Council Housing

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this debate.

Norwich was at the birth of social housing, building its first council house on Angel Road 100 years ago. Shortly after, came the Mile Cross estate, one of the first of its kind. By the 1970s, our city had a higher proportion of council housing than any other in the country. Labour in Norwich continued that delivery. We delivered Goldsmith Street—105 council homes built to Passivhaus standards and the first council housing project to win the Royal Institute of British Architects Stirling prize. At the old Mile Cross depot in my constituency, a Labour council planned and funded 67 new council homes for rent, with more on the full site. Anglia Square stood undeveloped for years, then a Labour Government gave a Labour city council the funding to unlock the site and get building, delivering 1,100 homes, with a commitment that at least 50% will be affordable, many at social rent.

I pay tribute to the former Labour council leaders, including Mike Stonard, Alan Waters, Brenda Horner and Steve Morphew, for their work driving that vision forward, and Carli Harper, who has put housing at the centre of her campaign to be Mayor of Norfolk and Suffolk.

That is what delivery looks like, but it is not finished. We have to do much more to ensure that the council homes my constituents need are delivered. Since May, the Green party has run Norwich city council. I want them to succeed and not squander Labour’s legacy on housing. My message is simple: see those schemes through; do not let them slip and do not dilute them. The need is real, with almost 4,000 households in Norwich waiting for a home. Those are not statistics; they are people who have done everything right and are still waiting.

What needs to happen? First, we need investment, so I welcome the Government’s £39 billion programme for social and affordable homes. I declare an interest as the chair of the East of England housing delivery group. The region is expected to deliver 227,000 homes to support the Government’s targets over the course of this Parliament. If we are to do that, we must get our fair share of investment. Houses do not build themselves, so we need to ensure we have the skills in the pipeline to accelerate construction and deliver them. Our need for homes must be recognised as urgent.

Secondly, with others, I welcome the decision to let councils keep their right-to-buy receipts, which will make a huge difference. Thirdly, it is not enough to build homes; they have to be of good quality. People in council housing deserve high-quality homes, such as the ones Norwich Labour built on Goldsmith Street. Too many constituents still contact me with concerns about the quality of housing. Fourthly, homes must be eco-friendly. Goldsmith Street proves that warm, low-energy homes with bills tenants can afford are not a luxury; they are what council housing should be. Every new council home we build, should be built to the same ambition.

Fifthly, community is important. Mile Cross worked a century ago because it was never just about housing; it was also a community. Its centenary in 2023 was beautifully celebrated by The Common Lot. A home is only as good as what surrounds it: the bus that turns up, the GP we can book, the school within walking distance, the park, and the shop on the corner. When we build homes, we must build that community, too. The Norwich Labour party still believes that, and I know Labour in government believes that, so we must keep building to deliver the council homes that so many people still desperately need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and to take part in this debate about the delivery of council housing. It is a debate on a very important topic and I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing it.

Building more homes is a critical mission for anyone governing England and Wales today, in order to make the dream of home ownership a reality for even more hard-working families. With a record number of people homeless, and with 177,530 children and 49,120 adult households in temporary accommodation, clearly the priority must be to build more council homes. That is what the Opposition want to happen, but that is what the Government are currently failing to do.

Let us take a look at the Government’s own data. Just 208,600 net additional dwellings were added in England in Labour’s first year of power. That was a 6% drop from 2023-24, which was the last Conservative Government’s final year in office. Of these, 190,600 were new homes, a fall of 8,000, around 4%, on 2023-24. Taken together, the Government are on track to build around 400,000 fewer homes than they promised at the election, meaning yet another broken promise made to the British people. The Government know that—the Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), admitted this on national media.

That poor showing on homes directly impacts the pressing issue we are debating today, which is the delivery of council housing. We heard the Prime Minister proudly making his summer promise of the comeback of the council house, but what little details we do know on that policy show that the money he has earmarked would equal just 15,494 homes a year, barely 5% of the Government’s annual housing target. That is in exchange for another £79 billion added to the housing subsidy bill, despite the fact that the UK already spends the most on housing allowances as a percentage of GDP of any OECD country.

One might have been forgiven for thinking that the aptly-titled Social Housing Bill introduced earlier this year might have been the answer to get local authorities, the Government, industry, and the nation building again. However, as is becoming a theme in this Government, we are left severely disappointed by the reality. The Government have presented a Bill to the House that fails to build a single new council house. Instead of making social and affordable housing sites viable and pushing developments through the pipeline at pace—the Government love to use that phrase—to get people off the street and help children into permanent homes, they have chosen to use up parliamentary, Government and civil service time on an ideological assault on right-to-buy. It is a shameful course of action, and far from what the 1.34 million people on the social housing wait list need.

Even worse is that the Government know this Social Housing Bill will not deliver new homes. According tousb data from the Minister’s own impact assessment, in 2026-27 the pre-November 2024 baseline was 8,050 right-to-buy sales, leading to 5,450 replacement homes. The document goes on to show that if this Bill were to pass and the legacy impacts were to wind down in the period of 2031-35, annual right-to-buy sales would fall to around 1,100 a year, with around 1,450 replacement homes. That means that by their own analysis and admission, the Government will be overseeing a housing system in which there would be 4,000 fewer new social homes funded every year. Moreover, research conducted by the House of Lords Library shows that only a net 3% of social homes become available each year to new tenancies. That means that around 90 additional homes will be available for a new tenant each year instead of 5,000.

The Bill would not only mean no new homes built, but would actively prevent them from being delivered. The Government really must refocus their efforts on building more council housing, and that requires serious reforms to the viability of sites for social and affordable homes. We are halfway through a Parliament in which we have spent much time debating the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, various updates to the national planning policy framework and the aforementioned Bill, yet after all of that we are still left without a clear route to building more homes. Projections from the Government show they will have managed to build just 26% of their target in 50% of the time.

[Alice Macdonald]

Obviously we are in government now, but will the hon. Lady reflect on her party’s policies in terms of not letting councils keep right-to-buy receipts or the fact that nearly 200,000 homes were lost in one decade under the Conservatives?

[Sarah Bool]

Of course, it is always important to reflect on any of the legacies but we have to talk about the here and now. It has rightly been said that this Government are in control; the Social Housing Bill is supposed to unlock the system and yet it will not do that. Our questions should be directly to the Minister about how the Government will unlock the potential that everyone in this room wants to see. That is why the Conservative party proposes taking £50,000 off the cost of building a new home in England and Wales by cutting back on regulations and taxes; backing a genuinely brownfield-first approach to see new homes built on the existing 1.41 million sites viable for development; building, not blocking; a genuine council house comeback; and supporting aspiration.

Planning Reform

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will meet the hon. Gentleman and his local authority leader—I am more than happy to set out the Government’s position on green-belt land designation and release—but I gently say to him and other Opposition Members that there is no way of building the volume of homes our country needs on brownfield land alone. There is not enough land on brownfield land registers, certainly not brownfield land that is in the right place and viable to meet that need. We do need to release more land, including green-belt land, but we are doing it in a fair way and starting with grey-belt land first.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to tackling the housing crisis that we inherited. I have had many emails from people in Norwich about the need to build much-needed homes but also to protect our natural environment. As he probably knows, Norfolk is home to 10% of England’s chalk streams. He has touched on this, but can he provide reassurances to my constituents, and outline how this new policy will protect vital nature spots, like chalk streams?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We do want to provide greater protection for our precious chalk streams, which is why we have included explicit recognition of them in the framework. As I said in a previous answer, we will ensure that local plans identify and manage the impacts of development on these sensitive areas and set clearer expectations for development proposals in relation to them. The aim is to secure the consistent application of policy on these precious habitats. That will be supported by the roll-out of local nature recovery strategies, which will be able to map chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them.

Local Elections

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Surrey elections will go ahead as planned. We are moving forward with the Hampshire elections as planned, although we are now minded to move the mayoral elections for Hampshire and the Solent to 2028. On the hon. Gentleman’s question on the Surrey mayor, our ambition is to have mayors all across the country. We will move at the pace that places become ready so that we prioritise building strong partnership through strategic authorities and then mayors. We have learned the lesson of what mayors can do, and the intention is to have both mayors and strong, powerful foundation authorities.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

All Labour Members agree that we want power brought closer to our communities, and I have been clear in backing proper devolution in Norfolk and effective local government reorganisation—and the proposal for three unitaries. However, now that the mayoral elections have been postponed, can the Minister assure us that Norfolk and Suffolk will not lose out on investment, including funding that has gone to mayoral combined authorities, and that we will have a seat at the table over the next three years until 2028, so that our area does not lose out?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Absolutely. That is why we have announced £37.4 million per year, and it is why we have committed to providing some of that investment up front. Critically, though, we are absolutely committed to working with strategic authorities to unlock new powers for them, so that they can get on and deliver for their people.

Pride in Place

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is 100% right. Understanding what is needed is game-changing, and I hope that this programme will deliver the ability to ensure we can act on that understanding.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Labour Government’s £20 million investment for Heartsease and Pilling Park in my constituency will be transformative. For too long our communities have had stuff done to them, not with them, and this model will help change that. Will the Minister join me in encouraging all people who live in these areas to get involved? Does she agree that it is important that people of all ages and from all backgrounds, including people who have perhaps never thought before about doing something like this, get involved?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right. This is a huge opportunity for our communities to get involved. As I have said, I think there is a powerful role that Members of Parliament can play in putting out the clarion call. I encourage anyone, particularly those who have felt politics and decisions about their lives to be remote, to become involved. This is their chance to get around the table, to shape their place and to make sure that they drive the change that they want to see.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I cannot say that devolution is a topic that comes up very often on the doorstep, but the issues that this Bill is designed to address—too much power exercised by people far away, too little say in shaping the places where we live, and too much confusion over where to go when we have a problem or an issue that needs resolving—certainly do. My constituents have raised those issues with me time and again, and devolution and the measures set out in this Bill will tackle those challenges. They will return power to local people, empower communities and power growth in areas of the country like mine in Norfolk.

In Norfolk, devolution means opportunity. It means innovation and investment, helping create new jobs in emerging industries such as clean aviation, and bolstering our existing strengths, including financial services, life sciences and clean energy. Devolution means connectivity, unlocking better and sustainable transport, which is essential in rural counties like ours. It means enhancing Norfolk and Norwich’s reputation and reach, amplifying our voices, our contribution and our impact nationally. As such, I welcome the Bill and the fact that Norfolk is part of the devolution priority programme. Current proposals will see an elected Mayor for Norfolk and Suffolk alongside the establishment of a combined authority, but we must get the structures below that level right in order to take full advantage of this opportunity. That is why local government reorganisation, and the tools set out in the Bill to deliver it, are so vital. It is a once-in-a-generation chance to provide more efficient public services, to end the overlap of councils and to deliver better value for money.

I am pleased to back the proposals, supported by six out of seven of Norfolk’s district councils, to create three unitary authorities. In Norfolk, there would be a Greater Norwich unitary with extended boundaries and two unitary authorities broadly covering the eastern and western parts of Norfolk. I grew up in Norfolk; we moved there when I was three. I know how essential it is that what is delivered is rooted in place and identity, and I believe this proposal will reflect Norfolk and what is needed there. Of course, the specific boundaries still need to be shaped with the support of community engagement, but it is the shape I believe our county needs. With it, we can unlock the full potential of Norwich. It is already a key city for the region and our country, with its economy having grown by 64% since 2010, but we can do so much more to unlock our full potential as a city of great innovation, culture and prosperity, driving growth across East Anglia and beyond. As the need for affordable and sustainable housing continues to grow—I see that the Housing Minister is on the Front Bench—the establishment of a Greater Norwich unitary authority will also offer a more effective mechanism for addressing housing demand, which is such a pressure in our city.

Devolution and effective reorganisation will be a game changer for Norwich and Norfolk, but only if we get it right. I fear that some of the other options on the table will simply not work. The proposal backed by the Conservative-controlled Norfolk county council calls for the creation of a single county unitary in Norfolk. I believe that would be just too big; its footprint would cover thousands of square miles, stretching ties between local councillors and the people they are elected to serve. Similarly, a model involving two unitary authorities fails to recognise the unique growth opportunities in Norwich, which I have set out.

Although we may disagree on the model, it is important that there is healthy debate on this subject. I thank all the councillors at all levels, who do so much for our communities every single day and who have contributed to the discussions so far. As these proposals are developed, it is vital that we work collaboratively across parties, listening to our residents to get the very best for our communities. On that point, I ask the Minister to underline that this Bill will not affect town and parish councils, and indeed will recognise the vital role they play. We have many in Norwich North—Sprowston, Drayton, Old Catton, Hellesdon and Thorpe St Andrew—and they all play important parts in our neighbourhoods.

I have one minute left—so, as a Labour and Co-operative MP, I take this opportunity to thank the Co-op party and all its members for all the campaigning they have done to deliver so many measures in this Bill, including the community right to buy. I recognise that this process may not be easy, but if we get it right, the benefits will be huge for the constituents we serve and the places we represent.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

Quite frankly, it is a bit rich for any shadow Minister to critique the current system when the Conservatives deliberately designed it in their 14 years in government. The question is how we go about repairing it. One thing must absolutely be put right; the disjointed system in which different Government Departments work in silos cannot carry on. One of the successes of the leaders’ council is that for, the first time ever, local government leaders are around the table with the Government, including in a meeting with the Home Office and our Department, to work through exactly those issues. That is the change: for the first time, those in local government are being treated as adults.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

As the Planning and Infrastructure Bill enters its remaining stages in the Commons, I thank my hon. Friend the Housing Minister and Members across the House for their continued work on this important piece of legislation that will get Britain building again.

This weekend marks the eighth anniversary of the Grenfell tower fire. I know that I speak for all Members of this House when I say that the 72 men, women and children who lost their lives at Grenfell will never be forgotten. We have accepted the inquiry’s findings, and will take action on all 58 recommendations to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system that will deliver safe, quality homes for everyone.

[Alice Macdonald]

Many of my constituents are concerned that too often new estates go up without the necessary infrastructure, whether that is schools, GP surgeries or even playgrounds. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital to address that issue, and can she elaborate on how we will do so after too many years of inaction?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide the necessary infrastructure that communities expect. We will set out further details in due course. Earlier I mentioned the changes to the national planning policy framework that were announced in December, and we will also support the increased provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure.

Street Parking on Estates: Bracknell Forest

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Swallow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that insightful intervention. In Bracknell Forest, we have few permit parking zones, because they simply would not work for our community. The point that he makes is absolutely correct, and I will come back time and again in this debate to the need for local areas to come up with local solutions to these local problems. Ultimately, communities like his in Reading and mine in Bracknell Forest know best what the solutions are to some of these endemic issues.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the speech he is making. This issue plagues residents in my area, too. Two particular problems are: parking around school pick-up and drop-off—I wonder whether he has found the same—and, in unadopted estates, real difficulties with enforcement when there is dangerous parking. Does this issue need to be addressed by local authorities, as well as the Government?

[Peter Swallow]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s point about the challenge around schools is well made. We all want to see more young people and families walking and cycling to school, but in some communities, that just is not possible. Also, we have to be realistic: in some communities, it just does not happen. The end result is what we often see in streets such as Staplehurst in Great Hollands, where there is a lot of conflict between those going to pick up their kids from school and the families who live there, who just need to get out without having their movements dictated by the timings of the school day. It is a real challenge. In those situations, local solutions need to be the vehicle that takes us forward, if the House will pardon the pun.

Enforcement is a really important part of the puzzle. On some streets in Bracknell Forest, at any hour of any day, a traffic warden could litter all the cars with tickets. Frankly, if there is not the parking infrastructure to allow cars to park, enforcement can only go so far, so although it is absolutely part of the solution, it is not the only part.

Parking Regulation

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this debate.

Like many Members here today, I have received complaints from constituents, but I am mainly here because of Janice, who came to my surgery to tell me her story. Her son tragically passed away from cancer in 2023. After his diagnosis, Janice and her husband went to seek support from a local cancer charity. They struggled to access the building, so they pulled over briefly to call for directions; they then went on to get the support that they needed. It was only when they returned home that they received a £60 fine for allegedly having parked on the side road. Understandably, Janice contested the fine, explaining the situation. The company that issued the fine states on its website that it will reply to challenges within 28 days, but Janice heard nothing. She then received a letter saying that the fine had doubled.

Sadly, Janice’s experience is not unique. At Norwich railway station, taxi drivers were outraged to keep getting fines for supposedly staying over the time limit. The CEO of the taxi company says:

“If taxi drivers are facing such issues despite having tracking data to challenge the fines, what about regular commuters and visitors who lack the resources to contest these decisions?”

I am pleased that in that case the parking companies reviewed all the fines, but it should not have come to that.

The common denominator is a parking industry with free rein to do whatever it wants. Where drivers park and how they pay for their parking is a lottery. As many Members have pointed out, it can exclude many people. It is obvious that the voluntary code is not fit for purpose. I fully back the calls for a legally binding code of practice backed by the law, so that we have a fair system with a cap on parking charges, with clear professional standards, with complaints handling and with a single independent appeal system. I add my voice to those of colleagues in this room and across the parties calling for immediate action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Members for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate. As we have heard from across the Chamber, there are many examples of rogue parking companies. Before I begin, I will just note that this is my first opportunity to reply to a debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition—not bad for a boy from Broxbourne—so please go easy on me.

Luckily, both I and my constituents have plenty of experience of dealing with parking problems—as do many Members across the Chamber, as we have heard, with passionate contributions from Members on both sides of the Chamber, including the right hon. Member—sorry, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); he should be a right hon. Member. It would not be a debate in this Chamber without him in attendance. I noted down many comments from Members across the Chamber, but I will not go through them; I will just say that I heard nothing that I disagreed with about these cowboy parking companies. I think everyone has agreed with everything that everyone else has said and that action needs to be taken on rogue parking companies.

Parking is a crucial part of everyday life, but too often it is overlooked because it is not a glamorous political issue. When parking is too hard to find, too expensive or just too complicated, it can have a ripple effect on the local economy and the basic quality of life of all our constituents. I would like to make a number of practical points to the Minister and I look forward to the Government taking constructive steps to make things easier and better as soon as possible.

Although Labour’s manifesto failed to mention parking—its priorities clearly lying elsewhere—the Conservatives pledged to roll out the national parking platform fully, ending the ludicrous situation of someone needing one app on their phone to park in one car park, another app to park in the car park down the road and so on. A single payment system would make paying easier, especially for older people. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), said in February that options were being explored with the parking industry to deliver that platform, so let me ask today’s Minister: how are those discussions going, and when will we see action on that matter? Can he confirm whether the funding for the pilot version of the national parking platform ceased on 31 March?

While making parking easier for drivers, there is a balance to be struck between making simpler regulations and protecting pedestrians and local residents. At the last election, we promised to give councils the power to ban pavement parking if they so wish, provided that they engage with businesses and residents first to ensure that they are not adversely affected. It is incredibly frustrating for pedestrians to find their path blocked by inconsiderate cars; for those with disabilities or young children in prams, it can mean the choice between a dangerous detour and not continuing their journey at all. My sister has used a wheelchair to get around Hoddesdon and sadly has been forced into busy roads too many times.

At its most serious, inconsiderate parking can be a matter of life and death. I am sad to say that in my Broxbourne constituency there was a case in which an ambulance was unable to reach a person experiencing a 999 medical emergency, with paramedics having to run down the road because cars were parked too closely on both sides of it. In my previous role as the local county councillor, I was able to respond immediately by putting in place practical double yellow lines to ensure that that could never happen again, while ensuring that parking was still available.

[Alice Macdonald]

I totally agree with the hon. Member on the challenge of pavement parking, particularly around the times of the school run. There was a consultation on the issue in 2020, and I hope the Minister will be responding to it. May I ask why the Conservative Government did not respond to the consultation and take action on some of these areas?

[Lewis Cocking]

We did try to implement some of the recommendations from the consultation; the courts and the private companies that threatened legal action were the reason why we could not do that. I hope this Government will answer those questions and reply to that consultation, as the hon. Member rightly says; I would not go near a primary or secondary school in my constituency during school pick-up and drop-off time. Sadly, it is often parents taking their children to school who are parking dangerously, and that affects other children going to the same school. We must do something about that.

I firmly believe that councils and councillors, who understand their local areas, should have the power to tackle inconsiderate parking. The Minister speaks about devolving more responsibility to local authorities. Will that include the power for local authorities, if they so wish, to ban pavement parking?

When it comes to parking, local people also need a say from a planning perspective. In my constituency, a new development has been proposed with just 17 spare spaces for 80 flats. If only half those flats contain two people—a couple who both drive—spaces will run out very quickly indeed, forcing more cars on to already full neighbouring roads.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

For the final question, I call Alice Macdonald.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Minister will be aware, nutrient neutrality has had a big impact on Norfolk, holding up many homes and planning applications. The launch of the Norfolk nutrient mitigation fund has helped to make a difference, but we need more environmental solutions. Will the Minister update us on what else we will be doing to address nutrient neutrality, so that good homes and growth can be unlocked in our local area?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are supporting a range of targeted interventions to deal with constraints such as nutrient neutrality. In the longer term, the measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that introduce the nature restoration fund will allow us to provide a win-win for both development and nature, dealing with constraints such as nutrient neutrality and unlocking the development of new homes.

English Devolution and Local Government

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

This is not a rushed process. Reorganisation is coming because we are working with local areas. The areas in the priority programme were selected for it because they had plans that we felt were credible to achieve within that 12-month programme. We will continue to provide financial and logistical support to ensure that people across the hon. Lady’s constituency feel the benefit of reorganisation. After 14 years of local services being hammered by the Conservatives, they have a Labour Government who are delivering for local people.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is very good news for Norwich and Norfolk and it will allow us to fulfil our potential. Many of my colleagues from Norfolk have spoken. Whatever they think of the proposals, I urge them to work across parties now to get the best possible outcomes for our residents. On growth, Norwich already contributes £3 billion annually to the economy, but we can contribute so much more. Will my right hon. Friend outline the powers that mayors will have, and will she reassure us that cities such as Norwich, which are key drivers of growth, will have their voices heard in this process?

[Angela Rayner]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments, because she talks up what is happening across Norwich and the £3 billion of growth already being delivered there. We want local growth plans to work centrally with Government to deliver opportunities across skills, transport, housing and infrastructure, so that we can deliver for people across Norwich. I welcome the spirit in which she has talked about cross-party working. She puts the people of Norwich first, and that is why she was elected to represent them.