English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Andrew George Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government amendment to include a competence covering coastal communities, in addition to the existing Lords amendments on rural areas. As many Members have already mentioned, coastal communities have lagged behind the rest of the country when it comes to economic growth since the great financial crash. Our constituents have more physical and mental health needs, lower life expectancy and higher rates of major diseases, and they are generally older. On average, they have lower educational attainment and higher rates of school absences, and once they enter the workforce, they are paid less. Our coastal towns are also more likely than non-coastal towns to suffer from high levels of deprivation. Coastal towns face unique economic pressures, including seasonal economies, struggling industries such as fishing and hospitality, and acute housing crises caused by the spread of short-term holiday lets and a lack of social housing.

Connectivity is also a major issue for our constituents. Along with a lack of quality public transport and less broadband availability, our constituents are at the forefront of the impact of the climate crisis and the sewage scandal. Renewing our coastal towns and their local economies will be crucial to ensuring that all parts of the country share in the national renewal that the Government are aiming to bring. That is why this amendment is so important. I hope that the Government will be clear in their expectations of what metro mayors with responsibility for coastal communities should do. There needs to be a strong economic focus, with an understanding of how public services and infrastructure underpin the ability for a community to prosper. Can the Minister confirm that one of the commissioners will have to have responsibility for coastal communities, if a metro mayoral area has a coast?

Furthermore, I hope that the Minister will discuss with colleagues on the Treasury Bench how an economic strategy for the coast might be developed through the designation of a coastal economic area. That would complement the new competences outlined in this Bill to ensure not only that our national strategic priorities for growth reach the communities that could benefit from that investment, but that we can contribute to the economic health of the nation.

Will my hon. Friend consider some of the perhaps unintended consequences of the local government reorganisation planned for the coming years? I am very much in favour of unitarisation, not only for efficiency, but for the ability for places like mine to come together to develop a strategic vision for the wider economy and society of east Kent. However, research I have commissioned suggests that there may be unintended consequences for coastal towns from the local government reorganisation as planned. There are 33 coastal towns and cities with a council’s main office, town hall or headquarters within their boundaries. Some 24 of those are going through the local government reorganisation process, and 22 have a proposal or multiple proposals that could result in their being dissolved in their current structure and merged with other councils into a larger unitary that covers a bigger area. If that happens, the new unitary will need to decide where they have their headquarters.

Town halls in coastal towns or cities are at a particularly high risk of relocation because of their often peripheral location, their relative lack of proximity to the new, larger constituent population, their weaker transport links and other issues such as flood risk. Those relocations would have a detrimental impact on local economies, at a time when many of those 22 coastal towns and cities are already struggling. They would also lead to the those places being more cut off from public leadership, increasing that left-behind feeling. I remind the House that some of those high-risk areas include Clacton-on-Sea, Sittingbourne, Margate, Blackpool, Cromer, Grimsby, Southend-on-Sea and Eastbourne. It ends up being a list of exactly the kind of places that we should be helping, so mitigations should be put in place for precisely that.

I will also refer to the parish and town council amendments as outlined. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) said that there was a commitment to

“hardwire community engagement and neighbourhood working”—[Official Report, 2 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 250.]

into the new governance proposals. It is a shame, however, that parish and town councils are designated only to be important local partners, rather than there being a legal requirement for them to be consulted. I say that because the town councils in Broadstairs and Ramsgate are highly valued and complementary to the existing local authority structures of Kent county council and Thanet district council. We notice the difference between what we see happen in Ramsgate and Broadstairs, which have town councils, and in Margate, which does not.

The reality is that Margate is about to secure its own town council thanks to fantastic, strong community campaigning by some of my good friends and allies in Thanet Labour party, and that will help to correct a democratic deficit that would otherwise occur. Indeed, Margate has always been short of democratic governance, and it will be needed all the more because of unitarisation. Can my hon. Friend the Minister reassure me and colleagues that town and parish councils really will be fully incorporated into the new settlement, and that, as outlined in the new Government amendments, existing town and parish councils will have a role to play? Can she also reassure us that those without existing town and parish councils will have the opportunity for strong neighbourhood governance?

In summary, we need to ensure: that the commissioners who will be part of the metro mayoral settlement have an economic focus if they are responsible for coastal communities; that every metro mayor who has the power to appoint a commissioner and has responsibility for the coast ensures that one commissioner has that focus; that local government reorganisation factors in appropriate mitigations for when there are risks of reduction of local government presence in coastal towns; and, finally, that parish and town councils continue to be a vital part of the local government settlement.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) and in particular her points about parish and town councils. In Cornwall, where we are completely parished and towned in that sense, they are an important vehicle for communication up from the community. They enable communities to articulate their views. Indeed, one might even argue that parish and town councils are the highest tier of local authority in the sense that they are closest to the people and to the pulse of local opinion, and are able to articulate that in the process.

I would like to make remarks on two other amendments. On the proposals regarding brownfield first, which I strongly support, I am disappointed by the Government’s response. The Government’s policy, in particular with regard to rewriting the NPPF, will result in a goldrush to the greenfield edges of our towns and communities. In December 2024, they set a new housing target which effectively means that local authorities can no longer defend the edges of their towns if they are unable to demonstrate that they have a five-year land supply. At present, therefore, policy is going in exactly the wrong direction. It also fundamentally undermines local authorities and local communities that are seeking to advance rural exceptions policy. All those rural exceptions opportunities are now effectively lost as a result of local authorities no longer having five-year land supplies. That is to the detriment of communities that are desperately seeking to meet local housing need, hence the importance of ensuring that local authorities are under a stronger obligation to bring forward brownfield first.

The other amendment I welcome the opportunity to speak to—the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) will echo these concerns—relates to the Secretary of State’s powers regarding combined authorities without local consent. That is the critical matter. The only way in which the Government can demonstrate that they have the backing of local communities is to ensure that they consult them throughout.

The Isles of Scilly are keen to work with Cornwall to ensure we achieve the maximum level of devolution, and it is really important that the Government look at the very special case of Cornwall. We have a number of cultural and language designations that mean that the integrity of Cornwall becomes ever more important when navigating one’s way through the extremely sensitive process of devolving power. It is easy to undermine the great strengths of places such as Cornwall if those matters are not properly considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I am aware that Members wish to make stellar contributions on behalf of their constituencies, but I do not believe that we are discussing Cornish devolution right now. Let us keep the debate in scope of the amendments in front of us.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are simply giving the example of Cornish devolution as one of the potential products should the Government not reject the opportunity for local authorities to be properly consulted, which is what is on the amendment paper this evening. That is the most important thing this evening: to ensure that local authorities are consulted. We are seeking to make this an effective vehicle for achieving what is very much desired throughout Cornwall, both by the local authority and by local Members. I accept your point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but fundamentally, be it Cornwall or any other local authority that is seeking to ensure that its local and wider communities are properly consulted, it is not a question of our seeking a process of isolation, as I think the Government recognise.

The point that we make perpetually in relation to Cornwall—and the Isles of Scilly, which we hope will be co-operating with Cornwall as a combined authority—is that it is not about cutting ourselves off, but about cutting ourselves into the celebration of diversity across the United Kingdom. I hope that, in that spirit, Ministers will respond constructively and, in spite of the passing of the Bill, we will have a vehicle to achieve the desired ends as far as Cornwall is concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The role that we will play is to work with our local authorities. Ultimately, the common thread is that we are working in service of and on behalf of communities, and it is for both national Government and local leaders to make decisions on the geography that makes sense for local economies and that works for their community. We will always advocate for the community in those conversations to ensure that we get the right partnership that can deliver for places.

[Andrew George]

The Government are promising that they will not impose things without local consent. The other side of that argument is that local authorities in areas such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly want to press on with devolution much faster than the Government seem willing to allow. Will the Minister account for that in the way in which the Government proceed on this matter?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I was just coming to the hon. Member’s earlier contributions. We absolutely want to move at the pace at which our most ambitious and fastest-moving places want to move. We recognise the unique circumstances in Cornwall. I have spent a lot of time with hon. Friends from across Cornwall, who have been very passionate, effective and robust advocates for their place. I had the pleasure of visiting Cornwall and seeing some of the issues, as well as the huge amount of work and innovation. We have invested £28.6 million in the current industrial growth fund—creating 300 jobs and an additional 1,000 jobs in the supply chain—because we understand and recognise the economic potential of the area. We are committed to working with the council and with Cornwall MPs to take that further. We have set out the framework for a devolution deal, we have set out the progress that we are making to recognise minority status, and we are committed to moving further in the days and weeks to come.

The Government’s approach to local authority governance arrangements has been pragmatic. We are ultimately trying to reach solutions that we believe will bite and work in places. I remind Members across the House that 80% of local authorities are already deploying the cabinet and leader model, and it is an effective model that allows strong decision making for communities. In areas that already have a democratic mandate for an alternative—whether committee or mayor—we have created the space for those structures to continue. But we are very clear that we are having to fix the mess of the last Government, which did absolutely nothing for local government and allowed a decade in which local government was denuded—I come back to that. Our job now is to ensure that we build strong local authority institutions, because we are localists: we believe in devolution, but we need strong institutions to do that. That means both having structures that work for the communities they represent and in which, critically, decisions can be made to improve the lot of their place.

We believe that the cabinet and leader model works. We think that we have found the right balance. I implore Members across the House, particularly given that 80% of local authorities are already deploying the model that we are talking about, that we are keen to make progress and allow our local authorities to move forward.

In conclusion—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] No one is more pleased about that than me. In conclusion, I thank Members for their contributions and the constructive way in which they have engaged with the Bill. I hope that they see that we are a Government who are absolutely committed to pushing power into our places and our communities. It is beholden on all of us to make sure that this Bill does get Royal Assent, because this is the first step towards fundamentally changing the settlement between this place—between Government—and our communities, who do not feel that they have power and agency, and who do not feel that change is being driven in the way that they want. We have to rebalance that. This is the first step, and I implore Members across the House to support the Government’s position.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House does not insist on its disagreement to Lords Amendment 2 but proposes Amendment (a) to the Lords Amendment.

After Clause 37

Brownfield land priority

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 89B and 89C.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

Housing Needs: Young People

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on her opening remarks.

Other speakers have referred to the issues and difficulties that young people today are experiencing. They are not facing a storm but enduring a prolonged storm, and I fear that unless there are further changes to Government policy, they will have to continue to endure that storm.

I declare an interest as a former chief executive of a registered provider of housing—a housing association, or at least a community land trust—and I now sit as a volunteer on the board of Cornwall Community Land Trust. That organisation, along with many others, is also facing a perfect storm. In part, that is the result of the so-called “benefits of Brexit”, in that we have taken back control of the colour of our passports but lost control of construction inflation in this country—in part, thanks to Brexit. As a result, a large number of homes are shovel-ready, but work is unable to start on site as a result of the simple fact of Brexit.

One of the biggest pressures being faced by young people in our area is a planning system that was changed on 12 December last year through changes to the national planning policy framework. That resulted in the introduction of new standard housing methods, which the Minister is clearly well aware of. I agree with the values that the Labour Government are trying to advance: to try to address the desperate housing needs across this country. I am of course professionally and politically very committed to achieving that aim. However, the changes have actually proven to be counterproductive.

In Cornwall, we now have to deliver 4,421 homes every year instead of the previous target of 2,600, and we must show that we have a five-year land supply. However, it is simply impossible to do that overnight, as local authorities around the country are well aware. Consequently, we are no longer able to defend the exception sites that we had wanted to deliver around the edges of all of our communities in Cornwall. Indeed, there have been appeals on permissions previously granted for affordable homes that are now being converted to allow for smaller numbers, and for unaffordable homes. There, the changes have been proven to be counter- productive.

The Minister knows full well that in Cornwall we are not nimbys. Our housing stock has grown faster than that of almost anywhere else in the country; we have almost tripled our housing stock in the last 60 years. Yet, the housing problems of local people have got significantly worse. We need to look much more widely at the way in which the planning system works.

As far as rural exception sites are concerned, the rural exception should not be an exception; it should be the rural norm. Our whole approach to delivering homes on the edges of our communities means that applicants must demonstrate that they will meet need rather than greed. The whole planning system is tipped entirely in a direction that is opposite to the one that I think we in this Chamber today would like policy to go.

Young people have to compete in a market in which—the Minister knows this because I have raised it several times—the tax system is tipped heavily in favour of second residences. A person with a second home can flip their property from council tax to business rates, apply for small business rate relief and then pay nothing at all. That has to be subsidised by the rest of us through the tax system. In the last 10 years in Cornwall alone, in excess of half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money has gone into the pockets of wealthy second-home owners. We should put that money into first homes for young people. The situation is inequitable and I am surprised that a Labour Government are not prepared to challenge and change that simple fact in order to properly address the issue.

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

We have.

[Andrew George]

The Minister objects. I am sorry but the small business rate relief is still available. The tax loopholes available are still there. Perhaps the Minister can put me right on that, if he wishes.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is right that we need rent controls as well as the Renters’ Rights Act. As well as the stick for private landlords, we should offer them a carrot: tax incentives should be available to landlords who provide decent homes and lower rents. There is a lot that we can do. Young people need to see that we set housing targets based on need rather than greed, that we are able to turn exception sites into the rural norm, and that we enable the intermediate market with, yes, rent to buy but also rent to discount sale. We have established that model in Cornwall and it could be used much more widely to help young people.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing this important debate. Young people face challenges with housing in every part of the country, and in rural communities such as Derbyshire Dales there are compounding pressures of exorbitant prices, high rents and a lack of access to jobs and public services. I have heard from many constituents, whether parents or young people, who fear being priced out of the communities that they grew up in.

As in all areas of the country, house prices in Derbyshire Dales have risen significantly in recent years, far outstripping local wages and leaving many young people unable to buy—and increasingly unable to rent in the few available properties. The challenge of affordability is exacerbated by the supply challenge we face, especially in the national park. There is a clear and ongoing need for affordable housing, especially homes for social rent, but it has to be in the communities that need it, not just where big developers will make the most money.

Some villages in the national park are crying out for housing, most clearly where ageing populations see declining numbers enrol at local primary schools. Without affordable housing and additional investment in transport links and connectivity, there are few pull factors for young families or professionals. In many areas we also see the impact of high numbers of second homes and holiday lets: they make up a quarter of all residential properties in some villages in my constituency, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service. It is therefore a struggle for the number of new builds to outstrip the number lost to second homes and holiday lets.

In the parts of the constituency that sit outside the national park—and I am sure this applies right across the country—we regularly see developers try to wriggle out of their obligations to build affordable and social housing. We end up with yet more four-bed and five-bed properties because that is presumably where the big bucks lie, but that does little to help our young people get on to the housing ladder. We need a mix of housing but it has to include starter homes, affordable homes and social housing. It is clear that young families are being squeezed out. Time will tell whether more action on second homes will be required, beyond the doubling of council tax and the increase in stamp duty. We need action on empty properties. We need to increase the housing supply, of affordable housing, in the communities that need it most and we need to invest in the services and connectivity that are needed.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman raises once again the issue of second homes. He is well aware that the Liberal Democrats have proposed a change in the use class system to introduce a new use class for non-permanent occupancy. The introduction of such a thing would allow local communities to limit the number of second homes. It could be used as a tool to control expansion of the number of second homes and holiday lets.

[John Whitby]

I would be more than happy with local authorities having the capacity to limit holiday lets and so on—that is not a bad idea at all.

It should not be too much to ask that a young person can live in the community that they grew up in.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Members for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing this important debate. I also thank all hon. Members who have participated for their thoughtful contributions.

It has been a very wide-ranging debate, as I assumed it would be from the title. It has covered a range of issues including—from memory—empty homes, short-term lets, building materials costs, rural exemption sites, care leavers, housing allocations, social housing and housing association regulation. I will not be able to cover all of those points, but I will try my best to cover as many as possible. I am more than happy to follow up with individual Members on specific points, as well as to meet the Liberal Democrat Front Benchers and wider team, which I enjoy doing on occasion as their spokes- person, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, will know.

As the House is acutely aware, England remains in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis. Over a number of decades, the combination of a sharp reduction in the nation’s social housing stock and rapid house price inflation, partly driven by increased demand for housing as an investment product, have squeezed both social renting and home ownership. For many years, an expanding private rented sector absorbed some of the resulting pressure, but post-2015 changes in tax treatment have seen the rate of rental sector growth slow. The result is a crisis of housing availability, affordability and quality that is blighting the lives of people of all ages. However, the youngest are among the hardest hit.

House prices have more than doubled since 1997 compared with incomes, locking an entire generation out of home ownership. We have traded a number of statistics, but the one that stands out to me is that first-time buyer numbers fell to a 10-year low in 2023, and that those under 30 are now less than half as likely to own a home as they were in 1990. That gap has created a stark divide between those who can draw on family support and those who cannot, as the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire mentioned in her opening remarks. That has concentrated housing wealth in ever fewer hands, entrenched social division and disadvantage and seen too many young people delaying life choices, including growing a family. It has also led to them paying more for less security. At the same time, increasing numbers of young people are spending longer in the private rented sector and facing high costs, insecurity and inconsistent standards because alternatives are out of reach.

England’s housing crisis has many causes. We have debated them over many months in this House as the Government have taken forward a number of our reforms. Chief among them is a failure over many decades to build enough homes of all tenures. For years, housing supply lagged well behind the needs of our population as well as comparative European countries. That is why we have placed so much emphasis over the past 21 months on making the necessary reforms to ensure that we have high and sustainable rates of house building over the coming years. We will get those high and sustainable rates of house building.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for detailing the consequences of the decisions that the previous Government took, not least to abolish housing targets. We are seeing them feed through, but there are green shoots. Housing starts are up 24% on the comparable quarter last year in the latest statistical release.

With a view to ensuring that housing need is met in full, our reforms include the biggest overhaul of the planning system in decades, as well as the largest boost in social and affordable housing investment in a generation through our 10-year, £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. Of that, 60% will be allocated towards social rented homes, reflecting the Government’s prioritisation of that form of tenure.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman often calls for 150,000 homes a year. I would love to see his grant-rate calculations to back up the claim that he can get that for £6 billion a year. That is a wild underestimation. Perhaps he will share those calculations with me on some future occasion when we meet to discuss this issue.

Alongside increasing supply, we are taking action to support young people who aspire to home ownership. We have acted to widen access to mortgages. Following the Prime Minister’s call to action last year, the Financial Conduct Authority clarified its rules on affordability testing. As a result, most lenders now allow borrowers to borrow about 10% more than they could have at the start of last year. On top of that, the Bank of England has eased its loan-to-income rules, enabling tens of thousands of additional first-time buyers to get on the ladder.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has also delivered on our manifesto commitment to launch a permanent mortgage guarantee scheme, supporting the availability of high loan-to-value mortgages for buyers with deposits as small as 5%. That is an important backstop, particularly when there is volatility in the mortgage market, as we are currently seeing in response to the conflict in the middle east, which I will address more fully in a moment.

We have also taken steps—this is why I slightly took issue with the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George)—to rebalance the market in favour of first-time buyers, including through higher stamp duty rates on additional dwellings, council tax premiums on second homes, reforms to the taxation of property income and, as he knows, the abolition of the furnished holiday lets tax regime, which has removed tax incentives that previously existed for owners of short-term lets over long-term landlords. I know that he has—

[Andrew George]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not give way, because we are continuing a very long exchange that we have had over many months. I know he has other proposals on taxation that he would like to see happen, but I am just making the point that it is slightly unfair to say that the Government have taken no action in this regard and have not gripped that issue. We have made serious reforms to rebalance that.

[Andrew George]

Will the Minister give way none the less?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Go on, then.

[Andrew George]

I am not saying that the Government have done nothing, but the changes to furnished holiday lets and double council tax, for example, were actually introduced by the previous Government. The Minister has simply implemented them, which is welcome. I was simply talking about the massive, gaping tax loophole involving industrial levels of flipping second homes to take advantage of the opportunity to apply for small business rate relief and pay nothing at all. That is simply favouring thousands of very wealthy people on their second properties. Surely a Labour Government have to close that one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am aware of the point that the right hon. Member raises. To respond to his wider point about oversight, like all affordable providers of social housing, housing associations are held to the standards overseen by the regulator following the very welcome introduction of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 under the previous Government. The regulator has the powers necessary to ensure that individual providers, such as the ones he mentions, are held to those regulatory standards. If he wants to follow up with some of the specific constituency cases he has mentioned, I am more than happy to respond.

This debate underlines a point that the Government accept without qualification and that I have heard from lots of hon. Members outside this Chamber: that the housing market has to work better for young people. That means: increasing supply, especially of social and affordable housing; supporting first-time buyers; fixing a home buying process that is too slow and uncertain; transforming the private rented sector so that it provides security and decency; and bringing the feudal leasehold system to an end by making commonhold the default tenure and improving the leasehold model so that existing leaseholders can more cheaply and easily enfranchise and convert to commonhold—which I hope they will do in very large numbers.

[Andrew George]

I believe the Minister has until 10 past 3 if he wishes. He has not addressed the issue I raised regarding the counterproductive impact of the changes to the national planning policy framework, particularly for edge-of-community rural exception sites. A wholesale change of planning is happening. Those sites were originally going to be affordable-led, and now developers can put in planning applications to ensure that those sites are entirely unaffordable because of the Government’s policy on five-year land supply.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I can give my hon. Friend the assurances he seeks, and I encourage him and his constituents to engage with proposals in the consultation on a revised national planning policy framework that seek further to strengthen support for brownfield development and ensure that appropriate infrastructure provision comes forward alongside that development.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T2. Ministers know full well that a planning application submitted today for affordable homes will not contribute to the Government’s welcome intention to meet affordable housing need by the end of this Parliament—

[Matthew Pennycook]

indicated dissent.

[Andrew George]

The Minister is shaking his head, but it simply is not possible through the pre-development process. Although I have met the Secretary of State to discuss how we can move forward shovel-ready projects that are held back at the moment, will Ministers meet Members of Parliament who are concerned about the thousands of homes that could be delivered and start on site right now, so that we can get Britain building and meet the desperate need for affordable homes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of development that can come forward and be funded through our new social and affordable homes programme. We are ensuring that that programme has the necessary flexibility to fund provision across the country, whether it is community-led housing or rural housing. Our new homes accelerator is doing precisely what the hon. Gentleman says, by going in and unblocking problems site by site to get stalled development going.

Local Government Finance

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

Places such as Medway deserve a lot better, and through her championing of her constituency in the House, my hon. Friend is ensuring that they will get it. We want to see councils invest in high streets, and we want to see those high streets thrive, along with other services. I would be happy to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and see for myself what we can do to improve it.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The Minister constantly says that she does not recognise the figures when presented with what are expected to be the settlements for certain local authorities. That is possibly because we are fumbling in the dark today, as the figures simply are not available. I had to go to the Vote Office, and I have some of the papers here. The fact is that in my own area, the Government have proposed a bespoke arrangement for the Council of the Isles of Scilly, but there is no clarity about what it will mean in the forthcoming years, and in respect of the indices of deprivation, there is no clarity on what it means for Cornwall. Will the Minister meet me, and other local Members, to discuss these issues?

[Alison McGovern]

I will.

Electoral Resilience

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is right that it is a cornerstone of Russia’s international strategy to threaten the national security and integrity of democracies, including the UK and our partners overseas. We know that but we are seeking to check that our safeguards against that evolving threat are sufficiently robust to keep our democracy safe. Our approach will be supported by Departments right across Government. The Minister for Security is leading the defending democracy taskforce and he has already published the counter-political interference and espionage action plan, which calls on Ministers across Government to collaborate and work together to ensure that we are making sufficiently robust the safeguards called for by my hon. Friend.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Although it may seem a little tangential, will the scope of the investigation include the fact that hundreds of thousands of people who have worked in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years and who have paid their taxes are unable to influence the outcome of elections because they have an EU passport, yet hundreds of thousands of ex-pats who have not set foot in this country for decades still have an influence? Unscrupulous parties could hoover up those ex-pats and direct them towards marginal seats, thus influencing the outcome of elections. Will the Secretary of State address this issue, either through the review or the Bill?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point clearly and eloquently, but he is right that it is somewhat tangential to the review that Philip Rycroft will be leading. The review will be looking at malign foreign financial interference, but he should be reassured that no stone will be left unturned in seeking to protect our democracy, which is one of the most precious things that we have.

Planning Reform

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

There are real challenges with housing delivery. I refer the hon. Lady to the proposals on build-out generally that we have outlined and sought feedback on. She is absolutely right in the thrust of her question: we are overly reliant as a country on a handful of volume developers. That is precisely why we are encouraging other providers to get in the game through the package we have announced today for small and medium-sized house builders, so that we can have the diversified house building market that we need to bring forward delivery in the volumes the country requires.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The Minister must accept that house building targets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. House building targets are based on a naive delusion that private developers will collude with Government in driving down the price of their final product, which surely cannot be the case. Cornwall is not a nimby location; we have grown faster than almost anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Despite almost trebling our housing stock in the past 60 years, the housing need of local communities is greater now. Will the Minister therefore consider that some local authorities, where simply setting targets is not the answer, should be given the tools to meet need rather than developers’ greed?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman and I have had this discussion, or variants of it, many times. We have a slight difference of opinion over the role of housing targets; I think they are necessary and play an important role. However, we are giving local planning authorities the tools they need—specific to the hon. Gentleman’s area, that includes changes in the draft framework on rural, social and affordable housing and the wider grant funding support that we are bringing forward through the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and she is absolutely right. Local development plans should address infrastructure needs and opportunities. When preparing a local plan, local planning authorities are under a duty to bring forward infrastructure funding statements. However, we realise that there is more to be done to ensure that we get the right infrastructure built in the right time as a development proceeds.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T4. Cornwall is not a nimby location. It has almost trebled its housing stock in the last 60 years, and it is one of the fastest growing places in the United Kingdom. Yet despite all that, the housing problems of local people have got worse. As the Government impose housing targets on local authorities, what will they do to ensure that the local authority in Cornwall has the power to deliver the homes that we need, rather than delivering for developers’ greed?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which is topical in that I recently met officials from Cornwall council and Members, including hon. Friends, banging the drum for new homes in Cornwall, in particular social and affordable homes. There is ongoing work, including conversations taking place with Homes England, on how we can better support Cornwall to bring forward the homes it needs.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Andrew George Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Danny Beales]

I wholeheartedly agree. My hon. Friend’s comment speaks for itself. We can look at the Conservatives’ record, and at what they now preach in opposition.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman referred to the powers that are being devolved to mayors, but does he accept that the mayors referred to in clause 38 and schedule 19 have different powers from the London Mayor? In effect, those mayors will become puppets of central Government, because their local growth plans will have to be signed off by the Secretary of State, whereas the London Mayor is not answerable to the Government. Is that a matter of great concern to him?

[Danny Beales]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, my friend from the Health and Social Care Committee, on which we have had many good and fruitful discussions, but I disagree with him on this point. There are significant steps forward in the Bill in devolving powers to communities at different levels—at individual and community level, as well as at regional and mayoral level. I would say that if we look at devolved regional arrangements, we see that the Mayor of London’s powers have not kept up. Arguably, greater progress has been made with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, given his range of powers and the number of areas in which he operates. There are different arrangements in different parts of the country, so I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation.

I speak in support of a number of amendments that will give local government, particularly in London and my constituency, new tools. These will improve the lives of residents in Uxbridge and South Ruislip. New clause 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), to which I am a co-signatory, will allow mayors to implement a tourist levy on overnight stays. For many years, many councils have been calling for this change; during my time in local government, I remember calling for an overnight stay levy. There is a range of reasons why one might want such a levy, and I note the welcome support from Labour Mayors Sir Sadiq Khan and Steve Rotheram. Clearly, tourism has huge benefits for our communities, including jobs, the cultural enrichment of visitors coming to our cities, support for existing and new businesses, and the revenue that tourism brings to our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon]

There is a fundamental difference between the position of the Isle of Wight in relation to the mainland and the position in Cornwall. It is the difference between identity and legally binding national minority status. One can identify with a football team, a pop band or a place, but that does not give it legally binding provision as does national minority status. That is the basis of my argument.

[Andrew George]

rose—

[Perran Moon]

I will, as always, give way to my Cornish friend.

[Andrew George]

Meur ras! I just wanted to address the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. All six Cornish Members are clear about the fact that, for us, this is not about cutting ourselves off, but about cutting ourselves into the celebration of diversity. It is a positive, forward-looking proposal on behalf of Cornwall, based on our unique cultural and historic past, and it is not born out of anger and resentment: it is important for that to be understood.

[Perran Moon]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that we, as a Chamber, do enough to celebrate the diversity of the islands in which we live, and we do not do enough to celebrate the different nations within those islands. It is wonderful to share our cultural identity, our language and our national minority status with people who move to Cornwall and embed themselves in our culture and language. I would encourage them—when, hopefully, they are given the opportunity in 2030-31, if we get that magical tick-box on the census—to tick “Cornish” to denote who they are.

It does not have to be this way. We just have to consider the consequences of a mayoral combined authority shared between—God forbid, although I love them dearly—Devon and Cornwall. How will the taxpayers of Devon feel about funding Cornish language lessons in Cornish schools, Cornish language road signs or Cornish cultural events? I doubt that they will be doing cartwheels.

We stand at a crossroads. I urge Ministers to be bold, be flexible and empower our communities. They should not impose their ideological governance template on us. If the Bill is unamended, its impact will be that Cornwall will be the only part of the United Kingdom locked out of access to the highest levels of devolution, based solely on who we are. That is rank, blatant discrimination, and I cannot and will not accept it. Ministers know all this, because we have had several discussions and meetings to look at the risks. To that end, and with a heavy heart, I have to say to Ministers that I will not support the Bill in its current unamended state.

This should, and I believe still could be, a historic moment for the relationship between Westminster and Cornwall. I urge Ministers to listen to us. Let us make this a historically positive arrangement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

My hon. Friend mentioned two key words: democratic accountability. That is fundamentally what underpins this issue, and it is a principle that we expect to apply to all forms of public transport—except ferries.

I urge the Government to use this opportunity to create regulation and devolve it down. That way, they will not have ongoing responsibility for administering this issue, and the decision making will be made as close as possible to the individuals affected by the decisions. I am speaking for my constituents, but I could also be speaking for those elsewhere in the country. This is also about the economic wellbeing of the area. My constituents are heavily reliant on tourism. Indeed, the benefits of tourism are felt by 38% of our economy, but to visit the Isle of Wight, tourists must pay the price of the ferry. That is on top of everything else that they might want to spend when they are on the island.

Let us remember that the money paid to the ferry companies goes off to private equity investors, many of which are abroad, and some of which are foreign pension funds. Not only does that mean less money to spend in my area on businesses that employ local people, but it will put some people off travelling to the Isle of Wight at all. The Minister may want to see ferry prices as a large tax that people can avoid by simply visiting other places for their holidays. That is the tragedy of this situation. Indeed, tourist footfall has fallen on the Isle of Wight more than it has for anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Before I end, I will back up my argument with facts. Earlier this year, the highest price somebody paid to bring a car back and forth to the Isle of Wight was £400. That is £400 for a sea crossing of 5 miles. The timetables have diminished since private equity took control. Once there were half-hourly services, but it is now more than an hour between services. Ordinarily, a company would not get away with doing this, because the consumer—the passenger—would go elsewhere, but the only “elsewhere” option is another ferry company that is also controlled and owned by private equity. It is no wonder that one of those companies was sold last month from private equity to private equity. The website of the new controlling group does not talk about the uncompromising pursuit of passenger experience. It boasts about the uncompromising pursuit of capital investment. That is capital investment for people who want to invest in that holding company.

I thank again all those who have supported this proposal. It was a particularly significant moment to hear the shadow Minister confirm that His Majesty’s official Opposition backs the regulation of ferry companies through my amendment.

[Andrew George]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am trying to calculate the time; I hope that we have more than one speaker bobbing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Marvellous. As we have four more speakers and we definitely have to finish business by 10 pm, Back Benchers are on a speaking limit of 10 minutes.

[Andrew George]

It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). I also have ferries in my constituency, but I have not tabled amendments to deal with them in a Bill about devolution. I will return to the Cornish question raised by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon)—I will call him my hon. Friend. I will concentrate on whether it is appropriate to deal with the idiosyncrasies around the country in the way that he proposes in new clause 70, or in the way that I have done in amendments 175 and 176—our amendments would treat Cornwall as an exception—or whether the issue should be treated as a matter of principle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) has done in new clause 28.

I accept that everywhere is special and unique. The question is often asked: why is Cornwall asking for more consideration than other places? The answer is in part, as my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth said, that special legislation and regulations apply to us; there is our national minority status, recognition of the Cornish language, the existence of the duchy, and its separate constitutional relationship with the Crown. Of course, all places are the result of the accidents of history and geography, and in Cornwall, there is a confluence of the two. If we are not to go in the direction of breaking down all barriers and having one world government, with no distinction between one place and another, we must recognise the tipping point—the difference between English counties and Cornwall, which is a rather unique place that, as he and I believe, needs to be given special consideration.

Like my hon. Friend, I describe myself as Cornish and not English. That is not being anti-English; I am proud of my relationship with England, as all Cornish people are, but we as a people have a separate history. We start our contributions to these debates by saying “Meur ras”, to introduce the Cornish language. Although not many people in Cornwall speak the Cornish language now, not many people in Scotland speak Scottish Gaelic, but that is not to say that Scots are less Scottish because of that. The fact is, the last person who could not speak English died nearly 200 years ago.

There has recently been a great deal of coming together to recognise the importance of identity and our Celtic past. Indeed, I have spoken about the Cornish language with Breton friends, and found that there is a stronger association between Cornwall and Brittany than between Cornwall and Wales, from which we were separated by the Saxons some 1,500 years ago. Indeed, Athelstan drew the line between Cornwall and England in 936 because he felt that the Cornish were not worth the effort of inevitable annihilation.

All that history is interesting and relevant, and feeds one’s understanding of who one is, but as I said in an intervention, I am not interested in being backward-looking or insular. Rather than cut ourselves off, we need to cut ourselves into the celebration of diversity, and use our identity as a strength that helps us to look forward. Indeed, we had a very welcome statement earlier on the Government’s critical minerals strategy, and Cornwall can and should be looking forward with all our strengths in the space sector, critical minerals and green energy. We have a lot to look forward to, but we need to have a basis of confidence on what to do.

[Perran Moon]

I totally agree with what the hon. Member is saying. The challenge that I have—he may have found this when he first came to this place—is that I am staggered at how few people here on these Benches understand Cornish national minority status or how important it is to us in Cornwall. I make these references not for him or for people in Cornwall who know this stuff, but more to ensure that the people here get a better understanding of who we are, why we have this separate culture and language and why we are keen for people to come and celebrate it. Does he agree with that approach?

[Andrew George]

I do indeed. It is the desire of a centralised state to render its dominion homogeneous, and in a nation such as the UK, where the culture has been so centralised for centuries, it is difficult to understand that the process of devolution is about letting go, not about holding on to power. In effect, the purpose of my intervention on the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) was to point out that, within the Bill, there is still that desire to hold on. In other words, directly elected mayors could become puppets of central Government under this Bill. I fear that that may be the case as a result of clause 38. There is a weakness there, including the possibility of the Government still holding on and controlling the way things go.

I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches and by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and I hope that the Minister will listen. Even if she does not accept these totemic amendments now, I hope that the Government will be listening to Cornwall’s case as the Bill proceeds through the other place.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

It has been a long afternoon. I thank my Lib Dem colleagues in Committee who bravely stood up for towns and parishes and would like the role of town and parish councils to continue. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as I am still a sitting district councillor. District councils play an interesting role when we have town and parish councils because they form the connection between the towns and parishes, the district and the county. Those three layers work together, and they pull in a similar direction when it is working well. I could regale the House with the achievements of Dawlish town council, Newton Abbot town council or Teignmouth town council, or of the various parish councils. They have done fantastic things for their communities, but they can only do that when they are part of the process and are able to talk and act with the higher councils as well. What is missing from this Bill is anything like a duty to co-operate between the unitary, the town and the parish councils. Were that in place, there would be a much better conversation.

We have no set idea in Devon what the best layout of unitary councils would look like. There are six, or possibly 10, options coming up to the Government for consideration, which is clearly entirely unreasonable. One of the options is a single large unitary replacing the footprint of Devon county council. Something like that would take a localised idea of what was going on in the district councils, for example with five district councillors in Dawlish representing the people in that area, to a far distant control, where there could be two unitary councillors trying to deal with those issues. It would be difficult to persuade residents that that unitary council is working with their best interests at heart. That duty to co-operate is important.

We went through all the process, and the former Secretary of State, or Under-Secretary—I am unsure of the best form of address.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will not give way, because I think Members are getting rather irate and everyone wants to go home. I will finish with Cornwall and the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). He has been a passionate and consistent advocate for Cornwall. We recognise Cornwall’s minority status and we will continue to safeguard that. We cannot accept the amendment, because it cuts across the powers that we want to put with mayors. I reassure him and other Members from Cornwall that we are committed to working to strengthen the devolution deal that we have already done with Cornwall to ensure that we are unlocking opportunity in the area.

[Andrew George]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will conclude. We are clear, despite the naysayers on the Opposition Benches, that this Bill is a fundamental step forward. It is the biggest transfer of power to our mayors, our local authorities and our communities. The driver behind the Bill is the principle that if we push power out and locate it in local people, we can drive the change that people want.

I end by saying this: the Bill is a floor, not the ceiling. We are determined to continue building on the devolution journey that we have started, putting power, agency and resources in the hands of local leaders and communities, because that is how we drive local change that can drive national change. I urge the House to support the Government’s amendments to this Bill to ensure that we can unlock the potential of devolution.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 43 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 44

Licensing functions of the Mayor of London

“Schedule (licensing functions of the Mayor of London) amends the Licensing Act 2003 to confer licensing functions on the Mayor of London.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This inserts new Schedule NS2 into the Bill conferring licensing functions on the Mayor of London.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Council tax: CAs and CCAs to be subject to same increase as most county and unitary councils

“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 52ZC, after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) Where, for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State determines categories of authority for the year under consideration, one of the categories determined by the Secretary of State must include all mayoral combined authorities and CCAs (‘the CA and CCA category’).

(4B) Where the Secretary of State has determined a category that includes the majority of county and unitary councils (“a county and unitary category”), a principle that must be applied to the CA and CAA category is that the means of determining whether the relevant basic amount of council tax is excessive is the same as any means set out in a principle applied to the county and unitary category (but for the purposes of the determination references to any referendum principle for county and unitary councils that specifically relates to expenditure on adult social care should be discounted).’”—(Paul Holmes.)

This new clause would limit increases in the mayoral precept according to similar principles limiting council tax increases.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Ending Homelessness

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

There is no time for courtesies. Homelessness is one end of a continuum that starts with thousands of wealthy people purchasing holiday and second homes in places such as Cornwall and ends with 5,000 people annually presenting to the local authority as at risk of or experiencing homelessness. For a number of years, I led the Street Food Project in Penzance and saw these issues at close quarters, speaking to the people involved and those experiencing homelessness. It was a very distressing picture, and it continues today.

The other contrast I want to draw attention to is the fact that £500 million of taxpayers’ money is provided through small business rate relief in Cornwall to holiday home owners, subsidising the second homes of the wealthy. If we put that money into housing to meet the needs of those who are homeless and in housing need, we would solve this problem overnight. We need to address that inequality.

I wish I could draw attention to the good work the local authority is doing and to the outcomes of that work, but I want to ask the Minister about the housing benefit subsidy loss that local authorities experience when they put people into bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They only receive housing benefit for that accommodation, and that needs to be reviewed.

I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that we need to reward the good landlords and not just regulate the bad ones. We also need to address the perfect storm in the construction industry, which has resulted in us not being able to get on and deliver the shovel-ready projects that are available to the Government. They are going forward with the Renters’ Rights Bill, but it will take another four or five years to get those new developments off the ground. They could do that now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What steps he is taking to build more social and affordable homes.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

3. What progress he has made on meeting social housing targets.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

22. What steps he is taking to build more social and affordable homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this incredibly important issue and for always championing his constituents in Rochdale. He is quite right to highlight the appalling record of the Conservative party on temporary accommodation for families and children, and on homelessness and rough sleeping. Our drive to build more social and affordable homes will tackle its failure head-on. We will reduce homelessness levels and the need for temporary accommodation by providing more secure and affordable homes up and down the country, with a particular focus on social rent, including record numbers of new council homes.

[Andrew George]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his position and declare an interest as a volunteer member of the Cornwall Community Land Trust. The Secretary of State will be well aware that a perfect storm has hit the construction industry as far as the delivery of social housing is concerned: tender forecasts are not encouraging, Homes England’s scoring matrix is proving to be inflexible, and the cost-value ratio used by registered providers is not helping and is providing a disincentive to deliver in the most deprived communities. There are thousands of homes that community-led CLTs and others could be delivering now. Will the Secretary of State meet me and fellow members of the community-led housing sector? Otherwise, we will be waiting another five years to get shovel-ready affordable homes off the ground.

[Steve Reed]

I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and others on issues as important as this. I had the pleasure of visiting Newlyn in his constituency not so long ago and some of those issues were made apparent to me by people living in the area. We announced top-ups to the affordable homes programme in the autumn and the spring, and in March we announced £2 billion as a downpayment for the new social and affordable homes programme, which is now open for bids. Homes England can and does vary grant rates on the basis of bids from social housing providers. Importantly, the available £39 billion covers a range of tenures, including community-led housing. I would expect and hope to see increases in the way that he has described.