English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kohler]

I wish to speak to Lords amendment 42. Where a local authority provides land for public recreation, it can be held on the basis of a statutory trust that protects it. Parliament has set out a process that must be followed if that trust is to be ended. It is not a brilliant process by any means, but at least it gives a central role to local authorities.

In Day v. Shropshire, the Supreme Court recently held that where those requirements are not followed, the trust—quite reasonably—remains in place. However, amendment 42, first tabled in the other place by the Conservative peer Lord Banner, cuts across that principle. It would allow the Secretary of State to set aside those protections where the proper process has not been followed, even where the current local authority might not now support terminating the trust. It replaces localism with centralism.

Lord Banner sought to justify his amendment on a number of questionable grounds, including the assertion that the Supreme Court decision is

“causing considerable uncertainty in relation to land purchased in good faith from local authorities”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2026; Vol. 863, c. GC527.]

The only example I am aware of is a controversial issue in my constituency of Wimbledon. In that case, the All England Lawn Tennis Club bought the freehold to a portion of Wimbledon Park in 1993 at an appropriately reduced price, having expressly agreed both to never build on the land and to restore full rights of public recreation after the expiry of a pre-existing leasehold interest. There seems little doubt that the primary motivation behind the tabling of Lord Banner’s amendment relates to the Wimbledon Park controversy.

Unfortunately, despite previous assurances that they would leave the law unchanged until a proper consultation could take place, the Government rowed in behind the Banner amendment. That amendment would, however, still have been defeated had the Tories joined my Lib Dem colleagues in the No Lobby. Sadly, despite many assurances to the people of Wimbledon, every Tory peer either abstained or voted for the amendment tabled by their Conservative colleague, Lord Banner.

As we have heard, the Tories tabled an amendment—now re-tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds)—that would require the Secretary of State to write a report, lay it before Parliament and consider it. That is simply a tick-box exercise that would do nothing to stop Lord Banner’s amendment from coming into force. It is a parliamentary sleight of hand to pretend to the people of Wimbledon that the Tories have not abandoned them—and the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), has the cheek to ask me why the Lib Dems refuse to join the Tories in this deception.

My constituents in Wimbledon expect the legal protections of land to be upheld in practice, not set aside for ministerial discretion and Tory cons. I tabled a motion to disagree with the Banner amendment but under the arcane procedures of this place, I understand that my motion will not be voted on, while the Banner amendment will remain. That marks a sad day for Wimbledon specifically, public trust land generally and the credibility of the Conservative party across Merton, where the overreach of the AELTC is an important local election issue.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak tonight in support of two specific areas of the Bill that will directly affect my constituents in Portsmouth North.

First, I welcome the strengthening of gambling impact assessments. That links directly to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and I have already been doing on our “Back Our High Streets—Stop Dodgy Shops” campaign, which has been calling for stronger powers for councils and trading standards to protect our local high streets from rogue, harmful businesses. As I have said throughout the campaign, it is not just about tax-dodging businesses, dodgy vape shops and cowboy barbers; it is also about making sure that our high streets are not overwhelmed by the uses that damage community wellbeing and push out legitimate local traders. That absolutely includes gambling premises.

In North End, one small part of my constituency, five betting shops and arcades are concentrated within a very small area. North End has a proud local high street, but it faces challenges, because the community is already dealing with significant economic and social pressures, alongside a high street that has been neglected for years. This concentration of gambling premises in one community is not an accident, and it is not acceptable.

This kind of clustering can deepen financial hardship, contribute to addiction and poor mental health and undermine the health of the high street. That is why Lords amendment 80 matters. It gives local authorities stronger powers to assess whether additional gambling premises are genuinely consistent with the needs of the area and licensing objectives. That is exactly the kind of tool I have been pushing for and that local councils need if we are serious about backing our high streets and restoring confidence. That is what the Pride in Place strategy should look like in practice—not just warm words on a page, but real powers to shape better high streets.

Secondly, I will highlight the amendments on taxi and private vehicle licensing. I wholeheartedly welcome Lords amendments 43 to 79. The gap in enforcement powers that exists when a vehicle is licensed in one authority but operates in another is real and a long-standing concern for my residents. Like colleagues from all parts of the House, I have concerns about the number of vehicles operating that are licensed outside Portsmouth. Mainly, they are licensed in Wolverhampton.

To be clear, I realise that Wolverhampton carries out robust checks and I understand why many drivers choose to license there—in particular because of the cost of living and because it is significantly quicker—but authorities have too often found themselves powerless to act swiftly when a driver poses a risk to public safety, simply because the licence has been issued elsewhere. These amendments close that gap.

Residents have also highlighted concerns where local standards differ. For example, in Portsmouth, licensed taxis are expected to meet local safety requirements, such as having dash cams and vehicle CCTV, while those licensed elsewhere do not. Can the Minister comment on the options for having a national framework for the licensing of vehicles? That common-sense reform would put the safety of all passengers and drivers first. These are practical, common-sense initiatives, but we need to make sure that our councils deliver on them.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I will briefly speak to Lords amendment 98. When it comes to regions such as Cornwall and my constituency of North Cornwall, this Bill neither respects nor gives due consideration to our unique national minority status. In a letter sent to the leader of Cornwall council in November last year, the Secretary of State said that he recognised Cornwall’s “distinct local identity” and said that the Government were

“minded, on an exceptional basis, to work”

with the leader to explore a bespoke deal for Cornwall.

Five months later, the Bill has progressed through both Houses and still we have nothing in writing about that bespoke Cornwall-only deal, or even provisions to allow for one. Instead, we see efforts by this Government to undermine Lords amendment 98. The Secretary of State plans to force his MPs to vote against that vital amendment, which would prevent the Bill from giving overreaching powers to Ministers, through which they could essentially force local authorities to combine, against the will of local people.

On 24 March, on Report in the other place, the Government Whip responded that discussions are “positive and ongoing” and urged my Lib Dem colleague in the other place, Lord Teverson, to withdraw his amendments that were specifically designed to provide appropriate legal protections for Cornwall. The Minister in the other place said:

“While the United Kingdom is a proud signatory to the charter and the framework convention, accepting these amendments risks creating uncertainty over the status and interpretation of those treaties in domestic law.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 March 2026; Vol. 854, c. 1413.]

Instead, the Government seem to have chosen to completely ignore the European framework convention and charter for languages, which opens up the Bill to potential legal challenges.

Our national minority status in Cornwall has been completely ignored, and now risks being ignored by future Governments as well. This essentially means that the current or any future Secretary of State could force Cornwall to combine with other authorities, and disregard its national minority status. Let me be clear: Cornwall does not want that, and my constituents regularly urge me to make this point. We do not want to be dragged kicking and screaming into a combined authority with Plymouth or any other wider south-west authority.

Without Lords amendment 98, we risk having a diktat from the Westminster Government that tells us what to do. That is not devolution. I urge Members from across the House to vote against the Government’s attempt to disregard this vital amendment, and I respectfully ask the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and set out what protections for Cornwall’s national minority status the Government will bring forward, and when.

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Amanda Martin Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

The fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017 was a catastrophe that exposed systematic failures in regulation, in oversight and in the value placed on the lives of people in social housing. Seventy-two people died and hundreds more lost their homes, community and sense of safety. Families are still living with that loss every single day. Tragically, nothing we can do in this place can bring back those 54 adults and 18 children. As the Secretary of State noted in his speech, there is still so much to do to find truth and justice, and to ensure that it never happens again. We owe it to the families, the bereaved, the survivors and those who fought so hard for justice to ensure that what happened on that dreadful night is never, ever forgotten, and that those responsible are held to account.

This Bill is about the memorial and the foundation that will properly fund the community-led work on this memorial. Its narrowness ensures that it is the community who will choose the best way to do this. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for his words, his work and his leadership for truth and justice. I associate myself with his statement that we cannot stop until we have accountability, justice and action for change.

I represent Portsmouth North, a constituency in a working-class city that knows about close-knit communities, resilience in the face of loss and the importance of remembrance. When I was a teacher, before I came to this House, I spent years helping young people to understand not just what happened in the past, but why it matters that we remember. The archive, exhibition and memorial site will serve that purpose for generations to come. We must be able to look at what happened at Grenfell and understand why the safety of every person in every home in every tower block matters. That is a responsibility that falls on all of us.

I pay tribute to the survivors, the bereaved families and the community groups who have campaigned with such dignity, determination and immense courage. They asked only to be safe in their homes, and they were let down horrifically by a chain of failures across government, regulators and industry.

We should be clear about one of the lessons—and, indeed, the title—that comes out of the work of journalist Peter Apps. In his brilliant book, Apps noted how, for years before the fire, experts, campaigners and residents raised warnings about dangerous materials and weak fire safety rules in high-rise buildings. Yet in the atmosphere of deregulation, with the political drive to cut red tape, these warnings, and indeed these people, were repeatedly delayed, dismissed and ignored. Apps shockingly recounts how, when pressure was put on officials to strengthen fire safety guidance, one response was chilling in its bluntness: “Show me the bodies”. The unimaginable tragedy of Grenfell is that the bodies did come.

Seventy-two lives were lost in a disaster that was not inevitable, but the result of choices made over many years to weaken oversight and treat safety regulations as a burden rather than a protection. Cutting red tape may have an attractive ring as a political soundbite, but red tape can also be the crucial regulation that keeps us safe in our homes, our cars, our workplaces and our public realm. With that tragic lesson at the front of our minds, it is right that our attention turns to a memorial. The least we can do is to stand with the Grenfell survivors and campaigners, support their vision and together pass this legislation without delay, so that we remember them not only today and in debates in this place, but into the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Electoral Resilience

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance to my constituents in Portsmouth North that the police have all the resources they need to pursue all remaining leads in the Gill case? Will he reassure us that the review will examine the full extent of Russian interference in our country’s politics and democracy, including any influence exerted through Government contracts or strategic infrastructure projects?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Yes, of course the police have the resources they require to pursue any lines of inquiry arising from associates of Nathan Gill, as well as in relation to any other cases and political parties. It is important that the independent inquiry that we are launching today operates across political parties, in the interest of our democracy and everybody who holds that democracy as dear as all hon. Members across the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

In cities such as Portsmouth, outdated formulas for local authority funding have long failed to reflect real levels of deprivation. I would like to see a Labour Government increase support for children’s services, with a fairer system using up-to-date data. That would make an enormous difference to my constituents. Will the Minister meet me to ensure that funding allocation is being considered for Portsmouth to finally receive the funding it deserves?

[Alison McGovern]

Yes, I will very happily meet my hon. Friend. She is an incredibly powerful champion for Portsmouth and I would be very happy to meet her to discuss her council’s funding.

Supporting High Streets

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

Rather than giving away our fishing for 12 years and getting nothing in return because of a dogma, or spending time on international affairs—giving away the British Indian Ocean Territory and paying for the privilege—the Government should be prioritising the needs of business and focusing on the specific barriers mentioned by the hon. Member. Doing so would make a huge difference to businesses in her constituency.

It is not just the Chancellor. The Business Secretary seems to be doing his bit too, creating more small businesses by shrinking existing large ones. His 330-page unemployment Bill, which is due to come back before the House tomorrow, will make life a nightmare for every employer on our high streets. It will make flexible and seasonal working impossible, and will prevent employers from taking a risk on young people and work returners—some of the most vulnerable people in society—for fear of joining the backlog of 490,000 claims to employment tribunals.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Andrew Griffith]

If the hon. Lady wants to talk about what the Government are doing to help employment, I would love to hear her intervention.

[Amanda Martin]

The flexible labour market under the Tories meant that people were employed but did not know when they were working, how long they were working for and how much they were getting paid.

[Andrew Griffith]

You do not improve workers’ rights by making them unemployed, creating a generation of jobless young people who cannot find their way into gainful employment. And do you know what? It is not just the Conservatives who are saying that. Even that finishing school for socialists, the Resolution Foundation, opposes Labour’s Bill because of the unemployment that it will yield.

What this shows us is that the Government are simply not serious about business. We Conservatives get it. Many of us have worked in business ourselves, and we understand that businesses take risks, create wealth and employ millions. That is why we introduced business rates relief before this Labour Government cut it, and it is why we will introduce a 100% relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, taking 250,000 high street premises out of business rates entirely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We understand the pressure that businesses are under with energy, but it is driven by our dependence on global fossil fuel markets. We can do sticking-plaster or short-term fixes, or we can deal with the fundamental problem. We are pushing towards clean power, because that is how we ultimately drive down bills. That is not an offer to do so in 10 or 20 years; we are committed to driving down bills in this Parliament, and we will not resile from that.

Labour Members agree that our high streets will always be at the heart of our communities, and we welcome the cross-party agreement on that. Unless we grow the economy and put more money in people’s pockets, however, our high streets will never match local people’s ambition. That is why our high streets are front and centre of our growth mission, and why we are committed to driving their renewal.

I ask everyone in the House to remember the record and the legacy of the Conservatives, who are holding this debate pretending that they really care. For 14 years, our high streets were decimated, shops were boarded up and people in all our communities saw the impact of the Conservatives’ actions.

[Amanda Martin]

There has been a lot of talk about hospitality, with people mentioning it as a great source of first jobs. Under the last Government, however, 7,000 pubs were closed—last orders were called on those pubs. Does the Minister agree that our plans for thriving high streets mean that Labour is the only party looking to ensure that more pints are poured for our hard-working people?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right—7,000 pubs.

Statistic after statistic speaks to the Conservatives’ failure, so rather than being smug and providing fake solutions, they should be far more humble about the state in which they have left our communities. It is now on this Labour Government to fix the mess they left behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

The subject of high streets is one that matters deeply in constituencies like Crewe and Nantwich, where the story of decline is slowly but surely being rewritten into one of renewal. For too long, our high streets were left behind. Fourteen years of Conservative government saw projects stall, shopfronts shuttered and absentee landlords allowed to hold back regeneration. In Crewe, the failed Royal Arcade redevelopment became the symbol of that neglect. Shops were demolished as part of a regeneration scheme, only for inflation, particularly construction inflation, to soar through the ceiling as a result of Liz Truss’s mini-Budget—[Interruption.] This meant that the project failed and in Crewe we have been left with a wasteland.

[Amanda Martin]

Every time we mention the name Liz Truss, we hear groans from the Conservatives Benches, but I am not sure that people in my constituency really want to hear those groans, given that their mortgages and rents have gone through the roof and that business are unable to borrow.

[Connor Naismith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Conservative Members do not like it, but what I am articulating is the lived reality of my constituents and the impact of the Conservatives’ record on the economy while in government.

The failure to tackle the root causes of decline was compounded by economic mismanagement that drove up construction costs and by the devastating loss of HS2, but I am pleased to report that Crewe is turning a corner. We are seeing real investment, real ambition and real pride returning to our town centre, and that transformation is visible. It is being led by local leaders, our community and our entrepreneurs, backed by the economic stability that this Labour Government are delivering. The Crewe market hall, for example, has been reborn. It is now a thriving hub of food, drink and entertainment. The Lyceum theatre, a jewel in our town, is now joined by the Lyceum Square, a modern development that complements its historic charm. Together, they anchor a growing cultural quarter, and that quarter is expanding. The former Dorothy Perkins and Burton unit on Market Street, once another empty shell and blight on the high street, now hosts Crewe Creates—a vibrant space for arts and culture. This shows what can happen when creativity meets opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It takes some audacity, or maybe amnesia, for the Conservatives to table a motion about our high streets, given the absolute mess that they left them in after 14 long, depressing years in government. They say, “Let’s look forward, not back,” but those years cannot be wiped away by the people of my city—the cuts were too deep, and the damage was too much. Portsmouth is a proud city, but in Portsmouth North, we have seen what neglect looks like up close. Once-vibrant shopping parades and community spaces were left to decline on the Conservatives’ watch. Allaway Avenue, London Road north end, Cosham high street and the Hilsea shopping areas—to name a few once-bustling local centres—have been blighted by empty shops or inappropriate ones selling counterfeit or stolen goods, as well as by vandalism and illegal employment.

Local businesses tell me the same story again and again: despite being in charge, the Conservatives did nothing. Businesses closed, trade dropped, rents and rates remained high, footfall fell, and basic safety and cleanliness were ignored. One shopkeeper in Cosham told me last summer that

“We’ve had three break-ins this year alone. We reported it, but no one came.”

Data from Portsmouth neighbourhood police backs that up. Recorded incidents of shoplifting and intimidation of local shop owners increased by 30% between 2019 and 2023. Police officers were doing their very best, but under the Tories, law and order was neglected, under-resourced and overstretched for far too long, but there is hope. Under this Labour Government, the situation is changing.

Through the safer streets campaign, and now that we have neighbourhood officers, we have seen targeted action in Portsmouth North that has delivered a dramatic downfall in crime in key areas. Links between police and retailers have improved, and modern technology is being used. UK Partners Against Crime is working in partnership with our high street retailers. Neighbourhood officers such as PC Ben Treed and PC Hannah Kelleher need and deserve real credit for tackling antisocial behaviour and protecting our shopkeepers and residents. It is a privilege to go with them on their rounds.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is right to recognise the advances made as a result of our having named neighbourhood officers. Will she therefore congratulate the Conservative police and crime commissioner, Donna Jones, who brought in that policy before the hon. Lady’s Government did?

[Amanda Martin]

I welcome the work of my PCC, particularly on retail crime and in rolling out UKPAC.

The police officers I have mentioned deserve real credit, and with proper investment and community backing, they can finally do the job that the experts want them to do. That is why the initiatives I have described, alongside the pride in place programme, are so vital for my city. Portsmouth North has been awarded £20 million to breathe life back into local high streets and communities in Paulsgrove. That funding will go directly towards regenerating community spaces, improving safety and supporting the local economy. Importantly, how that money is spent will be decided by the community—the people who know the area best.

We already see progress being made by a Labour Government acting on behalf of our communities—in education, in our NHS and in our armed forces. Local residents have told me that they finally feel hopeful that their neighbourhood will receive the investment and respect that it needs and deserves.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), whose outstanding campaign for high-street renewal has inspired so many of us. It was her work that encouraged me to launch my own local initiative, the “Back Our High Streets—Stop Dodgy Shops” campaign. The campaign tackles an issue that has plagued communities like mine for too long: the rise of so-called dodgy shops—unregulated outlets selling counterfeit goods and illegal vapes, massage parlours and barbers, often operating outside proper licensing and safety standards and shirking their tax responsibilities, leaving an unfair playing field for those who do follow the rules.

[Anna Dixon]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the number of pop-up shops and illegal traders on the high street. I am running a petition about the antisocial use of fireworks; does she agree that more needs to be done to stop their illegal sale in pop-up shops?

[Amanda Martin]

Absolutely. Such shops are unregulated and potentially not paying their taxes, unlike other businesses on the same high streets. They drive down the quality of our high streets, put legitimate traders out of business, and create environments where antisocial behaviour can flourish. I am working closely with Portsmouth city council’s trading standards team and Portsmouth police to ensure that enforcement action is taken, including raids and seizures. We need to push councils to use the powers proposed in the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill; to work with communities; and to take compulsory purchase opportunities, so that we replace empty units with genuine local businesses and community spaces. This is about restoring pride, safety and opportunity to our local shopping areas.

However, our high streets are not just about shops. In a changing world of retail, we can and should ensure that retail, leisure, hospitality, personal services and houses sit together, because high streets are places where people come together and find friendship, conversation and connection. Supporting them is central to rebuilding vibrant, safe and welcoming communities. Conservative Members talk today about “reviving” our high streets, but it is a Labour Government and a Labour MP who are actually doing that in my city—investing in people, working with small and medium-sized enterprises, hospitality and leisure, and rebuilding our communities. We are ensuring that local pride has national action.

Let me end by thanking residents, volunteers, tradespeople, retailers, those who work for small and medium-sized enterprises and community groups in Portsmouth. They are out there every single day keeping our high streets alive, and their pride and persistence are the heartbeat of our communities. With this Labour Government and two Labour MPs, they finally have partners in Westminster who share their ambition, their passion and their pride in our city—and we are not stopping there, because we want to reach the heights and become the City of Culture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

It is a clear message: “Stop scrolling through Amazon, and go buy local—it’ll benefit your local economy greatly.”

High streets define places. Their success allows us to feel pride in our towns. They are a place where people come together. They help us to tackle social isolation, and they are often the place where people get their first job, and their last. The retail, hospitality and leisure sector employs 5.8 million people, and generates billions of pounds for our economy.

[Amanda Martin]

Does the shadow Minister agree that those 5.8 million people deserve a decent wage, deserve to know what hours they are working, and deserve proper sick pay?

[Matt Vickers]

My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs made a very good point: we do not support workers by bankrupting their employer. In the nine months before this Government took office, 22,000 jobs were created in the hospitality sector, and in the nine months since the last Budget, 100,000 people lost their job—their ability to provide for their family, and to live out their aspirations and dreams. That is a disgrace.

The sector is also the natural home of social mobility. It allows people to climb and achieve incredible things. There are so many stories of people who started by stacking shelves and serving coffee, and who went on to reach the boardroom. Without doubt, our high streets are really struggling. The truth is that they were battered by the Chancellor’s Budget last autumn—a £25 billion tax bombshell on British businesses and jobs, as a result of measures including the jobs tax and the slashing of small business rates relief.

Conservative Members understand that businesses need to be supported, not tied up in red tape and taxed into extinction. If this Labour Government do not change course, we risk making our high streets unrecognisable and unrecoverable. The problems are clear for all to see: higher taxes, punitive business rates, soaring energy costs, rising crime and more red tape and paperwork for employers. The Government must take urgent action to fix that.

Pride in Place

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend puts it eloquently and correctly. The power will be in their hands, and it is our job to ensure that is the way it plays out.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

On behalf of the people of Portsmouth, I am delighted that we have received £41.5 million under Labour’s pride in place impact programmes. Some £20 million of that is for Paulsgrove, which is close to my heart. It is a proud and resilient place, but it was neglected and ignored under 14 years of the previous Government. As pubs, shops and facilities have closed, volunteers and community champions have been running them out of their own pockets to keep that part of the city going. Will the Minister confirm that the community of Paulsgrove will now be able to have a say and put into action what the community wants and needs, with real investment from the Government, rather than from their own pockets?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend highlights the patriots I talked about—the people in our community who have been holding things together despite all the damage done by the Conservatives. We are clear that those people are the ones who we must champion and put in the driving seat.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Amanda Martin Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I really welcome this pivotal Bill. When I was deputy leader of Southampton city council, I saw at first hand how local decisions made by local people were transformative for the community, but I also saw over 14 long years of Conservative government how we were held back by a broken system that turned councils into supplicants, in constant competition with our neighbours, forced to put our begging bowl out for crumbs from Whitehall’s table. That ends with this Bill, and I really welcome the change that it represents and the measures it contains. I also welcome the fact that Southampton, along with other councils in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, is part of the devolution priority programme, allowing us to take advantage of these powers from next May.

The political benefits are clear, and the promise in our manifesto is being delivered, but the process matters, so we have to get this right. What I am interested in is how these powers improve the life chances of my constituents. My message to all council leaders, including in Southampton, is that we must be clear about what we want to do with these powers. I note that the Conservative police and crime commissioner, who is now running to be Mayor of Hampshire, has said that her big priorities are closing hotels for asylum seekers and stopping houses being built to avoid upsetting Tory district councils. That is certainly a vision, but it is disappointingly narrower than what this moment requires.

For me, there are three basic tests that regional devolution must meet to make this worth it: first, it improves employment and skills prospects, particularly for those most marginalised from the labour market; secondly, it progresses investment in and integration of our transport network, specifically low-polluting public transport that is well connected and affordable; and thirdly, it galvanises house building, so that working people can afford to live and work locally—that is especially vital in the south, where housing demand is acute and nimby Tory and Lib Dem-led councils are failing to deliver for local people. As an aside, I also welcome the return to the more representative supplementary vote system.

I appreciate that local government reorganisation is a separate process, but in Hampshire our local leaders are being asked to endorse new council areas alongside a mayoral authority. I support the proposal backed by 12 out of the 15 councils in Hampshire—run by all parties—to establish five unitary authorities across the area and have signed a joint letter to support that. I urge Ministers to not simply take the easy option and stitch together pre-existing organisations.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

As someone who also represents a constituency in Hampshire, I agree with my hon. Friend. In terms of the letter we have sent, would it not make more sense for boundary changes to be part of the process, as opposed to an add-on at the end?

[Darren Paffey]

I thank my hon. Friend and near neighbour for making that point. Absolutely, boundary changes must be looked at sympathetically by Ministers. I hope to get that reassurance in their comments, because what we stand to gain in the short term from a quick and easy decision, we will lose in the long term if councils find themselves saddled with nonsensical boundaries.

I have two other quick requests, the first of which is on mayoral councils. Giving mayoral councils a statutory footing would provide a powerful forum for central Government to meet devolved government and iron out policy issues. Secondly, will the Minister set out the Government’s ambitions and timescales for local public accounts committees? A lot of colleagues have talked about restoring trust in politics, and I think that openness, in particular on public moneys, can be delivered in that way.

In closing, there is a lot to be excited about in the Bill. I am pleased to see this Labour Government fulfilling another manifesto commitment and bringing real change for our communities.

Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for introducing the Bill and welcome the opportunity to raise issues of fairness and equality in the UK’s democracy.

We have seen in England that absent voting, by post or proxy, has empowered thousands of people to make their voices heard, even when life gets in the way, whether in the form of illness, work commitments, accessibility concerns, disability, caring commitments, simply being away on holiday or, in the case of my city, serving in another country. No one should be forced to choose between voting and the demands of everyday life, so it is only right that voters in Wales and Scotland have the same protections and access. We must not allow a postcode lottery when it comes to democracy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) noted, if we as a Government are serious about strengthening trust in politics, we must make voting easier, not harder.

On that note of making voting easier, it would be remiss of me if I were not to welcome the Government’s move to allow the veterans ID card to be used as valid voter identification. That is really welcomed by many Portsmouth North residents who have served our country. It is absolutely right that those who have served our country are not excluded from democratic participation due to ID restrictions. Many veterans, particularly those who are older or more vulnerable, told me how they faced real challenges accessing approved forms of ID, so recognising the veterans ID card as valid is a small but significant step towards honouring that service and ensuring their voices are heard in the ballot box.

Although the Bill does not address voting age, I want to place on record my strong support for extending voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds across the whole of the UK to ensure fairness, whether in absent voting or by age. Young people in Scotland and Wales already vote in devolved and local elections, and it is time young people in England and Northern Ireland had the same voice across all elections. The Bill is a step towards a fairer and more accessible democracy. It is a step we must take.

Grenfell Tower Fire: Eighth Anniversary

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell]

I absolutely agree. I applaud the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to bring in the Hillsborough law. At the party conference in September last year, he said that the law is

“for the sub-postmasters in the Horizon scandal. The victims of infected blood. Windrush. Grenfell Tower. And all the countless injustices over the years, suffered by working people at the hands of those who were supposed to serve them.”

Those are the Prime Minister’s words. I agree that we should see that law introduced before we return to Liverpool later this year, and see it accompanied by a national oversight mechanism, so that victims can be independently reassured that inquiry recommendations deliver meaningful change. The sad truth is that we know that if the lessons from the Lakanal House fire in 2009 had been learned, as the coroner intended, it is very likely that the Grenfell tragedy could have been prevented. We cannot allow that to happen again.

For the community of North Kensington, Grenfell will always be in our hearts, and I welcome the hard work of the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission to select a fitting permanent tribute to the memory of the 72, but our community needs continued support today. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for building safety, the Mayor of London and the many other elected officials for their regular visits to North Kensington and their engagement with the community. They will know that, as the tower is brought down, it is vital that community health services, including mental health services, are maintained, and I hope our local NHS leadership, working with the Government, can make sure that those services remain at least for the period of deconstruction. It is also essential that survivors have the monitoring they need to spot and address long-term health conditions that may arise.

For the residents around the tower, change has also been too long in coming. I regularly meet the residents of the Lancaster West estate, the Silchester estate and many others. On the Lancaster West estate, there is now the prospect of an £85 million gap in the budget to complete the major works that were promised by local and central Government after the fire. Clearly, no project of this scale should be overrunning so dramatically, but that promise to residents must be kept. I call on the Minister to do all he can, working with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, to find a solution.

The challenge goes much wider than Lancaster West. Since being elected, I have dealt with thousands of housing cases relating to poor-quality repairs, damp and mould, and a culture of disrespect, especially for social housing tenants.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Eight years on, we remember the deep sorrow, and stand with the survivors and families. Grenfell really did expose failures in building safety and massive social inequality. At the time, I was a teacher, and the deaths of those children were tragic. Now I am an MP, I think it is upon us to do all we can in this place not only to bring those people social justice and the justice they deserve, but to make sure it does not happen again.

[Joe Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I do applaud the many steps the Government are taking on this issue—for example, on professionalising the housing sector and implementing Awaab’s law on damp and mould. As she states, the truth is that without real change, all of us in this House know that a tragic case such as that of Awaab Ishak could easily happen again. In my constituency, that means that the purpose of the RBKC, Notting Hill Genesis, Peabody, Octavia and others should be to serve the residents, not to make their lives a misery, as too often ends up happening. We have launched a local campaign on safe and healthy homes to try to address the systemic failure in the community around Grenfell.

There will be no justice until the painfully slow process of remediating unsafe buildings across the country is complete.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

Again, I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from, but it is still within the rights of the appointed planning committee to say yes or no to the detailed development proposals. Local plans talk about numbers and locations. Planning applications that go before officers but are then called in by the committee are discussed in detail: what the developments look like, how many affordable houses there are, and what roads and community infrastructure there will be. That is the right of local planning committees, and under these measures this Government will take that away.

Why does the Minister feel that he and the political leadership of his Department should say what functions should be discharged by a committee, sub-committee or officer, and what conditions local authorities should abide by? I say that that is the right of the local authority, and that a scheme of delegation drawn up through consultation by local members in a full council or a committee role should perfectly satisfy the democratic checks and accountability that local people expect.

We said earlier that one of the only ways in which people engage with their local authorities is through the decisions that their councillors make on planning applications. This Minister and this Government are potentially taking that away from a huge number of people across the country, just because they want to get their 1.5 million houses through. They are doing so based on what they think is acceptable, despite the fact that local councillors may not find it acceptable to them. That is a disgrace. This is the way in which this Government have decided to go forward on delivering their 1.5 million homes—through mandatory targets in urban versus rural areas, a national scheme of delegation, and taking power away from local planning authorities, local councillors and lead members.

The Opposition say that that is a disgrace. That is something that local members should be doing. At every sitting of this Committee and at the later stages of the Bill, we will always say that locally elected councillors should have the power and right—they have the democratic responsibility and the democratic mandate—to make local decisions for local people. This Government are taking that away. We will oppose this clause and push it to a Division, because it is simply not right for the people in this country, who elect their councillors to speak for them. Every hon. Member on the Government side of the Committee whose councillors and constituents are affected by planning decisions is effectively saying to those councillors that they are not good enough to make decisions on behalf of their ward members, and that those ward members should not be making decisions on behalf of their councils. I look forward to them explaining that at their AGMs.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I would like to speak on amendments 50 and 51.

Portsmouth is a part of a minerals partnership and collaborates with Hampshire county council, Southampton city council, New Forest national park authority and the South Downs national park authority. Together, they have developed and adapted Hampshire’s minerals and waste plan. Does the Minister agree that amendments 50 and 51 will support administrative efficiency, particularly for those fully urbanised authorities such as mine in Portsmouth, where we have no or very few mineral resources to extract? Releasing such authorities from having full mineral plans and duties could reduce future duplication and free up much-needed planning resources, allowing us to work on plans that are relevant and specific to our area.

[Gideon Amos]

We support the delivery of 1.5 million homes, but a confrontational approach, whereby elected representatives are longer allowed to take decisions on behalf of local people, will alienate people from the planning system, create more conflict and make it harder to deliver the homes that we need. Taking powers away from local elected representatives is taking powers away from local people. So much of planning is already predetermined by national guidance and policy.

Only last Friday, I had two parish councillors at my surgery. They came to ask why Government guidance on highway planning overrides everything that they, local people and their own transport planning expert know about highway safety in their village. Those objectors wanted to support the housing scheme in Cheddon Fitzpaine, but they were asking for a previous commitment to secondary access to be honoured. The councillors were told that there would be costs of £400,000 if they did not follow Government transport planning guidance, and they had no choice but to accept the application without the road. Not for the first time, after that meeting some of my councillors came to me and said, “What is the point of being a councillor if local resources are so constrained that there is no money to provide local services?” Even on planning committee, the Government are taking away decision-making powers from local people. It is totally unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

Does the hon. Member accept that two thirds of local planning authorities in England—around 206 councils—do not have an up-to-date local plan?

[Lewis Cocking]

Both of mine have a local plan. A number of authorities do not have one; it is a long and arduous process, and I welcome discussions about how we can streamline it. As I said, if a local plan has been approved, a site may have been allocated for development, but the minutiae or detail regarding the design of that development will not have been gone into. I have always maintained that the reason developers struggle to get through the planning system is because they try to build absolute rubbish. If they came forward with lots of really good schemes, councillors would not give them as hard a time as they do.

[Amanda Martin]

indicated dissent.

[Lewis Cocking]

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but I have sat on a planning committee and seen developers come forward and make planning applications in line with local plan allocation on outline, which means that we are just discussing the principle of development, or potentially the numbers or the access, with all the detailed designs left to the full planning application. It is set out in gold. We get everything we want. We get a good 106 negotiation. There will be a new doctors surgery and a new school. Lo and behold, when that same developer comes back with a full planning application, it is completely different, but because the principle of development has been established it is very difficult to then turn down. Developers are taking some councils for a ride, and we need to be careful of that.