Local Government Finance

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for his consistent championing of Peterborough in this House—and, frankly, in my ear—at all times. He always stands up for his constituents, and I have been pleased to visit Peterborough on a number of occasions. I want to see the significant investment that we are making in Peterborough help it to thrive. It has great potential and fantastic young people, and I look forward to being invited back to see exactly what is happening there.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I welcome the multi-year settlement, but I am deeply concerned that the statement made no reference to the particular pressures facing rural areas. Devon has the longest road network in England, so everything costs more—SEND, care, bus services and bin collections—and Dartmouth library is now facing a cut in hours because of funding cuts. Using deprivation as a way to calculate the funding formula does not take account of the older population, and my concern is that hidden pockets of deep deprivation, in an otherwise wealthy area, will not be recognised. Can the Minister reassure me that hidden pockets of deprivation will be recognised by the formula?

[Alison McGovern]

I have answered a number of questions on rural areas, so I refer the hon. Lady to the answers I have already given. I have real confidence in the latest indices of deprivation. The data quality is much better, so we are able to meet the challenge she sets.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It is my pleasure to open the debate on day two of Report on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Today we are concerned with parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill, which cover provisions relating to local government, community right to buy, local audit and the ending of upward-only rent review clauses in commercial leases. As with yesterday’s debate, I will focus on the substantive changes made in Committee and those we have brought forward on Report.

Before I turn to the amendments, I would like to address some of the comments made in yesterday’s debate. Opposition Members suggested that this Government have not taken on board any of their suggestions. Today I am delighted to demonstrate that the Government have been listening to the points raised by Members in the House and by our mayors. We have today announced the next big step in our path to devolution. Mayors will be given the power to raise revenue locally through a new overnight visitor levy. We are consulting on whether to also grant this power to leaders of foundation strategic authorities. This is a groundbreaking step for the future of devolution, with transformative investment potential for England’s tourism sector and the wider economy.

Mayors have already proven what is possible when they are given the tools to deliver, from the Mayor of London using business rate supplements to deliver the Elizabeth line to the Mayor of Greater Manchester using his mayoral precept on council tax to provide far improved bus services. Making places more attractive to visit, live and work in will attract further investment and improve the visitor experience, so I am proposing that constituent authorities within a strategic authority that implement a levy should be eligible for a share of the revenue raised for growth-related spending. Tomorrow, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will publish a consultation with the details of the proposed levy. We recognise that businesses and potential visitors may have concerns about the effects of a new levy, and we will take those concerns seriously. I expect mayors to engage constructively with businesses and their communities to hear those concerns throughout the consultation period and beyond

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I am interested in this proposal, but I wonder whether it will be applicable to council areas that do not yet have a mayor and may not have a mayor for some time. Will they still have the power to impose an overnight visitor levy?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We will consult on whether that power should be extended to foundational strategic authorities that do not have a mayor, and we will see the responses to that consultation.

I said yesterday that the Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of this Government’s ambition. Today’s announcement shows just how seriously we take the mayor’s right to request new powers, and our commitment to give them the tools they need to drive growth for the area. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for raising that issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for his contribution to yesterday’s debate.

I turn now to the changes made in Committee. The Government recognise how much communities value their local sports grounds as spaces that foster local pride, belonging and identity. The Bill will automatically designate grounds across England as sporting assets of community value, ensuring that those essential local spaces are protected. We have introduced a new 16-week review period for communities seeking to purchase a sporting asset of community value accommodating more than 10,000 spectators. That amendment is about putting processes in place to safeguard the long-term sustainability of larger sports grounds, ensuring communities have the capability and readiness to manage them effectively.

The Bill delivers fully on our commitment to fix the broken local audit system that we inherited, and will set local government on a firmer financial footing. In Committee, we inserted new provisions relating to financial penalties, sanctions and criminal offences. They will ensure that the local audit system has the right levers in place to deter and sanction improper behaviour. The new local audit office will be established as the regulatory authority for that system, and will be given further powers to conduct assurance reviews.

The Bill will ban upwards-only rent review clauses in new and renewed commercial leases. Such reviews create an imbalance of supply and demand, contributing to the blight of empty properties, from high street shops to empty office floors. Our amendment will close loopholes in the ban, ensuring that tenants who vacate or have not occupied properties are still caught by the ban. It will allow tenants to trigger a rent review in all leases, preventing landlords from avoiding rent reviews during times of rental decline

I turn now to the amendments tabled on Report. New clause 46 will confer the general power of competence on England’s national park authorities and the Broads Authority. The legislation underpinning our national parks currently limits their powers to activities directly related to their statutory functions, creating uncertainty and stifling their ability to innovate. Providing them with the general power of competence will enable them to be more innovative and agile in delivering their statutory functions, and to contribute towards the Government’s wider agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister, who is not in her place, for taking the time to meet me to discuss my amendments 107 and 108, which concern the community right to buy.

This Bill is one of the most exciting and empowering pieces of legislation to come from this Government. For the first time, communities will be given a genuine first opportunity to buy and own the places that matter most to them. Instead of seeing valued community assets sold off to the highest bidder, residents will be able to step in, organise and take ownership for themselves. That is truly transformative.

In Stroud, community ownership is essential for maintaining services and the environment for rural villages and towns. Community-owned village shops, such as those in Horsley and Coaley—and, indeed, my favourite shop in the world, which is in my village of Uley and is run by fabulous volunteers—keep the villages alive and provide access for older people and those without transport.

Village pubs are dying off. There are campaigns in my area to keep the Rose & Crown in Nympsfield open and, in fact, people have succeeded in making a community pub at the Red Lion in Arlingham. There are also community rooms such as the Trinity Rooms in Stroud, which the community is fundraising to buy, hopefully by Christmas. That is all very exciting. Land in Stroud aptly named the Heavens is being purchased by the community, as is Rodborough fields. This Bill will finally give legal backing to those campaigns, but I believe that we can make one important improvement.

As drafted, the Bill refers to “economic or social interests” when defining assets of community value, but it leaves out environmental interests. That means that wildlife-rich spaces cannot be protected, even when they provide major community benefits, including access to nature and improvements to wellbeing.

My amendments simply would extend the community right to buy to include assets that further the environmental wellbeing of local communities, granting them the ability to buy and, importantly, safeguard nature-rich areas if they come up for sale. I am a GP, and I use social prescribing extensively. Walking in nature is a proven way of getting better without using pills, so I very much urge the Minister to listen to what we are saying. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) quite rightly said that this is about public health.

I know some Members are concerned that these powers could block the house building that we all want so much. That is why my amendments provide a safeguard in restricting the eligibility to land that has not been allocated for development in the local plan.

This Bill represents the biggest transfer of power out of Westminster for a century. It will give communities the right to shape, to buy and to rebuild. In Stroud, we are ready to embrace that opportunity, but we must ensure that the law properly recognises environmental value alongside social and economic wellbeing. That is why I urge the Government to support my amendments to ensure that the Bill delivers the fullest possible benefits for communities up and down the country.

[Caroline Voaden]

New clause 10, which I tabled, would require the Secretary of State to re-establish the community ownership fund, to which strategic authorities can apply for funding. We have heard from lots of Members in the House today about the value of their local community-owned businesses.

Community-owned spaces are of immense economic and social value to their local area. Businesses across the country under the community ownership model are defying the odds, when small businesses in retail and hospitality in particular are struggling to survive. According to Plunkett UK—I commend its work in this area—business survival rates for community businesses remain exceptional, with a five-year survival rate of 97%. That is radically higher than the 39% survival rate of private small and medium enterprises over the same period. These thriving local enterprises reinvest back into their communities, creating a positive cycle. They also provide exponential benefits to local areas and the people who live there. They tend to source goods and services locally, creating a circular economy in the places where they exist. They support charitable activity, provide fundraising for local causes and improve the aesthetics of our towns and villages through gardening initiatives, improving the quality of our green spaces, encouraging more people to get outdoors and improving arts and culture.

From pubs and shops to community centres and hubs, these spaces are the pillars of their communities, bringing people together and nurturing a shared pride in their town or village. They are the difference between a bunch of houses and a genuine community. At a time when community cohesion is frayed, division is commonplace and we are being pulled apart by dangerous individuals seeking to widen the cracks that are showing in our society, these community spaces offer a way to reunite communities. Through something as simple as providing a place for people to meet and talk to each other, community spaces combat this increase in division with social interaction, enabling communities to come together to celebrate where they live.

Community-owned spaces provide a wide array of volunteering opportunities, employing more than 20,000 volunteers across this country, from young people right through to older people. In a recent survey by Plunkett, 58% of these businesses stated that older people benefit most from their presence. In rural areas such as South Devon, that is especially important. Isolation can happen when people live far from neighbours in rural areas, and in many ways these places help to strengthen the very fabric of rural life for those people.

It is not easy for a community to buy a building or space that is at risk of closure or has been left unused. That is why the community ownership fund is vital, as Government funding is desperately needed to enable a sustained increase in community ownership. A community ownership fund would develop a larger pipeline of start-up groups and build the capacity and confidence of those groups to progress to the trading stage. If it were reopened, it would have a transformational impact by enabling the spread of community spaces and the extensive benefits they bring.

In the three years that the community ownership fund was in place, it saved thousands of cherished community sites at risk of closure. Thanks to the fund, community groups could generate income, build financial sustainability and strengthen community ties. It is the Government’s mission to double the size of the co-operative sector, as set out in their manifesto. It is time, therefore, for them to correct their mistake, to fulfil their promise and to seize the opportunity that this Bill presents by backing my new clause 10 and reopening the community ownership fund.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

I come once more to this discussion with a huge passion for devolving power to local areas. The northern powerhouse promise encouraged me to move back home to the north from London in my 20s, and I am so proud to have spent most of my career since then working to grow the local economies in Manchester and Lancashire. The city of Preston, part of which is in my constituency, has the telltale cranes all over the sky and grade-A office space being built at pace. Growth is best when it has local inputs and local impact, and with a two-hour train journey to London, there is no reason that Preston and cities like it should not become a key and critical spoke in our national growth story.

I am hugely grateful for the incredible energy of the Minister and for that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), who poured himself into this Bill for the past year, ensuring that areas such as Lancashire can get the powers they need to turbocharge their growth in the way that only Lancastrians know how.

Today, I will speak about new clauses 63 and amendments 42 and 150, which pertain to neighbourhood governance. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in the Bill Committee, during which I sat through lengthy debates on all these clauses. I have not directly supported the range of amendments concerning neighbourhood governance arrangements and parish and town councils, and on the whole I understand and largely support the Government’s argument against them—namely, that if we are intent on devolving power, we should allow local areas to manage that power as well, rather than dictating from Westminster how it must be managed. However, I wish to mention a number of instances in which I agree with the intent behind the amendments and to say something about the issues that they raise, in the hope that the Government can add helpful secondary legislation or strong guidance to help local areas make these changes a success.

As I observed during the development of plans for devolution in Lancashire, too many residents and organisations told me that their part in the consultation on the process felt tokenistic at best, if it was there at all. I think there is still a broad question for the Government to answer: how will we ensure that the interests of all residents and local groups have been properly fed into local changes, and how will we continue to hold local areas to account for maintaining that engagement?

My constituency contains many parished areas, while in other parts of it local community groups come together ad hoc, so I see the strengths of both formal and informal community leadership. I have been a proud member of my local parish council for many years, and it is often the place where I feel most connected to my community. The Minister has made clear throughout the Bill’s development that town and parish councils will not be affected, and indeed will have every right and opportunity to take on more responsibilities through the Bill. I commend that, and I thank her for protecting this vital part of our democracy.

While I recognise that there is plenty of public sentiment against mandating areas to become parished—which is why I cannot support new clause 63 directly—there is certainly public support for simplified, easily understood structures of government that the public can more clearly hold to account. Indeed, the Government’s own White Paper on the Bill said that its aim was to simplify local government and make it more consistent. We need only look around us to see what happens when people do not understand how our governing structures work and do not feel connected to them. People are increasingly disillusioned, and at a time when our economy is relying on people to come together with new ideas to create growth, despondency is our biggest enemy. While we need to allow flexibility, might the Government be able to show a clear preference for a town or parish council structure in their guidance, and/or ensure or require that any proposed solution involves clear democratic accountability?

I am so grateful to this Labour Government for being brave enough to push this Bill as one of their first priorities. Done is better than perfect for sure, and any devolution is better than none. However, in my decades of working with all types of communities, often hearing things that challenge some of my progressive dreams for and assumptions about this country I love, I have learned that progress and tradition can work hand in hand if we take the best from both. I therefore urge the Government to make the most of the powerful structures we have—town and parish councils, which already run 90% of this great country—part of our future, and to ensure that we truly have accountable democracy at every level so that every person has a voice, as has always been the Labour way.

Supporting High Streets

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Nearly 100,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality since the last Budget. Does the hon. Member agree that if that number of jobs had been lost in the steel industry or a car plant, it would have been front-page news day after day for weeks on end? Yet almost nothing is said about the jobs lost in hospitality, because they are dispersed right across the country, so they are almost invisible. Actually, an enormous number of jobs have been lost.

[Jack Rankin]

I absolutely agree. It goes beyond that, because a lot of hospitality jobs are the first jobs that people do. We talk about youth unemployment; we need to get people into the pattern of earning a living, and to enable them to gain the softer skills of serving customers and getting up on time. As we all know, that is so important to young people’s development. That is a problem not only now but for the future.

What do my landlords, hotel managers and businesses on the high street tell me their biggest problem is? Business rates. That is why I welcome my party’s commitment to permanently scrapping business rates for all retail, leisure and hospitality businesses up to a £110,000 cap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

This debate has reminded me of the maiden speeches we heard last year. We have had a really good tour of the country, taking in Animal shops, fun palaces and all sorts of stuff.

It has been great to talk about high streets, which are more than just shopping streets. They shape how people feel about where they live. When high streets are thriving, people take pride in their towns and feel a real sense of optimism about their area and, by extension, the country. When shops, cafés and pubs are closing, that optimism fades, leaving people discouraged and looking for change.

If the Government want people to feel that their lives are improving and their communities are thriving, and if they want people to feel hopeful and optimistic, supporting the high street must be a priority. That will not only help our traders and shops survive, but help restore pride in our towns. It will ensure that people are invested in the future of their communities and, by extension, the country, rather than being drawn to alternative voices offering quick fixes. I hope that that will be an incentive for the Government to rethink those of their measures that have been hitting the high street.

I am really proud to represent a constituency with fantastic high streets, including in Kingsbridge, Brixham, Modbury, Dartmouth, Salcombe and, of course, Totnes, which is widely praised for its unique high street, on which I was a trader in one of my past lives. As attractive as those streets are, in reality, all the traders are struggling. As many Members have said, the increase in national insurance contributions has hit those businesses hard. One small café in Brixham faces an extra £15,000 in national insurance costs this year. That is just unmanageable for a small café. I was told by a larger restaurant—part of a chain of 17 successful restaurants, which act as a magnet, bringing people to communities across south-west England—that the cost of the increases is equivalent to the money that would be spent opening a new restaurant, and opening a new restaurant would revitalise another town. That is so damaging. Not only is the NIC rise causing hardship, but the reduction in business rates relief from 75% to 40%, combined with the abolition of the cap, effectively leaves small businesses subsidising large chains.

I am running out of time, but I would just like to add that eight pubs are closing every week, and nearly 100,000 hospitality jobs have been lost since the Budget. If that happened in any other industry, it would be headline news, but the Government seem oblivious to what is happening. We call on the Government to exempt hospitality SMEs from the employer national insurance contributions increase, and to consult on creating a new band, from £5,000, to reduce the cost of employing part-time and seasonal staff, who are absolutely vital to the hospitality industry.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Blake]

I wish to speak against Lords amendments 58 to 62, which expand eviction grounds, and Lords amendment 27. I also wish briefly to revisit the core principles of the Bill, which are: ending no-fault eviction, and providing stability, not just for individuals but for the private rented sector; introducing a private renters’ database and an ombudsman, to restore rights to private renters, as well as transparency, so that they understand their tenancy in more detail; and to establish Awaab’s law in the sector. Those are vital interventions in the private rented sector, which we know is diverse, and it is important that the Bill becomes law as soon as possible. All of us, on both sides of the Chamber, will recognise the impact that uncertainty on the issue has had on the private rented sector for a number of years.

I have to say that it was pretty unedifying to listen to the Opposition reneging on their previous commitments to ending no-fault eviction. The first commitment from the Conservatives to ending no-fault evictions was in 2019—I think that was about four Conservative Prime Ministers ago, but I have given up counting. I understand that the shadow Housing Secretary might not remember the position that the previous Prime Minister took on the issue, but this provision cannot come into law soon enough. The number of private rented sector no-fault eviction notices that my constituents receive, and the instability that they cause in the sector, are causing real harm and distress to those who live in it.

Lords amendments 58 to 62 would expand possession ground 5C, and those completely unnecessary expansions provide yet more uncertainty in the sector. They open up the risk of further additional claims, and of introducing other grounds for eviction, which undermines the overall principles of the Bill. I support my colleagues who have spoken against Lords amendment 27, which would raise the evidence bar. It is completely unrealistic to think that it would be possible to do that, not only because bidding wars and contests often take place through verbal dialogue, but because of the lack of resources available to local authorities to investigate such cases. I do not believe that the amendment is practical, or was tabled in particularly good faith. We want renters’ rights restored, and a balance between renters and landlords. I cannot stress enough the urgent need to bring forward the Bill, to give confidence to renters, all those who rely on people living in private rented accommodation, and those living and working across the UK who need the sector to be successful. I urge Members to vote against the Lords amendments, and to support the Government in getting the Bill into statute.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s move to empower tenants. For too long in this country, owning property has been seen as a way to create additional wealth, rather than the intention being to provide a safe, secure and warm home for tenants. Not all landlords are bad, but there are some bad apples out there, and all those who are unable to get on to the housing ladder, or who actively choose to rent, deserve security of tenure, and confidence that they will not be evicted at the whim of a landlord, which often means being forced to move out of the area, and uprooting children from schools.

I declare an interest, because my younger daughter has spent four years renting in London, and for the last two, she has been living in horrific, mould-covered flats. She had to move out of the last one early, because the mould crawling up the walls was so bad that it was affecting the health, and ruining the belongings, of her and her flatmates. In 2025, that is simply not acceptable. For the thousands of people living in unsuitable accommodation, we must ensure that local authorities can take action against negligent landlords. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats do not support Lords amendment 26.

I support Lords amendment 39, which would extend the decent homes standard to accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence for use as service family accommodation. In my constituency of South Devon, the prestigious Britainnia royal naval college brings a large number of military families to the town of Dartmouth, some of whom live in MOD housing. Those families, who commit to a life of service—the whole family is involved when one member serves our country—deserve, at the very least, a home that is safe, comfortable, warm, energy efficient and decent. I am not sure that I agree with the security argument offered by the Minister, given that much MOD housing is located outside military bases. It is not beyond possibility to find a way to ensure that local authorities can access that housing. Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for decent homes for military families, who deserve exactly the same standards and legal protection as other renters, and I urge the House to support Lords amendment 39.

Turning to pets, a friend of mine recently failed to move back to Devon because she simply could not find rented accommodation in her price bracket, and her search was severely hampered by the fact that she has a much-loved family dog. Being told that she was not eligible even to look at properties because of the dog was discriminatory, and it made a difficult search impossible. We are in an area that is short of houses available to rent. If we take the average rent in the south-west of £1,181 per month, the proposal to allow landlords to request pet damage deposits of up to three weeks’ rent equates to an additional £817 up front, which is simply out of reach for most tenants. The current rental deposit cap of five weeks’ rent is sufficient to cover any potential pet-related damage, and nobody should be priced out of pet ownership simply because they do not own their own home. I therefore do not support Lords amendment 11.

Finally, I turn to agricultural workers. Agriculture is one of the largest industries and employers in South Devon, which is a predominantly rural constituency. Many of those working on farms as dairy workers, relief milkers and tractor drivers are required to live on site, as they have to work incredibly unsocial hours, and living on site makes the job slightly more manageable. I support measures in the Bill that allow repossession when a property is required to house agricultural workers, whether they are employed or self-employed. Farmers regularly tell me how difficult it is to find housing for farm workers, with many having to rely on caravans and cabins that are not suitable for long-term living. As it is increasingly common in farming for workers to be self-employed, we must ensure that they, too, are covered by the grounds for repossession, so I support Lords amendment 55.

[Dave Robertson]

I am glad that I managed to sneak in this speech, and I hope I will finish it. There have been many speeches made by Members on both sides of the Chamber, many of which have focused on the many things that the Bill will hopefully achieve. I confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) does have two very cute cats.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

Tomorrow, as the hon. Gentleman has reminded me. If, tomorrow, the Liberal Democrats are the only party to vote against the Bill because of the harm that it does to the rights of communities and local people, to fairness and to nature, all three of which are cornerstones of what liberals believe in, we shall bear that standard proudly—and we shall do so again.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I have tabled new clause 65, which would require housing development applications to include provision for green space within 15 minutes of new homes, supporting nature and helping people to lead happier, healthier lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have missed an opportunity to require new housing developments to be designed in a way that would be not only good for nature and the environment, but good for the health and wellbeing of residents?

[Gideon Amos]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who is a great champion of green spaces in development. In our contribution, we are showing how the protections of nature could be strengthened in the Bill without entire chunks of it being deleted. I shall say more about that later.

As we heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), when it comes to rights for individuals, real freedom often depends on decent homes that people can afford and where they can bring up their families. When homes are genuinely affordable for local people, they will command real community consent and support in the planning process. Unless we give a commitment to a massive increase in the number of social and council rent homes, we will not be responding to the needs of those people, and we will fail to meet head-on the criticism that housing developments today are more about profit than about people.

Residential Estate Management Companies

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered residential estate management companies.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for listing this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. It is good to see so many MPs back straight after the Easter break, ready to get stuck into the gritty issue of residential estate management companies, whose poor business practices have affected so many of our constituents. In that spirit, I come here today to address the Minister and to call for urgency from the Government in dealing with some serious issues, and for more regulation and new legislation.

The issues raised repeatedly by constituents cause not just frustration, but in some cases serious distress. They cost significant amounts of money and sometimes lead to the loss of the entire value of a property investment at the point of resale. The situation for both leaseholders and freeholders has become so bad that such estates are now commonly referred to as “fleecehold” instead of leasehold. We note that the Government’s White Paper on leasehold reform, published last month, said that their legislation will make conversion to commonhold easier, but we feel that that will not go far enough. We look forward to seeing the legislation laid before the House. The previous Secretary of State—then the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—said that he was a “man in a hurry” to liberate leaseholders from unfair practices. He clearly was not in quite enough of a hurry, so I urge haste on the current Secretary of State.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for reform for the 4.8 million existing leasehold properties in England. In fact, it has been a campaign of ours since Lloyd George introduced the people’s Budget in 1909. We will keep going until we see some change. We want leasehold tenures abolished for all properties, including flats, and we want all existing leaseholds converted into either freeholds or, where appropriate, commonholds. We are disappointed that existing leaseholders are not covered by the Government’s proposals and we urge a rethink.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. To add to the point she is making, is she not shocked by the scale of what we are seeing across the country? Of the new homes built in 2021-22 by the 11 largest developers, 80% are subject to fleecehold.

[Caroline Voaden]

Yes, I absolutely agree. I will come on to that a little later.

To get back to the core issue of estate management companies, every type of resident—leaseholders and freeholders—is affected by rogue practices. Perversely, the situation is often more difficult for freeholders, who do not have the same statutory rights as leaseholders to take challenges to a first-tier tribunal. Where the landlord of an estate is a housing association, no one has any right to go to tribunal if that landlord fails to manage the property properly. That, too, needs to be looked at, but it falls outside the scope of today’s debate.

Whichever way we look at it, residents—whether housing association tenants, private tenants, owner-occupiers or retirees, living in a house or a flat—are being ignored, dismissed, intimidated and, frankly, fleeced by management companies that are not subject to any kind of regulation. We have all seen what happened in the water industry when private operators were allowed to focus solely on the profit line, ignoring their responsibilities to the environment while keeping shareholders happy. I believe we are looking at the next great scandal of our time: companies that may be owned by a shadowy collection of overseas investors eating up the smaller players in the UK market, building up their wealth and size so that they can ride roughshod over anyone who is tenacious enough to question their methods or ask for legitimate explanations of where their money has gone.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Across my constituency, from the largest developments with more than 1,000 homes to the smallest with just a dozen homes, residents are benighted by the lack of transparency of those who run the management companies. Does my hon. Friend agree that a great step forward would be for the Government to insist on the timely publication of itemised accounts, so it is much clearer to residents how their money is allegedly being spent on their behalf by the management companies?

[Caroline Voaden]

I absolutely agree and will come on to that as well.

As a new MP coming into this place, I realised that some issues would be pertinent only to my constituency and others would reflect similar casework elsewhere, but when I reached out to colleagues to see who else was dealing with casework about estate management and particularly FirstPort, I was shocked at the response I got. At least half my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches are supporting residents whose properties and estates are managed by FirstPort, and a dozen of us were in the room to question managing director Martin King when he responded to our invitation and came to Parliament to answer some of our more urgent questions. Following our invitation, he was also invited by Labour and Conservative MPs. He must feel very popular with so many invitations to Parliament, but it is rather a reflection of the desperation of so many of our constituents, who have exhausted all other avenues to raise complaints with FirstPort.

Martin King’s company manages more than 310,000 homes across England, Wales and Scotland, so we are talking about at least half a million people dealing with just this one company. It is extremely disappointing to report that since the Lib Dem meeting, at which great things were promised, the only response we have received from the south-west regional operations director for the company has been one automatic email reply. It is not good enough.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is the same experience for residents, is it not? When MPs ask questions of FirstPort, we do not get any replies. People turn up, smile and say nice words—soothing things—but nothing happens. The residents get the same thing. That includes a 94-year-old woman whose daughter contacted me to say that she was refused a request to install a stairlift and she cannot sell the property, because the management fees that FirstPort charges are so high, so she is effectively trapped, unable to get up and down the stairs. Is that not a disgrace and does it not go to show that FirstPort just doesn’t give a damn?

[Caroline Voaden]

I agree that it is an absolute disgrace. We must have some kind of legislation to bring these companies to book.

In the UK, we have a rather strange situation whereby a new housing estate is built, but the council may not adopt the new area, so the builder has responsibility for roads, green spaces and communal areas and then passes that on to a third-party management company. Residents end up paying council tax on the one hand and estate management fees on the other. These charges can increase at any time, with no accountability or redress.

The Competition and Markets Authority has recommended ending the private estates model, which has been used for 40% of all new builds across Britain in the last five years, and potentially more, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) said. The CMA has recommended mandatory adoption by local councils of public amenities on new housing estates. Even when roads are accessible to the general public and green spaces can be enjoyed or used by anyone, residents can end up being responsible for their upkeep through service charges. The tenants of such developments pay both council tax and an estate management charge, yet they often receive a far worse service than those who live in adopted developments and are subject only to council tax, so I urge the Minister to consider ending the practice of shared ownership of public spaces for the vast majority of new developments. I would like to see a presumption that the shared areas around new developments are almost always adopted by the local authority where the development is standard in nature.

Ahead of this debate, I asked the House of Commons Library to engage with people who had signed relevant petitions. More than 1,100 people responded, one third of whom were freeholders. Ninety-four per cent said they were unhappy or very unhappy with the services provided by their management company; 94% said the service charges were unfair; and 94% said the transparency of what the service charges were for was completely inadequate.

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

My constituents living in Beansheaf Grange and Fairfields, to name just two developments in my constituency, recognise much of what the hon. Lady is saying. They tell me about high fees, poor service and uncleared rubbish, even leading to marauding rats. Will she join me in welcoming the firm action that this Government are taking to be in a hurry to address this deep unfairness?

[Caroline Voaden]

I am glad that the hon. Lady says that the Government are in a hurry. We are looking forward to seeing the legislation come before the House.

Out of the 1,100 people to whom I was referring, only 10 were happy with the way things were going with their management company. By anyone’s measure, that is a pretty shocking state of affairs. Respondents talked of shoddy workmanship, years of delays in getting repairs done, charges for gardening where no gardens exist, charges for new windows when windows are not replaced, charges for buildings insurance when there are no communal buildings, charges for new light bulbs when there is no communal lighting—it would be funny if it were not so serious. They talked of broken lifts, flooded car parks, leaking ceilings, including one that has been leaking for nine years, exorbitant insurance charges—the list goes on and on.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

One other aspect worthy of scrutiny is the situation whereby a developer sets up a management company made up of family members of the original developer, leaving residents with a real challenge to get to the heart of who is truly accountable. That is something that I have seen in my constituency, and I am sure that it happens across the country. It is something that the Government need to address in whatever they come forward with.

[Caroline Voaden]

The right hon. Member raises a very good point. The ownership of some of these companies is murky to say the least.

Service charges are going up way beyond inflation, with no clear explanation of what the increases are for, and management companies refuse to give clear explanations when asked. At Camomile Lawn in Totnes in my constituency, residents were told that the annual contribution to a reserve fund had been increased from £2,000 to £8,000 a year—over 265%. Service charges were raised 23% based on a 10-year plan, but the plan was not shared with the residents, even when they asked. Accounting costs went up 55% in one year with no explanation given. This is a classic example of poor communication and a refusal to engage constructively with residents who want to understand the basis on which financial decisions are made.

The lack of transparency around service charges has been debated in this House many times, not least in December 2023 on Second Reading of the Bill that became the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. It is way past time that management companies were required to act responsibly, treat residents with respect and provide timely, straightforward and accessible information to all residents, regardless of their status as leaseholders or freeholders, and regardless of age.

One resident said:

“We feel like we are being taken advantage of because they see us as old.”

That is a common reflection of those living in retirement villages. Too often, questions go unanswered, letters and phone calls are ignored, and justifiable requests for clarity and information on charges get rebuffed or given such poor responses that they do not mean anything. A delay in bill payment caused by asking a legitimate question often leads to a penalty charge for late payment—a sharp practice that clearly has to end. What is more, people are being forced to pay for the privilege of having asked those questions. One respondent said:

“I received a bill of more than £2,000 for incurring charges trying to see where my money was being spent—£25 per email, £35 per phone call and solicitor charges on top. I felt completely robbed.”

Older people often feel bullied by management companies—scared to question charges, confused by badly written statements and threatened with legal action if they are late paying charges because of wanting to question something. One resident said:

“Our management company leverage their familiarity with legal processes and the vast financial resources at their disposal to bully and intimidate leaseholders.”

This is not just about money; it is about how people feel living in a home that they may have put their life savings into buying. These homes are often sold as offering peace of mind, but one respondent said:

“I’m drained, scared and mentally exhausted. It feels like I’m being financially and emotionally worn down for simply asking for basic transparency and fairness.”

Another said:

“My mental health has been seriously impacted by the state of our building. No one should be unhappy in their home or feel like they don’t want to go home.”

When it comes time to sell, it is yet another tale of woe. Management companies do not respond to requests for information from solicitors; sellers are charged thousands of pounds for management packs that are required for the sale but take months to arrive; buyers get frustrated and pull out, and the price of the property is impacted. Meanwhile, service charges keep rising and ground rents keep being charged.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) said, people are trapped in their properties. Service charges can make it impossible to sell, as they have risen way beyond those charged on new properties in the same area. Dr Janet Richardson’s father bought a flat for £106,000 in 2006. In 2022, he had to move into a care home and she tried to sell the flat. Some months after putting it on the market she received an offer for £10,000 below the purchase price, which she accepted, but for months FirstPort did not answer requests for information, so eventually the buyer pulled out. The flat went back on the market at an even lower price, but still has not sold, three years after first being put on the market. Dr Richardson has now had to agree to sell the property through an assured buyer scheme and says there is likely to be nothing left once all the debts have been paid. She has shown me the figures—it has all gone. If FirstPort had done its job properly she would probably have sold the flat for a reasonable amount two years ago, but of course there is no offer of compensation from FirstPort.

Finally, I come to the nightmare scenario that people face if they dare to attempt to get rid of FirstPort as the management company. Resident groups that have made repeated attempts to release themselves from FirstPort’s management have met resistance and obfuscation, forcing them to retain lawyers and pushing legal fees into the tens of thousands. Those cases have taken an emotional toll on residents, many of whom are elderly. One case in my constituency has been going on for three years and is still not resolved.

South-west based Baker Estates has sacked FirstPort from a new estate at Dartington because of non-performance. The Duchy of Cornwall also sacked the company at the vast Nansledan estate in Newquay. It is more than clear that these companies are not doing their job. Their raison d’être is clearly not that of operating in the best interests of their residents. Estate management companies have had it too good for too long.

As we look again in this place at leasehold properties, we must also look at the difficult situation for freeholders on privately managed estates. We need to bring forward leasehold reform as soon as possible. Does the Minister have a timeline for introducing the leasehold and commonhold reform Bill? Will the Government bring forward legislation to allow freeholders to challenge management charges and to take over the management of a development if they wish?

Have the Government considered greater regulation of estate management companies, such as through an ombudsman, so that residents have some recourse when they encounter problems? If not, will they consider doing so? Will they introduce legislation to prevent management companies from charging residents for legal costs when they ask legitimate questions? Will they introduce legislation to professionalise the management of estates and buildings, with a basic level of service required and a mechanism for complaint and escalation that is easily accessible to residents? I look forward to the Minister’s response. I now leave it to other hon. Members to share experiences of the fleecehold nightmare.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden]

I will be very quick as we are short of time. I thank all hon. Members for coming and sharing their experiences. It is clear that there is a strong feeling in the House that we need to act and that millions of people are being badly served by estate management companies. It is good to hear that looking at the behaviour of estate management companies, as well as the position of leaseholders and freeholders, is on the Government’s agenda. I appreciate that this is a complicated area of legislation; the Minister laid that out clearly. We are willing to work across the House to reach some sensible steps forward in legislation so that there can be redress for people who have until now been badly affected by estate management companies and so that the practice ends forthwith.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered residential estate management companies.

Green Spaces Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am honoured to rise to present my Bill to create an office for green spaces, a Government office that will promote access to green space across the UK. It will support the creation, maintenance, improvement and integration of green spaces, and in doing so will improve the health and wellbeing of the UK, add up to £3.8 billion to tax revenues, contribute to our net zero journey, and create tens of thousands of jobs. It is a win, and who could object to more people than ever being able to lie under a tree or feel the grass beneath their feet? Eighty-one per cent of British adults agree that gardens and green spaces benefit their physical health, and 85% of adults agree that gardens benefit their state of mind. Green spaces and gardens can provide real natural healthcare solutions. Urban vegetation removes harmful pollutants, and urban cooling from green and blue spaces is vital in a warming world—and estimated to be worth £27 billion, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Under the Bill, green spaces include urban parks, neighbourhood areas, and significant natural landscapes. I believe that a co-ordinated, cross-Government approach is sorely needed. Green spaces must be a priority as our planning policy is developed, and the Liberal Democrats want to see more green spaces being covered in native trees and wild flowers. The previous Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and a House of Lords horticulture inquiry backed cross-governmental action. Last year the Committee said that both the quality and the quantity of green spaces were in decline, and urgent action was needed to reverse that.

We are lucky to have Monty Don, Alan Titchmarsh and Charlie Dimmock to inspire us with our gardens, but the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. As the Member of Parliament for South Devon, I am very aware of how important and beneficial green spaces are—I feel it every weekend—but two in five adults spend less than an hour a day outdoors, while more than half have no access to a public park or common within walking distance. We need to do so much better.

The UK’s gardens, parks and green corridors are not just nice-to-have amenities; they are essential infrastructure in an uncertain world. The office for green spaces would bring together planning, health, environment, and other departments to work together to deliver real growth in our green spaces. By establishing this dedicated Government office to oversee and champion these spaces, we can secure their future and unlock their full potential for people, communities, businesses and the public purse.

Affordable Rural Housing

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member; I agree that this is about keeping generations of families together and I will talk more about that later in my speech.

As I said, people have been let down by Conservative and then Liberal Democrat administrations, which have been bodging the local plan process, trying to pass the buck and avoid the hard work needed to secure the vibrant villages that we were promised.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

In response to what the hon. Lady has just said, I would like to congratulate the Liberal Democrat-led South Hams district council, which has just contributed £623,000 to support a community housing project that will offer 39 new energy-efficient, 100% social rented homes for people with a local connection, including a community garden and orchard and a community building that will be delivered once the homes are complete. Does she agree that that is the kind of development that we need to see?

English Devolution and Local Government

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I hope that my lunch is delayed and not cancelled, Madam Deputy Speaker.

On delaying elections, I have been clear about the high bar that I set. I absolutely understand the enormous task that is faced when looking at reorganisation, which is why we will put extra support in place. I cannot outline exactly what that will be for the hon. Member’s area, because it depends on what is needed on a case-by-case basis. The Government are committed to working with authorities to meet that timetable. I have been clear from the Dispatch Box that we want those elections to go ahead in May 2026. We will be working on that basis, and my Department will be working with local leaders to deliver it, on the basis that they knew the delay was happening.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and on behalf of my constituents I thank her for giving people the opportunity to vote and give their verdict on the failing Conservative-run Devon county council, which has been badly failing our most vulnerable children for the past decade.

Devon is a huge rural area, and there are concerns that if it becomes a unitary it could end up devolving power away from people in a sparsely populated area, and moving the centre of power away from local communities, which does not feel like devolution. Will the Secretary of State clarify what size of unitary authority she will be looking for? Part of Torbay is in my constituency—it is one of the smallest unitaries in the country, with 139,000 people. Will it be allowed to continue as a unitary, or will it be required to be part of a greater whole?

[Angela Rayner]

I recognise that Devon is a huge rural area, and as I have said in previous debates on this issue, we have issued a guide for unitary authorities—it is a guide; I have said that it is not set in stone. I recognise that Torbay is now a unitary, but it also faces challenges and I want to work with local leaders. If they want to expand, we want to facilitate that. We want to deliver—our guiding principle is better public services that are responsive to the needs of local people. I believe that Members across the House want to deliver the same, so hopefully working by working together we can provide the investment that public services have not had for the last 14 years, and deliver it in the right way in the right place so that people feel it is responsive to their local needs.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

People in my constituency are passionate about protecting our environment, and they know that if we are to do that, we need to produce more renewable energy. However, in North East Hampshire, as in many other areas of the UK, we are also protective of our arable farming land, which is so essential for our food security.

Passing the sunshine Bill, which has been brought to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), would challenge the presumption that the principal way to increase our solar capacity is through solar farms and large-scale industrial solar power generation. Prioritising solar panelling on new homes will allow us to create the right energy mix and to produce energy in a sustainable way. Not only that, but it will help us to address some of the challenges with economic growth. Reducing energy bills, especially for those in social housing or on lower incomes, is an essential part of tackling the recent cost of living crisis, and developing the industry through innovation is of course good for jobs.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

There has been a lot of conversation this morning about the benefit to homeowners of installing solar panels on new builds. If solar panels were included on new social housing, we would also be helping those who face the greatest challenge in paying energy bills, which have gone up since the energy price cap rise. That is an added benefit in the cost of living crisis.

[Alex Brewer]

My hon. Friend is of course correct. This should not be just about cost savings for those who can afford installation in the first place.

In North East Hampshire, we have some fantastic examples of community investment in renewables. Hart district council has installed 121 photovoltaic panels on the roof of its offices, generating as much as 57,000 kWh of electricity per year, which is enough to power around 20 average homes every year. Hart leisure centre has seen £200,000 of investment in solar panelling on its sports hall, which reduces the demand put on the energy grid as a result of heating the swimming pool.

If you will permit me a “Sliding Doors” moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, my house was built in 1961, when this technology was not around. Had solar panels of today’s quality been installed then, not only would our energy bills have been significantly lower, but we could have saved in the region of 800 tonnes of carbon—roughly equivalent to 140 London to Sydney return flights. Given the Government’s ambitious house building targets, and as retrofitting is more expensive than installing at the build stage, it makes sense to ensure that we do all we can right now to protect our environment, to reduce energy bills and to secure this industry for the future.

Each house built without renewable energy is a missed opportunity to save carbon and money, and to grow our economy. Furthermore, each house built without solar panels increases the pressure to put panels elsewhere, including in our fields. Sustainable energy development is critical, but in North East Hampshire, as elsewhere, we do not want it to come at the cost of our countryside and our agricultural land. That is why I support this Bill, which prioritises putting solar panels on the roofs of new homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. If he will allow me, I will elaborate on that further on in my oration this morning, when I will look at the other side of the coin. While absolutely taking into account that house builders will have concerns over costs and will claim concerns over costs, as we have seen various organisations do, we also have concerns about the ongoing maintenance costs of these technologies for those who buy the properties in the first place. There is a balance to strike, which we can look at further if the Bill goes into Committee.

Maintaining solar panels, as my right hon. Friend was tempting me to say, is not without challenges. Repairs often require scaffolding, which can be expensive. We worry that an unintended consequence of the Bill could be increased costs for residents, home owners and property owners. How will we support home owners facing frequent and costly repairs?

The updates to the national planning policy framework present an opportunity to consider how such requirements can be better embedded in planning law. I recognise that administrators face a challenging task. The framework contains approximately 19 chapters of guidance, which each local authority must reflect in its local plan after public examination, ensuring full alignment with those chapters. The complexity of the process, combined with consideration of local environmental factors, such as surface water run-off, and the need for materials to align with established practices, creates a considerable challenge.

To translate the aspirations outlined by Members into real-world outcomes, we must simplify the process for local authorities to enable them to fulfil their role as community leaders. Instead of requiring lengthy and costly procedures to prove compliance with planning law, we need to ensure that the relevant standards can be implemented efficiently. The previous Government consulted on a future homes standard to ensure that all new homes would be zero carbon-ready. That included provisions for solar panels where appropriate. We must also ensure that brownfield sites are prioritised for housing development and stand-alone solar power, rather than sacrificing valuable agricultural land, as we risk seeing under the Government’s proposals. I sincerely hope that they will build on the progress we saw as a result of the previous Government’s consultation and the feedback gathered.

As we consider the Bill, it is important to recognise that not all buildings are suitable for solar panels. Factors such as structural strength, the direction and orientation of buildings and challenges with maintenance access must be taken into account. As I believe the hon. Member for Cheltenham has recognised, a one-size-fits-all mandate might lead to unintended consequences or inefficiencies. What discussions has he or the Government had and what consultations have taken place with the building industry during the drafting of this legislation? Collaboration with developers and stakeholders is critical to ensuring the successful implementation of such a policy. Consumer and local choice must also play a role in these decisions. I am concerned about the Labour Government’s apparent intent to reduce the influence of local representatives on planning committees. Local people should have a say on what is built in their area—we have heard some examples from local council leadership across the country this morning.

If this Bill receives passes its Second Reading today, we will scrutinise it thoroughly to ensure that it balances the need to build more homes with the imperative of increasing energy efficiency and production. I welcome the proposed exemptions for buildings that cannot support solar due to roof positioning or other factors. Those exemptions need further scrutiny in Committee to ensure that they are comprehensive. Sensibly, the Bill allows for other renewable energy systems to be used where solar is not feasible; that is practical. However, the list of exemptions should not allow developers to adapt their designs in order to avoid installing solar panels, so that they can avoid what they claim are increased costs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and a number of colleagues on the Labour Benches mentioned, there remains a risk that house builders or developers will identify loopholes in the legislation that they can use to say, “We can’t build solar on that, so we will do either a cheaper alternative or none at all.” However, if Members in all parts of the House work together in Committee, we can strengthen the legislation to ensure that developers put these technologies on buildings across the country.

[Caroline Voaden]

When the zero carbon homes standard was scrapped by the Conservative Government in 2015, a Government report said that scrapping that standard was designed to reduce regulations on house builders. Many people said that the Conservative party had been put under considerable pressure by house builders who were very generous to that party. Will the shadow Minister reassure me that if this Bill reaches Committee, he will be in favour of putting pressure on the house builders to comply?

[Paul Holmes]

There I was, being nice about a Liberal Democrat-proposed Bill. As the hon. Lady knows, the Liberal Democrats are the bane of my life in my constituency, but I was being nice to the Liberal Democrat Member who introduced this Bill, and the hon. Lady has come back and been quite nasty to a Conservative. [Interruption.] Thank you very much.

As my speech clearly outlines, we in the Opposition will take a pragmatic approach to legislation that comes before the House, so that people will see the right measures brought in—for developers, if necessary—for new developments across the country. I am not going to be party political and talk about donations. The last Government had a very strong track record of reducing carbon emissions and making sure we delivered the homes that we need across the country. We will continue to be a constructive voice in Parliament, as I tried to outline to the hon. Member for Cheltenham. We will be very pragmatic and constructive in making sure that the aims of this Bill are realised, should it reach Committee. The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) has my assurance on that, as the shadow Minister responsible for this policy area.

I fully support initiatives to encourage renewable energy and solar panel usage, but it is crucial to address the practical challenges we face. As has been mentioned, the national grid’s infrastructure may not be equipped to handle a significant increase in capacity from solar generation alone. A recent article outlined that £60 billion of investment in the national grid is needed to make sure that solar energy can be put back into the grid in a sustainable way.

I will conclude—many will be pleased to hear—by reaffirming the Conservative party’s strong commitment to the UK’s target of reaching net zero by 2050. I am proud to say that we have already achieved a 50% reduction in emissions between 1990 and 2022 while growing our economy by 79%. As we continue on this journey, our policies must strike a balance between ambition and realism. I look forward to hearing more about the provisions in this Bill, and hope that this debate will bring us closer to solutions that support both its practical implementation and our environmental goals. I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham, and look forward to seeing him—if he is lucky—in a Committee on this legislation. At the risk of being sanctioned, I promise him that I will be a ray of sunlight when we work together to ensure that this Bill is strengthened and becomes legislation.