and it is not my intention to do so, there will be no separate decision.

[Paul Holmes]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I am entitled to raise a point of order.

I appreciate your ruling on this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I ask for clarification because it is my understanding that if we have been informed that an amendment is for separate decision, the Chair asks the Member whose amendment it is whether they want to withdraw it, with the leave of the House, and I have never seen that question not being put on the Floor of the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. It is simply not the case that it has to be withdrawn on the Floor of the House; this has happened on numerous occasions.

I call the Minister.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to rise to respond to what has been a very comprehensive debate. [Interruption.] A significant number of amendments have been spoken to in the course of the debate—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) should not be shouting at the Clerks in that way. I have made my point.

I call the Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook]

A significant number of amendments have been spoken to in the course of the debate and the House will appreciate that I do not have the time to address the vast majority of them. I will therefore focus on addressing as many of the key amendments and points of contention as I can. I have been extremely generous in giving way in opening the debate, but I hope that hon. Members will now appreciate that to get through as many points as possible I will not be taking further interventions.

The debate this evening has evidenced support from across the House for nature and for ensuring we get the nature restoration fund right. I spoke in detail about the Government’s position in opening the debate. As I repeatedly made clear in the Bill Committee and will reiterate this evening, we are listening to the concerns raised by hon. Members and stakeholders. We are clear that this is the right model to take us forward.

We are of course open to ways to improve the legislation, however, and on that basis, and to emphasise the point I made earlier in the debate, we are giving serious consideration to ways in which we might instil further confidence that part 3 will deliver the outcomes we believe it will, such as providing greater confidence in the rigour of the overall improvement test, as raised by the OEP and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos).

We are also giving due consideration to how we can provide for greater certainty in the timescale for delivering conservation measures, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), as well as seeking to clarify the evidential basis and environmental rationale for strategic conservation measures, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). The status quo is not working. The case for moving to a more strategic approach is compelling and I look forward to further consideration of part 3 in the other place.

Turning to the important issue of children’s play areas and playing fields, I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling new clause 16 and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for tabling new clauses 82. I particularly commend my hon. Friend on all that he is doing to make the case for high-quality, accessible and inclusive areas for play. The Government agree that access to play space is vital, which is why strong protections are already in place.

The national planning policy framework is clear that local planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities, and opportunities for new provision, including places for children’s play. In December, we strengthened the strong protections already in place in the NPPF by adding explicit reference to safeguarding “formal play spaces”. That means that those facilities can be lost only where they are no longer needed, or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative

Given the existing policy expectations, safeguards and sources of support, we do not believe that it is necessary to add the sort of legislative requirements the amendments would entail. However, I recognise the importance of what the amendments seek to achieve, and the provision of play space is one of the areas we are considering as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision making, on which we will consult this year. I commit to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East to writing to my counterparts at the Department for Education and at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we are acting across Government to increase spaces for play. I will work with him to broker the necessary ministerial meetings that he seeks. With those assurances, I hope that he and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Turning to swift bricks, which were mentioned several times during the debate, we recognise that they are a vital means of arresting the long-term decline of the breeding swift population. While swift brick coverage is increasing, with nearly 30 house builders having made a voluntary commitment to install one for every new home built, the Government want to do more to drive up swift brick installation. However, there is a principled difference of opinion as to the best way to achieve that objective. Although I understand why many are attracted to the argument that the only way to make a significant difference to swift numbers and other red-listed species is to mandate the incorporation of swift bricks into all new-build properties, through building regulations or free-standing legislation, I take a different view.

In all sincerity, I do not believe that amending building regulations is the most appropriate way to secure the outcome that the House as a whole seeks. As building regulations are mandatory, going down that route would compel developers to install swift bricks in all new buildings, irrespective of what they are or where they are located.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could fill a gap in my ignorance —I am sure you can. Earlier today, Mr Speaker announced that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), whom I will call my hon. Friend because he is my county neighbour, would not move new clause 82, to which I am a signatory. Mr Speaker had said that the new clause would be subject to a separate decision, and anybody would interpret that to mean that there would be a vote on it. My understanding, from previous experience, is that when the principal signatory to an amendment decides not to move it, any hon. or right hon. Member who is a co-signatory to it is at liberty to move it, to test the will of the House. It may well be that the Standing Orders have changed, and that I am negligent of that knowledge. If that is the case, I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what has changed?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Had he been in the Chamber earlier, he would have heard several earlier points of order on this question. He would also have heard me say that a decision on the new clause would be at the discretion of the Chair, and Mr Speaker indicated earlier that there would be a separate decision. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), who tabled new clause 82, indicated that he wished to withdraw it. A decision on it is at the discretion of the Chair. If the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) wishes to question that further, he is at liberty to do so.

[Paul Holmes]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Labour Members may chunter, but I have a right to raise a point of order on process in this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask for your guidance? I am a relatively new Member, but it is my—[Interruption.] I want to raise a point of order, and it is not up to them to say I cannot.

New clause 82 has been signed by over 60 Members of this House. Through the usual channels, I was told, as shadow Minister, as were others, that the Speaker’s Office had selected the new clause for a separate decision. Over 60 Members have signed the new clause, and my understanding of precedent in this House is that any Member who has signed it can move it. It is a new and dangerous precedent if Members can indicate before the debate that they wish to withdraw a new clause, and other Members who have signed it are not given the choice to move it. May I seek your clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker? It seems highly unusual that over 60 Members have signed the new clause but none of them can move it, especially when we were given an indication that it would be subject to a separate decision on the Floor of the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his further point of order on this subject. I have provided the clarity for which he asks. The decision is at the discretion of the Chair.

New Clause 43

Protection of villages

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages.

(2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to—

(a) preventing villages from merging into one another,

(b) preventing villages merging into towns, and

(c) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages.”—(Paul Holmes.)

This new clause would provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the NPPF.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

Pubs and Community Funding

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul]

The hon. Member makes me feel slightly less guilty for reeling off all the pubs in my constituency; now I am not alone in advertising all those amazing pubs. I absolutely encourage his constituents to vote in that competition, and to let him know what they love about their pubs.

I will go back to the winners, as I know Members want to know who they are. Lastly, and rather appropriately given the subject matter of the debate—I promise this is not a stitch-up; this is actually what the numbers said— I am pleased to say that the Garibaldi has won best overall pub and best community pub. I am sure from my speech that Members will understand why it is so special, and why so many residents have voted for it, so I will not wax lyrical any further, but I hope the Minister will support me, the volunteers and local residents in trying to save this gem for future generations. Again, I reiterate my invitation: he should pay a visit when he gets a break in his busy schedule. I would love to take him on a pub crawl.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Perhaps the best invitation he will get all week!

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you will be able to give us a flavour of the pubs in Romsey and Southampton North. We feel sure that that would add to the debate this evening.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, and it would of course be remiss of me not to mention the Grey Hound in Broughton, which was the Romsey and Southampton North pub of the year 2025.

[Alex Norris]

That’s the spirit, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Before I finish, colleagues have asked about support to reduce overheads, and it is worth noting that nearly half of pubs have a rateable value of under £15,000, which takes them out of rates entirely. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) asked for a confirmation of rates, but I am afraid I cannot run ahead of the Chancellor, who will set the rates for 2026-27 at the forthcoming Budget in the autumn. For this year, there is a 40% relief, which I know is very welcome indeed.

To conclude, we have seen the strength of feeling from colleagues this evening, and also had a wonderful insight into the variety of ways in which pubs touch our communities. There is a common theme, which is the huge social value in people from a community, who know their community, coming together to tackle challenges and add to that community. We should want as much of that as we can foster, and the Government are keen to support that.

Question put and agreed to.