Council Housing

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

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.

I want to speak up for Portsmouth today, a city that at its peak had 27,000 council homes and now has fewer than 16,000. Our city is in the grip of a housing crisis, with too many people struggling to find a secure and affordable home. We have a waiting list of almost 3,000 households, with almost 50% of those being exceptional or urgent priority. Yet in 2024-25 Portsmouth built just 40 new homes—not 40 social homes, but 40 new homes in total. In the same period, only 15 units for social rent were added to the council stock, with just six more being started. Behind those figures are families waiting for a home, young people struggling to find somewhere they can afford, and residents facing the insecurity of unaffordable rent or moving from temporary accommodation to temporary accommodation.

I know personally what a council home means. I grew up in one and many of my aunties and uncles, and my own parents were born and lived in council housing. For my family it meant stability, security and the opportunity to build a future. Council housing is more than bricks and mortar. It gives people a foundation in life, a community and a place to call home, and every family deserves one. That is why I am proud that this Labour Government have committed to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. We are invigorating council house building and taking action to protect existing social housing, but that national ambition must translate into homes on the ground in Portsmouth. More families need the security I experienced growing up in a safe, affordable home, and the chance to build a better future.

Cannock Chase and historical Norwich city council have shown what can be achieved when a council creates opportunity, and I commend their vision. Portsmouth should look at what works elsewhere and how we can translate that to my city. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what practical support the Government can provide to help Portsmouth city council overcome barriers to planning, building, developing derelict sites, regenerating empty homes and unlocking investment to deliver the council houses and social rented homes my residents desperately need?

Portsmouth city council must act; my residents cannot afford to wait any longer to have a secure place to call home.

Local Government Reorganisation

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I am glad that the hon. Member said “common sense and listening”, because I am trying to listen, use my common sense and be pragmatic. As I said when I embarked on local government reform, it has to be about services for local people. On the two-tiered approach to local authorities, we have always been clear about ensuring that the split is absolutely right, so that we get the scale and so things like education and other services can be delivered. That is why we always said that we would consider those proposals and how best to deliver unitary councils in this Parliament.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State and her Ministers can attest, throughout the reorganisation process I have been fighting to protect my city’s proud identity and its important, but often neglected, position in Hampshire. I am sorry for all the confusion and politicking that residents have had to face—it is simply not good enough. As she reviews local reorganisation in Portsmouth, will she reassure my residents that any decision will maintain Portsmouth’s strong identity, and will she confirm that today’s announcements will not delay the Government’s plan for devolution and putting power closer to the people we represent?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend has been an absolute champion for the people of Portsmouth since being elected to Parliament, and I do not think any of us will try to take that identity away from the people of Portsmouth—I am sure that she will be pushing that. She is absolutely right to talk about devolution; we need to grasp the nettle on local government reform so that we can put areas in a strong place for devolution. We will be working with her in the coming weeks to ensure that that happens.

Local Government Reorganisation

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his powerful advocacy for his constituents. The changes we are making are, in part, intended to lay the framework for the mayoral devolution that will follow. That will provide significant new powers for Lancashire when it comes. I am happy to ensure that he gets the meeting he has asked for.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I am proud to represent Portsmouth, whose local people want their pride reflected in the name of the reorganised local council. Both Portsmouth MPs and, I believe, councils representing over 75% of residents, support including Portsmouth in the name. It would be laughable, if it was not so awful, that the new name being publicly criticised by the council is the one that was submitted by Portsmouth city council itself. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for the Liberal Democrat council to stop playing political games, stop scaremongering, stop wasting time and—I know it might be hard for them—be honest with residents about this process? Will he help me ensure that Portsmouth is indeed in the name of the new unitary council, because it is so important?

[Steve Reed]

I have had the great pleasure of visiting Portsmouth with my hon. Friend on several occasions, so I have seen at first hand what a powerful champion she is for her constituents. She has raised this point with me previously. I am more than happy to ensure that she has a meeting with me or another appropriate Minister to discuss her very legitimate concerns.

High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Member is correct: without doubt, a strong regulatory failure over the past decade has contributed to the problem. I will address some of her points later in my remarks.

There is also a rural/suburban distinction. In rural areas, the British public have a stronger opinion: about 55% of people in predominantly rural or semi-rural areas believe that their high street is undergoing a decline, whereas the figure for those living in urban areas is only 19%.

Let us look at some of the stats that back up the evidence about the narrowing range of high street retail across the country. There are now believed to be at least 3,500 nail bars, 20,000 to 25,000 barber shops and 3,500 vape shops. As we are all aware, those numbers could well be significantly under-reported, so they do not necessarily give an accurate picture of the extent of the challenge. On Oxford Street alone, a mile or so from here, there are 18 American candy stores.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. The issues that he highlights exist across the country. A common struggle for hon. Members across the House is that we cannot find out who owns these buildings on our high streets. I have approached my council, but it either does not have the information or is not willing to share it so that we can regenerate our high streets. Does the hon. Member agree that we need mechanisms to ensure greater transparency and due diligence so that these landlords can take some ownership?

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Member is correct. At the centre of a Venn diagram of regulatory and reporting blackspots, there is a sweet spot where it is difficult to identify those who are responsible behind the building ownership or the so-called businesses appearing on our high streets as a consequence of the pressure that I am outlining.

Another consequence that is being discussed across the House is the decline of vital services in our areas. Some 7,000 banks have closed across the country since 2015, which is two thirds of the entire banking network. We have all heard stories from constituents who are increasingly dependent on retail banking presence. There has been a push towards banking hubs, and the Post Office performs a role to some extent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

That is fantastic, and I am delighted to hear it. I know that many areas do that well, but we have to get the very basics at the bottom of the question right.

I believe in design codes because they give people control over the aesthetic of our areas. We all know the kinds of places that we are attracted to when we have a bit of leisure time—we may go there to spend money and to have a day out with family and friends. We have to view our own areas through that lens and ask how we can ensure that they are attractive enough destinations for people to want to come there and spend their money. If our town centres are not attractive because we have allowed the basics to slip and do not take care around the aesthetic and cleanliness of areas, we should not be surprised when people stop coming, businesses do not invest and low-grade retail begins to occupy the void that has been created. I encourage the Government to restore the principle of good-quality design being at the centre of planning decisions, to enforce a greater aesthetic standard across the areas that we represent.

Tied to that has to be an increase in the quality of signage. All hon. Members can cite examples of a low-grade retail unit—possibly one that is questionable in terms of how many people it employs and what its purpose is—opening in their constituencies. I guarantee that in many cases such a unit will come with a garish, ugly and possibly neon sign that local people are frankly staggered that the local authority is allowing to stay in place. The state has to make a much more concerted effort to tackle the issue: the national Government need to devolve powers to local authorities and regulatory services, and local authorities have to have a much stronger will to ensure signage standards across society are of greater quality.

[Amanda Martin]

Does the hon. Member agree that we need to make sure that data sharing flows, with intelligence, between all relevant organisations, including mayors, local government, the police, and the small businesses that are following the law and doing the right thing?

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and that links perfectly to my next point, which is on enforcement and the awareness of the state. Members all have examples of such incidents occurring because they have fallen through the cracks of the different agencies that are meant to have responsibility for the issue, so let us think about how the state needs to be rewired to tackle it. The state has to bring together the Home Office, local authorities, police forces, and the Treasury in its role in clamping down on money laundering. The unquestionable effect of illegal migration and county lines sits at the centre of much of this, and far too many of the relevant powers are weak or dispersed to authorities that do not have the will or ability to crack down on the problem. Enforcement and the ability of the state have to be at the centre of this.

On the civic pride piece, we should get back to basics, as some obvious things could be done. My local authority in Bromsgrove does a pretty good job of keeping Bromsgrove and Hagley town centres, and the shopping parades in Wythall and Rubery, clean and tidy, but I would like public authorities to invest a little more in the finishing touches, like flowers, and the quality of the public realm. It is those softer things that make our areas pleasant destinations for people to shop in and, ultimately, for businesses to invest in. Let us bring back trees in the public realm, for goodness’ sake. We have seen plenty of instances in which the planning system has prevented the planting of street trees because people are concerned about liabilities, but we know that the public like them, and guess what? With last week’s heatwave in mind, trees are beneficial in helping to keep public spaces quite cool, as well as making them attractive.

Another key factor in the deterioration of the quality of high streets across the country is the visibility of institutions, which must be restored in society. Again, I come back to my earlier point: the big things slide when we do not get the basics right. Most of our areas have seen a visible decline in the key institutions that restore public trust in all the things that bind us in society. I am talking about police stations and courts particularly.

Arguably, on the other side of the coin, if there are too many police visible, people think that it is a high-crime area. But guess what? If police are never visible, people feel that justice is not being enforced. Equally, the decline in the number of visible courts in our communities has contributed considerably to the problem that we face and has been a subtle factor in the ability of illicit retail to thrive, because the public authorities and the state are not interested in clamping down on it.

Legacy of Jo Cox

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) not only for securing this debate, but for her tribute to her sister. I feel extremely humbled and incredibly honoured, yet also deeply sad to be speaking in this debate, and I wish to take the opportunity to reflect on the life and legacy of a woman who I never had the privilege of meeting, but whose impact continues to shape so many of us. Jo Cox’s legacy is not simply something we remember; it is something that demands action from all of us today. Jo was in every sense a Labour woman, and a fiercely compassionate internationalist, utterly determined to open the doors of public life to those who had often been shut out, and to ensure that nobody was lonely. She did not just talk about women’s leadership—she built it. Through her work with the Labour Women’s Network and beyond, she backed women to step forward, to find their voice and to lead. Many of us stand here in this House because women like Jo believed that we belong here.

I am proud to be a graduate of the Jo Cox Women in Leadership programme, which some may say is her girls’ club. Like so many others, I gained not just skills but confidence, solidarity and a network of women who supported one another, and still do. That is Jo’s transformative legacy in action. Like Jo, before coming to this place I was not a politician. I was a teacher. Although this place can be very lonely for those who have little connection to it, I felt the love of her legacy—the cups of tea, the hugs and the smiles—so to her, I want to say thank you.

At the heart of everything that Jo did was a simple but powerful belief that we have more in common than that which divides us. That is a phrase we repeat often, but it is much more—and it must be much more—than words. It must guide how we conduct politics and how we treat one another, and it should remain a challenge to us all.

It is unfortunately not shocking but now an accepted fact of political office that opponents will spread falsehoods and misleading information online and beyond in an attempt to create outrage, whip up hostility and score political points. As has been said, although robust debate is absolutely part of our democracy, targeted abuse and intimidation should never become normalised in public life. We can and should have passionate political discussion, because that is our democracy, but without resorting to personal attacks, threats or attempts to intimidate others.

Jo’s words feel especially important in a political climate where some seek to turn disagreement into division, and where fear and anger can be used as tools to win support. The day Jo was murdered, our country was in the middle of a deeply divisive political campaign. A poster carrying the words “Take Back Control” was part of the wider political landscape, and that phrase has become associated with period of intense national debate and intense hatred. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) so eloquently said, 10 years later we are sadly in a world that is even more divided and has even more hate.

Political disagreement is essential to democracy, but Jo’s legacy asks us to reflect on the tone that we set, the language we use and the responsibility we carry when we seek to persuade and disagree with others. We must challenge any politics that relies on blame, hostility or creating an us-and-them situation. A democracy cannot thrive when people are encouraged to see their neighbours as opponents rather than fellow neighbours and citizens. As a teacher, I often sorted out playground squabbles, which are often really difficult for children whose worlds are so tiny. I was always looking to find solutions that were respectful, because our young people are often much better at forgiveness and finding what they have in common than we are as adults.

The tragedy of Jo’s murder remains a devastating reminder that the words we use, the campaigns we run and the atmosphere we create in public life and on our streets matters. The Electoral Commission report on the 2024 general election found that 70% of candidates experienced at least one form of abuse, but women and ethnic minority candidates faced the most serious forms of abuse.

It is not just MPs who face threats and abuse. The leader of my local Labour group on Portsmouth city council, Councillor Charlotte Gerada, who is also a graduate of the Jo Cox Women in Leadership programme, was recently verbally abused during the election campaign while visibly pregnant. This is far from okay. Women in public life are being made to feel unsafe for serving their local community, and their families are often made to feel unsafe too.

It is not surprising that the Girlguiding survey found that a third of girls and young women are deterred from pursuing careers in politics because of the hostility that high-profile women face online. That should concern every single one of us, because these are not abstract statistics: they are our sisters, mothers, daughters, nieces, aunties, nans and friends. When women are targeted, abused or driven out of public life, that affects us all. Perhaps the greatest danger of a politics built on hostility is that people begin to think they are disagreeing not with human beings, who have families, hopes and fears, but with people they see as targets. We should all ask ourselves: would we speak this way if it was someone we loved on the receiving end? When women are driven out, democracy is weaker.

Jo was determined to restore civility in public life. I commend the work of the Jo Cox Foundation in carrying on her legacy and working with the Government to bring in important changes to defend our democracy. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), I ask the Government to uphold those recommendations. The changes cannot be left to the Jo Cox Foundation alone: it is on all of us—every MP, party and platform that carries political debate—because we set the tone for our country. Jo believed in lifting as we climb, and as a teacher, daughter, sister, auntie, friend and an MP, that is a responsibility that I take seriously. We cannot abandon future female leaders and let those seeking to divide and discourage win.

I have been taking encouragement from Jo. That is why in Portsmouth’s 100th year as a city, I am launching the 100 Pompey Belles award to celebrate community and actively show that we have more in common than that which divides in my city. People can nominate their Pompey Belle: the woman in their family, workplace or community who is the glue and the foundation—the queen. They are ones who quietly, sometimes loudly but always passionately, just get things done.

We must recognise the incredible work that so many inspiring women are doing across my city and this country. It is work that often goes unnoticed, yet without it much of what makes our communities thrive simply would not happen. The 100 Pompey Belles award is about celebrating the breadth of women’s contribution, from carers and campaigners to entrepreneurs and volunteers, and it is about showing the next generation that leadership takes many forms. It is about seeing and believing that there is a place for them too. It is everything that Jo Cox embodied. In the awards, I hope we can not only celebrate those giants who walk among us, but inspire the next wave of Pompey Belles to devote their lives to bettering our communities, and to be more Jo.

The question for us all today is simple: do we honour Jo Cox with words alone, or do we honour her with action? If we are serious about honouring her legacy with more than words, 10 years on we must ask ourselves: will we all call out abuse when we see it? Will we all support women to step forward and stay in public life? Will we all build a politics that is kinder, more inclusive and rooted in our shared humanity? Will we all build bridges of community, connection and common causes? For me, that is how we carry with us her life and her love, not just in what we say but in how we lead and in what we all do. We all need to proudly be more Jo Cox.

Coastal Communities: Government Support

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour, and I will make that point later in my speech, if colleagues will let me make some progress.

Life expectancy, healthy life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy are all lower in coastal areas, and the gap between more affluent and poorer areas continues to widen. Professor Whitty makes it clear that high levels of deprivation, driven in part by major and long-standing challenges with local economies and employment, are important reasons for the poor health outcomes in coastal communities. That means we need a new approach to dealing with the gap in life expectancy between those with limited incomes and those with large amounts of wealth. Tackling the social determinants of ill health such as housing, employment opportunities, access to healthcare and education is key to bringing about a healthier society.

One of the key features linking all our coastal communities is the water that surrounds us. Poole harbour is both scientifically and environmentally important and it needs to be protected. The beauty of the harbour lies in the stark contrast between ecosystems, ranging from intertidal salt marshes and mudflats to freshwater marshes, reed beds and wet grasslands. Visitors will also discover a wide range of wintering, migrating and breeding birds. However, most of Dorset’s rivers suffer from high levels of both nitrate and phosphate pollution.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I represent a coastal city that has high levels of deprivation and inequality. Unlike your beaches, none of ours are blue flag—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Ms Martin, I do not think my beaches were being discussed.

[Amanda Martin]

My apologies—I meant my hon. Friend’s beaches.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the beaches are first-class in Poole; if your constituency had beaches, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that they too would be first-class.

The nutrients that go into the water system come from a number of sources, including both treated and untreated sewage, as well as agricultural sources including poorly managed soils, animal waste and fertiliser. Sewage discharge has grabbed the headlines in recent months; as well as the nutrients from treated discharges, outdated infrastructure and regular system overflows in stormy weather can result in untreated or partially treated sewage entering our rivers. In Poole harbour, that can lead to shellfish contamination, as well as direct health risks that put restrictions on the local fishing industry.

The Environment Agency monitors water quality at designated bathing sites from 15 May to 30 September, but not all year round, and only in the areas that have been officially recognised as suitable for bathing. In Poole there are many different types of water users, from paddleboarders to windsurfers, who are excluded from those forms of oversight. That is why we need to expand the definition of bathers, monitor water quality all year round and have a serious conversation about bringing water back into public ownership.

Finally, I want to consider the issue of tourism and its impact on the local economy and public services. Like most coastal communities, Poole relies on tourism as a key part of our local economy, but with that comes a number of challenges. The local council no longer has a dedicated tourist office promoting the area or funds the kind of events on the quayside that would attract visitors, and the idea of a tourist tax or levy is contentious in my town.

Government funding also fails to take account of the seasonality that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) mentioned earlier. With the influx of additional people and the extra demands the area faces in terms of car parking, public order and even litter collection, both our police and fire services regularly witness a seasonal surge in demand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan]

I am always happy to have a cup of tea with colleagues, and especially my hon. Friend.

I will turn to the important points made about holiday lets, which particularly impact coastal communities. The Government have committed almost £40 billion to the social and affordable homes programme, which is important for the delivery of houses and affordable homes more generally.

[Amanda Martin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as housing, education is vital, and that is really missing in coastal communities, so our constituencies are often seen at the bottom of league tables?

[Nesil Caliskan]

That is a very important point. As my hon. Friend will know, education is a top priority for the Government, which is why we have seen record investment. I believe that coastal communities will benefit from that commitment.

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.