English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Perran Moon]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I welcome amendment (a), which would include coastal communities, as the changes are very encouraging, but I would also like to speak to the Lords amendment on local authority consent. I am deeply disappointed that the Secretary of State’s right to impose on a local authority without local assent has been delayed for only two years. The reason why, and this is where I have to reference our experience in Cornwall, is that for centuries—since the Stannary Parliament ceased to meet in 1753—Cornwall has longed for greater powers to control its own affairs. The amendment was an opportunity to work with Government to provide that level of devolution. It should also be noted for constitutionalists that the Stannary Parliament was never actually revoked.

The hunger for greater devolution runs deep in Cornwall, and in the 21st century it has been enhanced by the Council of Europe’s framework convention of national minority status, which recognises the Cornish as a national minority. I fear that the Government’s refusal to accept some of the amendments that were tabled, including this one, runs in contravention to article 16 of that framework convention. The national minority status process began under the previous Labour Government. I am also very grateful for the elevation of the Cornish language to the status of all other British Celtic languages.

With this hunger for devolution and commitments from the party, expectations were high. However, as we approach the end of the Bill’s passage, I am disappointed by the progress made by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It is not as though the Ministry did not know what devolution we were looking for. I am deeply grateful to the Minister and to two Secretaries of State for so frequently meeting Cornish Members from both parties to elaborate on what constitutes a devolution deal. I am very grateful that the Treasury has delivered the Kernow industrial growth fund. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is moving ahead with support for the language, as I mentioned, and the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education are investing in Cornwall. However, it feels a bit like MHCLG is not moving at the same pace as the others. This was never more starkly exposed than on the day it was announced that Cornwall was losing its shared prosperity funding, and new shared prosperity funding was announced in northern English mayoralties.

I am grateful that in November 2025 the Secretary of State was mindful to offer Cornwall single strategic authority status, as the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) mentioned. Cornwall will never willingly become part of a mayoral combined authority, because to do so would compromise national minority status, as I have mentioned. However, when she gets to her feet, could the Minister please confirm when those outstanding areas, including transport, economic development, strategic place partnership for housing and British-Irish Council attendance, will be dealt with? Until then, there will remain distrust and scepticism of the Government’s intentions for devolution in Cornwall and its place within these British Isles.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I will keep my contribution brief and speak once again on Lords amendments 98 and 98A, to allow other hon. Members to speak. Along with many of my constituents, I was very disappointed last Tuesday that the Minister failed to mention Cornwall once in her closing speech, despite my pointing out the dangerous powers that the Government are still trying to instil into law—powers that could be used by this Government or a future Government, which could force Cornwall to merge with another authority without the consent of the Cornish people. Cornwall still faces the prospect of having no legal protections in the Bill. Liberal Democrats have made efforts here and in the other place to secure protections that would take our national minority status into account under the European Framework convention for the protection of national minorities.

I fear that my constituents are being held to ransom by this Government, who say, “Accept our terms, effectively give up your national minority status, be forced into a merger with another region, and we might give you more money—and if you don’t accept our terms, we have the powers to force you to do so in two years’ time anyway.” In my eyes, that amounts to nothing more than economic coercion against a national minority. The Minister keeps repeating, as she did last week, that the Government have already committed not to use these powers for two years. How does that provide comfort for my constituents? Either a future Government or this one could use that power after two years.

I therefore hope that all my Cornish colleagues and Members from across the House will join me this time to vote against the Government’s latest attempt at blocking Lords amendment 98. Let us please not hand this Government or future Governments this unlawful power to combine authorities against the will of local people—our constituents. To the Minister, I say again that she has not considered Cornwall’s national minority status, contrary to the European framework convention, and so she will likely expect a legal challenge if the Bill becomes law.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I would like to speak to Lords amendment 94B and 94C on the agent of change principle. My particular concern, as I said last week, relates to grassroots music venues and the impact on them of the current lack of robust application of the agent of change principle through planning guidance.

To set a little context, there were 1,150 grassroots music venues a few years ago. The Music Venue Trust now believes that has fallen to 800 venues. Grassroots music venues are important, and not just to local cultural identity—Sunderland is a music city, as we all know. Those venues are core to the UK music industry, which is worth £5.2 billion a year in this country, and grassroots music venues are the research and development department of that industry.

It is tempting to assume that a lot of money is sloshing around because of the success of some of our international acts, but that is absolutely not the case for grassroots music venues trying to keep the show on the road, as it were, on our high streets. That is why 350 have closed in recent years. Of the 366 small venues that Ed Sheeran played in when learning his trade, more than 150 are now closed. Of the 34 venues that Oasis played in before being signed, only 11 remain. If we do not work to ensure that the agent of change principle is properly applied, which Lords Amendment 94 sought to do, we risk further catastrophic loss of venues. The closures are due not just to economic factors on the high street, which people have discussed; the Music Venue Trust conservatively estimates that since 2015 over 125 grassroots music venue closures have been due specifically to planning issues.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. I invite the Minister to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

No, to our mayors, our local leaders and our communities. Not acknowledging that is quite simply churlish.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the key issue of scrutiny of commissioners and all the key decision makers at strategic authority level. We recognise and agree with that, which is why we have included amendments to introduce stronger local scrutiny committees with greater teeth, so that with greater responsibility comes an accountability framework to make sure that we hold decision makers to account on behalf of local people.

On the question of reviewing the protection of public spaces, I am the Minister responsible for green and public spaces, and I am absolutely committed to making sure that such assets are available to all our communities. We are committed to doing a review, and we are very clear that the powers that have been introduced with regard to statutory trusts will not be used until we have concluded that review.

The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke to Lords amendment 2. Again, there is no agreement on policy. We are very clear that mayors have a responsibility to ensure that their rural communities are looked after and protected, and the reality of what we are seeing in places like North Yorkshire is that that is exactly what our mayors are doing. We do not believe that we need to put that on the face of the Bill, because it sits within each of the competencies that mayors will have to take on board. The guidance that sits alongside that, which points to good practice and the work that mayors have done, will be far more powerful in ensuring that this policy bites in the communities where we want it to bite.

Several Members spoke about the brownfield-first approach, and we agree with that policy. That is very clear in the national planning policy framework, which we have strengthened to ensure that it is the case. [Interruption.] No, I am not just saying it, because that is the policy, and the policy determines what happens in the planning framework. However, we are clear that is there is variability—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State says we are centralising, but we say we should leave it to mayors and local authorities to deal with diversity in their particular circumstances, so that they are not caught in legal wrangling, but can make such choices. The policy is very clear: it is about putting brownfield first. Critically, unlike the last Government, we are investing to enable our councils and our mayors to remediate and regenerate such land, so that the policy can bite in the way it is supposed to.

On the question of the cabinet and leader model, I go back to the fact that we are doing this because we fundamentally care about creating strong local authorities that can deliver for their people. Some 80% of local authorities already have this model, and it is effective. We have already made the concession that, where alternatives such as the committee model or the mayoral model exist in particular places, they can see out their terms. However, we think it is right to move in the long term to a model that will serve local people.

The hon. Member for Guildford also talked about devolution being imposed. On the approach we have taken to strategic authorities—I ask the House to judge us by the way we are acting, not just by the words I say—we are incredibly clear that it is ultimately for local partnerships to come together, and Government will enable and pass devolution down to them. We are not imposing, and we are committed to not imposing.

[Ben Maguire]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress because there is very little time left.

I do have to take issue with the point about neighbourhood governance. We are told that we are centralising and trying to impose models on communities, yet on the question of neighbourhood governance, the hon. Member for Guildford and her party want to impose a particular model on communities. We say that is wrong, and we take a very different approach. Ultimately, it should be for communities to determine the right neighbourhood governance structure for their place. Town and parish councils—I agree that they exist in 80% of the geography—will have a role in this, and where that is the will of communities, that should be what those communities do. However, other communities will want to take different approaches, and we think it is right that communities should build on what they have, and that it should ultimately be for communities to determine what they do.

Local Government Reorganisation

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

That is certainly not an unusual circumstance in cases that end up in the courts in this way. The costs are still being assessed, so I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer to that question at the moment.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

As recently as 22 January, this Government formally committed to delaying local elections again, but facing defeat in the judicial review, they suddenly realised that the delay was unlawful. This U-turn has cost £63 million at a time when my own local authority in Cornwall faces a massive funding shortfall. Legal advice does not usually suddenly change without a material change in facts, so did the Secretary of State ignore the Attorney General’s legal advice on this matter until it became obvious that the Government would lose, or did the Attorney General provide incorrect legal advice to the Secretary of State? Which is it?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am unable to discuss the detail of legal advice that was given to the Government, but there is nothing unusual at all about giving fresh ministerial consideration when decisions are revisited after legal advice is received. That is what happened.

Pride in Place

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We will start investing. Phase 1 places are already receiving capacity funding, and £2 million will flow from next year. Phase 2 places—the places we recently announced—will receive capacity funding from next year, with full funding flowing from the year after. This is potentially a way to revolutionise the way that government works. We are very keen to work with Departments across Whitehall. We are saying, “Here is a way of investing in communities that genuinely puts communities in the driving seat.” Hopefully it has the impact that we want.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I was really disappointed that Cornwall, despite having some of the most deprived towns in the country, will not receive a penny of pride in place funding. At a time when our shared prosperity funding is to stop, I am concerned to hear the Minister mention that the north and the midlands will receive pride in place funding. I hope she clears that up. Will she meet me and my constituent Fin Irwin, who has really exciting plans for Bodmin’s Fore Street in my constituency? They could be the basis for a great pilot involving social housing, opportunities for small businesses and community spaces, and it would prove that the Government want regional growth everywhere.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

One hundred per cent. Devolution offers the opportunity to put communities in the driving seat and give them genuine power. For example, this Government’s Pride in Place programme puts communities right at the centre, because we think that is how to ensure that communities come together to drive the change that they want to see in their area. We encourage all councils to work closely with their local communities to make that change happen.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

7. What steps he is taking to support the building of social housing in rural towns and villages.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

The £39 billion social and affordable homes programme will support a wide range of social and affordable housing, including council housing, supported housing, community-led housing and, of course, rural housing. The Government will also consider how planning policy can better promote rural affordable housing through our work on national policies, which will be brought forward for decision making later in the year.

[Ben Maguire]

I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Cornwall has been given an ambitious annual target of 4,400 homes, and I sincerely hope that a large proportion of those will be for the 25,000 Cornish families on the housing waiting list. I meet so many constituents in social and private housing who have been left high and dry by dodgy developers who go into liquidation before they can deliver vital infrastructure, such as roads and sewerage works. Will the Secretary of State please meet me to discuss the enforcement tools that local authorities need to properly hold those developers to account?

[Steve Reed]

I certainly recognise the problem that the hon. Member describes; it is an issue in North Cornwall and right across the country. On the developer contribution, we are looking at how we can strengthen enforcement, so that where commitments are made, they are delivered on, and local communities are not stranded and left high and dry because the vital infrastructure to support the homes never appears.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Ben Maguire Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I rise to make the case for Kernow, or Cornwall, and its unique status in this United Kingdom. My constituents have been crystal clear with me: Cornwall must never be forcibly joined with Devon or merged into any wider regional authority. But that is not to say that Cornwall wants to go it alone. It is not about separatism at all; this is about respecting our distinct status and history. Cornwall has proudly partnered with other UK regions for decades. It has a proud and unique language, culture, history and—crucially—national minority status, which was granted over a decade ago. We were afforded the same status as our Celtic brothers and sisters in Scotland, Ireland and Wales, and so the people of Cornwall deserve a devolution deal that recognises that.

This status is not just symbolic. It creates a duty on public authorities to promote equality for the Cornish people, to support our culture, language and identity and, specifically, to avoid any assimilationist policies. Under the UK’s Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty, Ministers and local authorities alike must consider the impact of their decisions, including in this Bill, on the Cornish people. If they fail to do so, their actions can be challenged in the courts using an array of legal claims, including judicial reviews, an Equality Act claim and a Human Rights Act 1998 article 14 differential treatment claim. Therefore, these rights carry real legal and political weight. To disregard or dilute Cornwall’s status in this Bill would be insulting, unlawful and dangerous. I am alarmed that the Bill would grant the Secretary of State power to force combined authorities without local people’s consent. Devolution, in essence, should give power to the communities, regions and counties that it aims to empower, not to a mayor, a Secretary of State or an unelected commissioner.

At Prime Minister’s questions last October, the Prime Minister told me that he believes that

“Those with skin in the game know what is best for their communities.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 834.]

The Secretary of State has repeated that today. I agree with them both: decisions should be made for Cornwall and in Cornwall by a fully elected Cornish assembly—and not in Plymouth, Bristol or Westminster. They should be made by those from within the duchy who understand our unique way of life and our unique economic and social challenges—the immense challenges of funding rural transport; the unfair and unequal investment in our schools over decades; the plight of our farmers and fishers, who seem to be left out in the cold by Government after Government; and the enormous proliferation of second homes and holiday lets, which lock local people out of our housing market, generation after generation.

In my office, I proudly display a famous painting of the Cornish rebellion of 1497. It illustrates the Cornish spirit of fairness, justice and persistence, of proud Cornish men and women who had taxes imposed upon them by the Government in London. That spirit lives on. Given Cornwall’s history and that strength of feeling, if the Secretary of State imposed a mayor of Devon and Cornwall —completely disregarding Cornwall’s national minority status, as well as legal battles—she might have a full uprising on her hands.

The Bill would likely limit Cornwall to a foundation strategic authority with limited powers, funding and control. That is why we are fighting for a bespoke devolution deal. The Bill should have mechanisms in place to allow such a bespoke deal to take place. Cornwall’s MPs look forward to working together for the good of Cornwall, onen hag oll—one and all—to make that happen. I call on the Government to fully respect Cornwall’s national minority status; to create a Minister for Cornwall, who could sit in the Wales Office; to consider the feasibility of an elected Cornish assembly instead of a mayor; and to commit to a devolution deal that respects Cornwall’s historic identity by excluding it from combined strategic authorities with other regions. Kernow bys vyken!

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

Since taking office, we have made £800 million of new funding available to deliver 7,800 new social and affordable homes. From 2026-27, we are injecting £2 billion to build up to 18,000 more homes by the end of this Parliament. We will announce additional funding for next year and beyond at the spending review.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Cornwall faces a homelessness crisis, with 22,000 families on the housing waiting list. Following a meeting last week with the Minister for Housing and Planning, I propose an Airbnb Bill that will require second home owners formally to seek planning permission for any change of use of their properties. There is an easy loophole that allows property owners to avoid paying council tax altogether by passing off a home as a short-term holiday let. Will the Minister please confirm that she will give this proposal due consideration, and will she visit Cornwall to discuss this further?

[Rushanara Ali]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Our priority is to make sure that we tackle the root causes of the housing shortage and homelessness. That is why we are building 1.5 million homes and investing record amounts in housing and tackling homelessness, including £1 billion for the next year.

Housing Development Planning: Water Companies

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, particularly about holding funds in escrow, which is a sensible suggestion. I am reluctant to let water companies off the hook, because they have made enormous profits, and they have been able to predict the growth in housing and changes in the weather, but they have done nothing to invest in the existing infrastructure. Let us not feel too sorry for them, but there clearly needs to be a long-term plan in place for overall infrastructure in an area. I agree that that needs to be taken into consideration in the planning process.

Local planning authorities have discretionary powers to try to prevent the situations I have described. They could stop occupation of the final properties on the development until the defective sewerage has been remediated. There are various conditions they could put in place up front to prevent these situations, but in practice that is not happening.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

In my constituency, South West Water promised residents in the Chapelfields development in the village of St Mabyn that sewage treatment would be put in place, only for families to move in and find raw sewage being collected in tankers, with no proper connections and frequent sewage back-ups, which is similar to what my hon. Friend has described. Does she agree that water companies must be held properly accountable to ensure that infrastructure is in place before homes are built, not years later when the damage is already done?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

1. What steps she plans to take to ensure that new housing developments have adequate access to primary health services.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

12. What steps she plans to take to ensure that new housing developments have adequate access to primary health services.

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

Through the revised national planning policy framework, this Government have strengthened the existing system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide the necessary infrastructure that communities expect and deserve, including health services. We will robustly hold developers to account for delivering on their obligations, and we will support local planning authorities to do so.

[Angela Rayner]

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, which is why this Government have said that infrastructure must come as part of our 1.5 million homes. The Housing Minister will be happy to meet him.

[Ben Maguire]

Cornish house prices far exceed local wages, and in areas such as Rock and St Minver, 40% of houses are second homes. Meanwhile, more than 3,000 homes are set to be built in towns such as Bodmin by 2030, but the only GP surgery building is currently running at 150% capacity, despite a new building having been promised for years. Will the Secretary of State please ensure that national planning guidance mandates that primary care and education infrastructure is put in place before developments are started, preventing developers from later breaking their promises?

[Angela Rayner]

Again, I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, this Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that we get that infrastructure and that development is a truly plan-led system. The policy framework is meant to do that, and we intend to consult on future policy changes—including a set of national policies for decision making—this spring.

Affordable Rural Housing

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think the hon. Gentleman is making a wider point. I am not sure what specific legislative provision he is referring to in the past. There is a very clear place for ensuring we are building the right types of homes in all parts of the country, including homes that support key workers and other frontline public sector staff, and I am more than happy to discuss that matter with him outside the Chamber.

The Government have been clear that we want to look further at measures to support affordable housing in rural areas. That is why we asked a question on that issue as part of the consultation on reforms to the national planning policy framework last year. The responses we received are informing our ongoing work in relation to producing a set of national policies for decision making—national development management policies, as they were referred to under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Although I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire a firm date today, I can assure her and other hon. Members that we will consult on those policies in the spring, as promised, and I will update the House in due course.

My hon. Friend also knows that, since taking office, the Government have provided additional grant funding to support the delivery of affordable homes in all parts of England. At the Budget on 30 October 2024, the Chancellor set out details of an immediate one-year cash injection of £500 million to top up the existing affordable homes programme, which will deliver up to 5,000 new social and affordable homes. On 12 February 2025, the Government announced a further cash injection of £300 million to the existing affordable homes programme, which will deliver a further 2,800 new homes, more than half of which will be for social rent.

At the multi-year spending review this year, the Government will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. That new investment will deliver a mix of homes for sub-market rent and home ownership, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. We know that delivering affordable housing in rural places can be especially challenging. There are particular challenges that come with the delivery of sites in rural areas, so that is one of the factors that will be taken into consideration in the design of the future capital investment programme, which will succeed the existing one.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire might also like to know that, to provide additional support for rural housing delivery in settlements with populations of fewer than 3,000 people, Homes England has developed a rural housing strategy and has dedicated rural housing champions in each of its operating areas.

My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the significant contribution that can be made by rural exception sites. As she is aware, these allow local authorities to address the housing needs of rural communities by creating sites where local residents, and others with a strong family or employment connection, can live in affordable homes and in perpetuity. Rural exception sites tend to be just outside village boundaries, where housing is not normally granted permission, so it is possible to create them even in the green belt or designated rural areas. We recognise the strong support for rural exception sites and the potential for strengthening this policy. That is why we made clear in our response to the consultation on the revised national planning policy framework that we are giving further consideration to how we can better support rural affordable housing, including through use of exception sites. That will include consideration of how we can drive greater uptake of rural exception sites and introduce a more streamlined approach. Again, I will set out details about our thinking in due course.

I will take forward this work with my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, including by considering the role that rural housing enablers play in supporting rural affordable housing. My hon. Friend mentioned a case in her own constituency. Again, I am afraid that I cannot give her any firm assurances in this debate in respect of ongoing funding because that is subject to the Government’s ongoing business planning, but I can assure her that we will provide an update at the earliest possible opportunity.

I want to briefly reference a couple of issues that hon. Members raised, as I have the time. The first is the problem highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire of developers and housing associations—in her case, Sovereign—selling off much-needed social and affordable homes in rural areas. She might like to know that when and if grant-funded homes are sold or part-sold, there is a system in place to recover Government grants through the recycled capital grant fund. That means that the cash value of the grant is placed in a fund to be used for further investment in new affordable housing supply. I am more than happy to discuss with her the specific issues with Sovereign in her own constituency.

Briefly, on short-term lets and the existing developer contribution system, Members across the House will know that we have debated this issue at length on various occasions. We are committed to taking forward the previous Government’s measures—a registration scheme for short-term lets and the abolition of the furnished holiday lettings scheme, which comes into force on 1 April—but we have been clear that that is not enough and we are giving very considered thought to what further powers local authorities need, in particular, though there is a balance to be struck, to deal with excessive concentrations of short-term lets that often deny local people not only homes to buy but, increasingly, homes to rent.

On section 106 contributions, we are reviewing viability and we are committed to strengthening the existing section 106 system, in lieu of taking forward the previous Government’s approach, which was an infrastructure levy. When taking those reforms forward, we need to ensure that local authorities are better able to negotiate at the point that those agreements are reached and are then able to ensure that developers honour the commitments that they make in those agreements, when struck.

In conclusion, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire for securing this important debate, giving the House an opportunity to consider a range of important issues relating to affordable rural housing supply.

[Ben Maguire]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not—I am just winding up, I am afraid.

I hope that I have not only conveyed the Government’s firm support for delivering much-needed affordable housing in rural areas, but reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire and others that I am actively considering what further measures are necessary to ensure that we do so while balancing the need to ensure that development is sustainable and appropriate. I hope I can continue to draw on the insights provided by my hon. Friend and other colleagues, as the Government continue to develop their thinking in this area.

Question put and agreed to.