Local Government Reorganisation

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely want to reassure hon. Members that this is not the end of local government reorganisation, because I am absolutely committed to it. I commend my hon. Friend for his work, and his local partners and others across the House who recognise what local government reorganisation could do for their area. I want to work at pace to put us on a firm footing, so that I as Secretary of State am clear-eyed about the decision I am making and that we can go ahead, with their consent or not.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

From the LGR options that were on the table for Devon, the Government opted for a Labour-led proposal to create three urban growth areas, with all the rural bits that were left behind dumped together into one huge, unworkable authority that divided communities, had no economic hub and had little chance of being sustainable. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that she will review the decision, although it is not clear how the review will happen, who will do it or how long it will take. Will she commit to meeting all Opposition Members who represent rural Devon so that we can discuss the best proposal for the for the biggest number of people across Devon? The one we had was going to leave rural Devon behind, and we want to ensure that does not happen again.

[Angela Rayner]

I want to reassure the hon. Member that we do not want to leave rural Devon behind, either. As the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), has just had to nip out for another meeting, I will volunteer him for the commitment to meet those Members. It is of serious concern for me to ensure that people are heard in the process. That is why I decided to have the review.

Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate.

Before moving to rural South Devon in 2007, I had spent all my life living in and around major cities: Edinburgh, Sheffield and then London. After nearly 20 years living in the rural south-west, I can honestly say that I had previously not understood rural life because I had not lived it. I have since come to realise that the rural-urban divide is possibly one of the deepest divides in our country and one that is too often overlooked, especially by Governments made up of city and urban MPs who simply do not understand the reality of rural communities and fail to see the deprivation that lurks behind the hedgerows.

Those communities are often forgotten when spending decisions are taken despite a set of circumstances that mean we desperately need the Government’s financial backing. Incomes are lower due to the older average age, jobs are often seasonal and low-waged, people in rural areas travel almost twice as far as those in urban areas, and there is often no public transport. Healthcare is a challenge because community services have been cut, hospitals are miles away and hospital transport has all but disappeared. High-speed internet is crucial when services are scarce, yet broadband connectivity lags far behind urban areas. Banks, pubs and post offices are closing, hollowing out communities and increasing rural isolation. As the hon. Members for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham)—all of them from Cornwall—have said, the high number of second homes, high house prices and low wages massively exacerbates the housing affordability crisis. In Devon, the full-time salary to house price ratio is 10.6:1—well above England’s average of 8.7:1.

Despite all that, funding is persistently driven into urban areas while rural communities are left behind. The previous Conservative Government forced councils to do more with less. Their policy to force local authorities to use their reserves to subsidise their revenue expenditure was deeply wrong and, as a result, six rural upper-tier local authorities are on the brink of issuing section 114 notices, which would effectively declare them bankrupt.

The current Government have committed to providing multi-year funding settlements for local authorities, which we welcome, but for rural communities the 2026-27 to 2028-29 settlement falls well short. The withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant was a huge blow to councils in Devon, costing about £14 million, and no rural councils benefited from the replacement funding or recovery grant.

The new formulas mean that local authorities in cities will have higher spending power than in previous years while rural shire districts will have less to spend. Under the local government finance settlement for this year, urban councils will receive 32% more per head in Government-funded spending than rural councils. Devon county council will receive £1,056 in core spending power per head compared to Hackney council’s £1,645 or Liverpool city council’s £1,598. It does not cost 50% more to provide services in Hackney or Liverpool than in Devon. In fact, I would argue it potentially costs less because of the rurality.

Furthermore, the Government’s 2026-29 local government finance settlement does not include any explicit support for rural upper-tier authorities. The new formula has included remoteness only as an uplift in the formula for adult social care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) said, a rural child is not easier to service than a rural adult. It is utterly shocking that the Government do not believe that remoteness is relevant to the delivery of any other service, such as school transport or waste collection.

It goes way beyond the additional time it takes to travel. Rural councils have several other considerations that urban councils simply do not have to contend with, including requiring more service centres due to the spread-out population and more professionals to cover visits across a huge rural area. They receive fewer responses to contract tenders, perhaps only getting one from the incumbent provider, which leads to a market with increased prices for services.

There are physical constraints such as needing smaller refuse vehicles, especially on the narrow lanes near where I live in Devon. Those vehicles have to return to base to be emptied more often, and rural areas also need multiple depots for equipment and vehicles. Thus, they need more equipment to service the streets and more drivers.

Pockets of deprivation, often hidden by prettiness, are particularly hard hit. Social mobility for young people living in deprived rural areas is one of the lowest in the country. None of this is considered in the new funding formula outside of adult social care. I urge the Minister to review that.

Quite simply, the new system of allocation does not recognise that the sparse and isolated nature of rural areas drives higher costs for the delivery of essential services, creates challenges in recruitment of staff for key services and requires local authorities to provide a greater public subsidy for the provision of public transport. This is very much in keeping with a Labour Government that have persistently failed to acknowledge that every service is harder to deliver across rural areas.

Let me use Devon to illustrate why this service delivery is so tough. Rural Devon is a drive of over 100 miles from north to south. It would take me 10 hours to walk across just my constituency, which is a fraction of the county, and nowhere near the biggest. I am not sure how Manchesterism will translate to rural areas, but we cannot apply the same principles to a city of 3 million people and villages with just 10 houses and expect to see the same results.

The trajectory for rural councils over the next three years is deeply concerning. The very limited increase in Government funding will require service reductions or significant increases in council tax or business rate income to maintain core spending power. As has been said, rural residents will pay 17% more in council tax per head compared to urban residents this year, yet Government funding will be directed towards urban authorities.

The Government are relying on a regressive council tax to fund services in rural areas that it was never meant to. As a result of this funding settlement, by 2028-29 urban councils will have seen a 20% increase in Government-funded spending power, compared to only 2% for rural councils. How can that be fair? These are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; we are talking about people’s lives. From the growing number of children with SEND who cannot access the support they need to the closing of vital community spaces like libraries and leisure centres, this lack of funding has a real impact on people.

We are concerned by the Government’s decision to allocate additional funding within the local government finance settlement on a need and demand basis. It will jeopardise the sustainability of rural local councils. The Liberal Democrats oppose the three-year local government finance settlement, which does not go far enough in providing a truly fair funding settlement to all local authorities across the board. We urge the Government to provide rural councils with a funding settlement that reflects the true impact of rurality and sparsity of the areas they serve through the application of the fair funding formula.

The ability to provide services to people in my constituency and across rural Devon will only be made worse by the proposal for four unitary authorities recently chosen by the Government for the local government reorganisation in Devon. I urge the Minister to bear with me on this. That proposal from Labour-run Plymouth and Exeter will see those two cities massively expanded, to the great delight of their Labour MPs, and a new urban growth area based around Torbay, leaving a fourth authority—the bits that were left behind when the urban areas were gouged out—stretching 70 miles from Ilfracombe in the north to Salcombe in the south, but 100 miles by road. That authority will have to maintain a road network not dissimilar to the whole of Luxembourg’s with no major town to offer opportunities for growth and regeneration and the most deprived area of Devon to support.

[Helen Morgan]

The point of combined authorities is to derive economies of scale from placing urban and rural areas together. Some of those economies of scale can be driven by the density in the urban area. Does my hon. Friend agree that it makes no sense to split up the urban and rural areas in the way she describes?

[Caroline Voaden]

I absolutely agree. It makes no sense to any of us in Devon. I have spent the entire summer listening to constituents who are deeply distressed about what has happened, which leaves them in a rump rural local authority with no option for economic growth or regeneration.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

As a part-Devon Member of Parliament—the other part of my constituency is in Somerset—I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. The part of my constituency in Devon is 800 square miles and will form just part of an enormous rural authority. Does she agree that that authority does not have the fiscal power to sustain itself?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden]

I absolutely agree. The Government ignored local voices and went with the proposal that came fourth out of five in a public consultation, but was backed by Labour council leaders and Labour MPs who had the ear of Ministers and wanted to expand their cities. None of my constituents want it. I have spent the whole summer listening to distressed residents, as has my neighbour, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). The chosen proposal was a blatant prioritisation of economic growth for the cities of Plymouth and Exeter at the expense of the economic and social cohesion of rural Devon.

How do the Government expect this council to be financially viable when they deem remoteness irrelevant to the delivery of every service except adult social care, and when no one can even work out where the authority could be based? How can rural Devon expect growth in every postcode when there is clearly no consideration of the economic growth potential for rural Devon in the chosen proposal?

The Prime Minister talked yesterday about supporting rural areas and not creating a two-tier country, but the Government have created a two-tier Devon. I urge the Minister to listen to the many Devon MPs and the local people, go back to the drawing board on the reorganisation in Devon, look at the alternative options that were on the table, and pick one that will not leave rural communities struggling even more than they are now. If we are to have any hope of bridging the urban-rural divide, a fair funding settlement for rural councils and local government reorganisation that works for rural areas must be the start. If the Prime Minister wants a political system and economy that works for every person in the country, the Government must change the way they value and recognise rural communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

In a sense, I recognise that there will be differences of opinion, depending on which local authority and what part of the country Members represent, about whether the fair funding review fully picks up all the particular circumstances. There might be more agreement on the sufficiency of local government finance. Whatever the allocation across the board, the fair funding review is intended to distribute it in the fairest possible way and in a transparent way, so that Members and councillors can see where the money is going to.

Since coming to power, the Labour Government have delivered long-overdue reforms to council funding through the first multi-year local government settlement in a decade. In doing so, we have delivered transformational changes to how councils are funded, which the public, our local government partners and Parliament have long called for. We have delivered on our commitment to give councils greater certainty and flexibility over their funding, ensuring that resources are fairly aligned to local need and simplifying the funding landscape by ending wasteful competitive bidding, which we all recognise pits one area against another.

The Government also have a very important role to play as an equaliser for local government income. During the course of the debate, I heard references to the amount of grant that individual councils get, and one grant total being compared with another. I want to be clear that the fair funding review is not intended to give every council the same central Government grant. That grant is intended to act as an equaliser for the system, so that in the end all councils have the resources to deliver the public service need in their local areas, while recognising that there are wide differences in England in the local tax bases of council tax and business rates.

As a result of our reforms, nine in 10 councils will receive funding that broadly matches their assessed relative need by the end of the multi-year settlement, up by about a third before the reforms. We recognise the different drivers in demand for services, the cost of providing them in different places and the different abilities of areas to raise council tax. We are therefore making funding available in such a way as to enable all local authorities to provide the same level of services to their residents.

For rural communities, the 2026-27 settlement was a key step in delivering a fairer system to address the issues that matter to local communities across England. It included recognising local circumstances, including differences in the cost of delivering services between rural and urban areas, and using the best available and most up-to-date data, including the latest indices of multiple deprivation to ensure that deprivation in rural areas is captured accurately. I will explain a bit more on that.

I heard references to the fair funding review not taking account of the differential cost of delivering services in rural areas. To be clear, we account for rural costs through the area cost adjustment, which is applied to all formulas. That adjustment captures the variation in wages, property rates, journey times, and a range of other factors that pick up the local variation that takes place. On top of that, we have a remoteness adjustment in social care. I hear representations that say, “Hang on. If it costs more to deliver adult social care in these areas, then surely children’s services and other services such as waste collection and other things ought to be included, too.” The area cost adjustment picks up that general difference of delivering a service in those areas. There is a balance here. We want a simplified system that can be scrutinised and understood. The more we adapt and change and really drill down on that, the more complicated it becomes, the more it has to be updated and the more that changes. There is always a balance to be had between simplicity, being understood and giving certainty over the multi-year settlement, while recognising the differences at a local level.

[Caroline Voaden]

The Minister says there is an area cost adjustment, and yet the leader of Devon county council says that Devon lost £14 million because of the rural services delivery grant, which was removed. How can those two things be true? If a grant that takes account of the fact that it is more expensive to deliver services in a rural area is removed and the council is £14 million short, the extra cost of rural services delivery has not been recognised.

[Jim McMahon]

We have always taken the view that the rural services delivery grant had, to put it mildly, a weak evidence base to support it. A political decision was made when the coalition Government came in and the grant that was given to largely urban authorities was taken away with almost no notice at all. It was replaced by the rural services delivery grant, but without the evidence base to support where it went to. Whatever criticism is applied to the fair funding review, what cannot be criticised is the evidence base that sits beneath it, because it is the best available data.

We are laying the foundations for reform more broadly. The multi-year local government finance settlement allows for £4.6 billion of additional funding to be available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, including £500 million for the first ever fair pay agreement. The Government are driving the biggest transformation in children’s social care in a generation, with the families first partnership programme backed by nearly £3 billion of investment over four years, including a historic £2.4 billion over the multi-year settlement. That will support local authorities, police and health partners to provide families with the right support at the right time, shifting the system from expensive statutory provision to early intervention and prevention services.

The Government recognise that the current SEND system is not working for families, children or local authorities, and we have set out plans to reform it, backed by £4 billion of investment over three years, to deliver expertise without the need for statutory processes and embed new practice into the system. We have also heard calls for a solution to SEND deficits. All local authorities with a deficit will receive a grant covering 90% of their high needs-related deficit. The grant is projected to be worth more than £5 billion nationally, and is subject to each local authority submitting and securing approval for a local SEND reform plan.

We recognise the spending pressures from home-to-school transport in recent years, particularly in rural areas. At the fair funding review, we introduced a bespoke home-to-school transport formula that estimates local transport need for pre-16 home-to-school transport, based on pupil numbers and home-to-school distances. Furthermore, following consultation on the design of the formula, the Government increased the distance cap to 50 miles, rather than the originally proposed 20 miles. That change will see only 0.4% of pupil journey distances capped and will avoid unfairly penalising local authorities where children travel further to get to school.

We know that the cost of living and homelessness services are causing challenges too, and that homelessness can present in a unique way in rural areas. That is why we are providing more than £4 billion of funding for homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, including £442 million launched last month, with new flexibility for areas to shape services to meet local need.

The Government are committed to making the changes necessary to transform public services and put local government back on its feet. Realigning funding with need and reforming the services that put pressure on local government will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities in rural areas and right across the country, as we have promised.

Devolution is a live issue for Cornish colleagues and those from other places. I give credit to Members for their representations on behalf of Cornwall and other areas. The truth is that devolution can happen only with local consent. We need areas to come forward, get local partnerships in place, and rally the support of local authorities. At a time of change in local government, when areas are also dealing with local government reorganisation, there is a lot for them to step up to. That is why we have provided support for local government reorganisation areas, as I covered in another Westminster Hall debate this week.

We want devolution to be rolled out to every area, but we recognise that the local partnerships in different areas are at different stages. There is an active discussion, which we should welcome, about what the role of community and neighbourhoods ought to be in the new settlement—devolution should go hand in hand with localism and empowerment—what the role of the local authority is, and what added value above and beyond that can be achieved if areas choose a mayoral model. To be clear, if an area is not ready yet for a mayoral model, the position is not that they cannot have devolution and that more cannot be given. I hope Members and people in local government continue to do what they have always done: rally their local areas.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Many people in my constituency are very nervous about how local government reorganisation will impact them, and they worry that it could lead to a top-down style of devolution, which entirely misses the point of making decisions locally. The Government’s backing down on Lords amendment 2 will provide some reassurance to rural and coastal communities, like those in my patch, that the governance of rural and coastal affairs will be meaningfully devolved to local leaders. Will my hon. Friend join me in celebrating the Government’s acceptance of the Liberal Democrats’ calls to add both rural and coastal affairs as competences required of a strategic mayoral authority following LGR?

[Zöe Franklin]

I am happy to thank the Government for agreeing to put that on the face of the Bill.

I turn now to the issue of brownfield development. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches continue to believe that development must follow a clear principle of brownfield first—not green belt by default, and certainly not the vague concept of grey belt. From experience in my constituency, I know how important that principle is in practice. Brownfield first is not an abstract planning preference; it is how we protect the precious green spaces that communities value most.

Across Guildford, we have brownfield sites that currently cannot be developed because of severe flooding constraints. With the right flood alleviation investment, including support from the Government, these sites could come forward for housing and regeneration; without that support, pressure inevitably shifts on to surrounding green spaces. Ministers have talked a lot about embedding environmental considerations across their programme, but it is difficult to reconcile that with continued resistance to practical, deliverable measures. If we are serious about sustainable growth, we must support councils to reuse land responsibly, not force them to make false choices between meeting housing need and protecting the environment.

I set out my party’s position on local authority governance last week, but as the Government are again seeking to reject the Lords amendment on this issue, it bears repeating. We Liberal Democrats do not believe that compelling local authorities to change governance arrangements that were chosen democratically by the communities they serve is devolution; that is direction from central Government, dressed up as localism. Ministers are demanding that councils give up systems that work for them—not because local people have called for change, but because Whitehall prefers a different model. That fundamentally undermines the principle that this Bill claims to advocate. Devolution is about trust, and devolution without choice is not devolution at all.

We continue to differ from the Government on whether this Bill really does deliver devolution, but I hope that Ministers will see today not as the end of the conversation but as the beginning of a more ambitious programme, building on what I imagine will be set out in the King’s Speech. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches stand ready and look forward to working constructively with the Government to achieve real devolution.

Local government is the bedrock of our democracy. It shapes the daily lives of our constituents, often more directly than this House does. If we are serious about renewing trust in our democratic institutions, we must start there—by trusting communities, respecting their choices and giving them a real voice over the decisions that affect their lives. This is the test of true devolution, and it is one that we still must strive to meet.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

Thank you for that assistance, Mr Speaker.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

13. What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the adequacy of local housing allowance rates.

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

I have regular conversations with ministerial colleagues across Government, and my Department works very closely with the Department for Work and Pensions on the interactions between social security policy and homelessness.

[Caroline Voaden]

Years of freezes to local housing allowance by successive Governments mean that it goes nowhere near covering the cost of social housing, let alone renting privately. In my constituency, the average rent for a three-bedroom home can be well over £1,100 a month, but a family of four will receive only £840 a month. Poor and temporary housing is a key driver of child poverty, so it is really important that we resolve that. Will the Minister commit to working with the Department for Work and Pensions to unfreeze local housing allowance so that we can lift children out of deep poverty?

[Alison McGovern]

In my previous role and in my current role I have worked very closely across MHCLG and DWP to see the interactions between poverty and homelessness, as I said. We spend £34 billion annually on housing support through social security, including £12 billion on the private rented sector. As part of the child poverty strategy, we have lifted the two-child limit, which will help families—particularly larger families—to stay in homes. We are helping parents with childcare costs, we have brought in the fair repayment rate so that people do not need to get into unnecessary debt, and we have increased the standard allowance of universal credit above inflation for the first time in as long as anyone can remember. Those are big steps to help family income, and we should all be proud of them.

Coastal Communities: Start Bay

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this evening a matter of profound importance to thousands of people across the country, including many of my constituents living and working near one of the most beautiful and vulnerable coastlines in England. That issue is coastal erosion—more specifically, what happens when human-built infrastructure such as roads and homes collapse and fall into the sea or are damaged beyond repair by the intensity of storms, waves, wind and tide. This is not just an infrastructure problem; it is a human one. The psychological toll of what is happening in these isolated shoreline communities and the threat of what might happen to others in the future should not be underestimated.

To set the scene, Start bay is one of South Devon’s most stunning stretches of coastline—15 miles of cliffs and shingle beaches running from Warren Point near Dartmouth in the north to Start Point in the south, taking in the villages of Stoke Fleming, Strete, Torcross, Beesands and Hallsands. The Slapton Line—the narrow shingle bar that carries the A379 and separates the freshwater Slapton Ley from the open sea—is one of the most remarkable and fragile landforms in this country. The A379 is a vital link road between the towns of Dartmouth and Kingsbridge. Alongside it lies Slapton Ley, the largest natural freshwater lake in south-west England. It is a site of special scientific interest and a national nature reserve of enormous ecological importance, home to rare wildlife and a place of outstanding natural beauty that draws visitors from across the world.

The area carries another layer of history that many across the world hold dear. In the autumn of 1943, the area was requisitioned by the British Government, and residents evacuated so that American forces could use the land to train for the D-day landings. Exercise Tiger cost the lives of nearly 800 American servicemen—a tragedy long kept secret—but the bond still runs deep, and many Americans come regularly to visit.

Alongside that history is a long and ongoing battle with the sea. In 1917, the thriving fishing village of Hallsands nearby was almost entirely lost to the sea in a storm, not long after hundreds of thousands of tonnes of shingle were dredged from the bay to help build the dockyards in Plymouth. In recent years, the storms have come harder and more frequently. This winter brought a succession of severe weather events that battered the Start bay coastline with extraordinary force. Properties in Torcross suffered significant damage, and businesses that depend on the summer season found themselves counting the cost of repairs before the year had even begun.

Then, on the night of 2 February, came the collapse of the A379 and a battering to homes behind the sea wall—windows smashed, roofs lifted, and water and shingle pouring into homes. Huge slabs of tarmac fell into the sea, and one section of the road collapsed entirely. A once-picturesque stretch of coastline looked like a bomb site. It was not a surprise to people who know this coast—the road has long been acknowledged as vulnerable—but the speed and scale of what happened shocked even those who had been warning about it for years. The alternative inland route is completely inadequate and needs an urgent upgrade. I have been contacted by hundreds of residents and businesses over the past seven weeks, and 40,000 people signed a petition, such is the concern.

Locally, the impact on daily life has been severe. Travel times to work and school have increased substantially—journeys that once took just minutes now take far longer via inland diversion routes that were never designed to carry this volume of traffic. Bus routes have been cut or diverted; older residents and young people trying to get to school and college have found themselves effectively cut off; and everybody dreads the arrival of the caravans. Access for emergency services is a significant concern. Mr Starr of Torcross told me that his wife required urgent medical attention twice last year, and that

“On both occasions the ambulance came across the A379 and therefore responded to the call within 30 minutes, before taking her to hospital. We are now living in fear that an ambulance will not be able to respond quickly enough.”

For others, the partial closure of the A379 is a barrier to education, due to increased journey times and altered bus services. This is true for pupils as well as staff at local schools. For local businesses, the consequences have been equally serious: reduced footfall, cancelled bookings, and the sheer visual impact of a collapsed coastline on what should be a thriving tourism destination have cost businesses dearly at a time when many were already operating on very thin margins. The Torcross Boathouse café has suffered substantial damage and remains closed. Its owners, Katy and Rob, told me that

“We won’t reopen for several months while the insurance is sorted out—it’s been a huge blow and our business has been devastated.”

In the weeks after the A379 was breached, one local pub reported trade being down by 80%. Other businesses highlighted the impact on their staff of a longer commute and issues with receiving deliveries. Matt Darke, who farms land on either side of Slapton, tells me that travelling between sites is now taking an hour longer every day than it used to, and even the viability of a local health centre is now at risk, as patients are choosing to move their prescriptions elsewhere.

Besides the damage to the A379, there has also been a serious impact on properties in the village of Torcross. The sea wall that protects the village has been left exposed by the recent loss of shingle along the beach, resulting in severe wave damage to homes and businesses and ongoing concerns about the stability of the buildings. Residents are scared and struggling to sleep due to the constant vibrations caused by the loss of shingle around the footings of the sea defences, which are an Environment Agency asset. The local EA team have been fantastic, working at pace to progress the case for an urgent project to install remedial rock armour in front of the sea wall, and while approval for that project is not guaranteed, the local team hope that the EA will find the funding to support Torcross. I look forward to receiving an update on this soon.

However, there will still be the question of what could and should be done to prevent outflanking where the Environment Agency’s assets end. There is a huge cost to works such as these, and there is always a cost-benefit argument to be won, which is what we will all try to do for Torcross. What is never easy to factor into such an equation, though, is the cost of doing nothing. What does it really cost to leave a village to fall into the sea? What is the cost to people’s health and health services, to the wider community, and to the social fabric of a place like this when defences are not maintained? Places such as Torcross and Beesands are more than just houses—they are destinations. They are lifelines for people looking for an escape from the demands of daily life; with their beaches, pubs and cafés, they are a magnetic draw for anyone looking to slow down, breathe the air, watch the birds, swim in the sea, or simply walk along the beach.

Who should pay when home owners lose everything that they have worked and saved for? These are not easy questions, which is why there is no clear answer, but the cost of prevention versus evacuation and loss must be part of this, and it is an issue with which the Government must grapple seriously. Time is not on our side, and that is abundantly clear in the village of Beesands, just down the coast. The erosion has accelerated rapidly in recent years. Where about 80 metres of village green previously separated houses from the sea, only 9 metres now remain in some areas, with the access road to the village also potentially at risk.

Amid all the trauma for the residents of this special place, I must express my sincere gratitude to officers and councillors from South Hams district council and Devon county council, who have been outstanding throughout the crisis; but for them, gratitude is not enough. Those councils are absorbing the cost of emergency repairs, facing potential loss of council tax, business rates and car parking revenue, and doing all this while operating under significant financial pressure, with limited central Government support mechanisms on which to draw. What they need, and what local authorities and coastal communities across England need, is a genuine financial partnership with central Government when coastal emergencies strike.

The Bellwin scheme is simply not fit for purpose when it comes to coastal flooding. As the coastal protection authority, South Hams district council has incurred huge costs since 2 February, including £100,000 for boulders to provide protection in the area that was worst affected. However, it has been informed that only expenditure within 30 days of the event is eligible for reimbursement under the Bellwin scheme. While I understand that the scheme is intended to support local authorities in respect of their emergency response, in the case of coastal emergencies it can easily take 30 days just to formulate and implement a plan. The current system asks councils to carry risks and costs that it is simply beyond their means to absorb, and that must change.

I must also mention the flood recovery framework. The current situation is illogical. The framework provides central Government support in cases of severe flooding affecting large areas of England, but weather incidents with localised impacts, however devastating, do not qualify. In Start bay the community is in crisis, but the answer from the system is “Sorry, but not enough people were affected.” That cannot be right, and I urge the Government to reform the framework so that it can respond to severe but localised coastal incidents of exactly this kind.

Let me now turn to the question of insurance, a common theme among my constituents. There is currently no specific insurance product for coastal erosion. Flood Re provides Government-backed cover for flood risk, but there is a clear and urgent gap when it comes to erosion. I therefore call on the Government to look seriously at implementing a Flood Re-style product for coastal erosion, and I note that a sobering report published last week by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee makes exactly that recommendation.

While home owners in Torcross may be successful in securing insurance payouts to support repairs to their properties on this occasion, it is unclear whether they will be able to obtain new insurance in the future. I therefore ask the Government for an assurance that those who are affected by coastal erosion and coastal flooding—particularly those whose properties are in areas with coastal protection measures in place that are supposed to work—will be helped to gain access to affordable insurance in the future. It is also crucial for people buying homes near the coast to be given the full picture of the coastal erosion risk that they face during the conveyancing process—not just the risk to the property itself, but the risk to the surrounding access routes, utilities and insurance availability. Given the climate-induced threats that we now face, those risks must be included as material information in conveyancing.

There is also a problem with the way in which the Government respond to crises of this kind. The community impacts of coastal erosion fall primarily to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, while the physical erosion challenges are overseen by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That fragmentation has real human consequences, and it places an additional burden on local authorities, which find themselves navigating a confusing and fragmented central Government landscape at precisely the moment when they need clarity and support. I want DEFRA to set out clearly how it recognises the full range of the human impact of coastal erosion and incorporates it in policy development and funding decisions, with clear actions and a defined approach to community engagement. The EFRA Committee report calls for exactly that, and I endorse its call.

Finally, one of the most troubling gaps of all is the complete absence of any national strategy for those who lose their homes to the sea. No one should face the loss of their home to the water and find that the state has nothing to offer them but a place on a housing waiting list for social homes that simply do not exist. The EFRA Committee has recommended that a long-term national strategy providing financial assistance and relocation support should be in place by no later than March 2027. I fully support that recommendation, and I urge the Government to commit to it.

What are my asks? First, we need funding for the repair of the A379 Slapton line and for the improvement of our inland road network. Devon county council is currently working on a full business case for the Department for Transport, and I urge the Government to respond to the application swiftly.

Secondly, we need funding for sea defences along the Start bay coastline. I ask the Government to commit that the Environment Agency will have what it needs to respond in an agile and timely manner to coastal emergencies such as this one. The process for accessing such funding is incredibly complicated, but speed is of the essence in a situation like this.

Thirdly, we need meaningful, dedicated financial support for local authorities dealing with coastal emergencies, which have to cover the cost of emergency repairs and the potential loss of business rates revenue, car parking income and council tax. Councils are doing extraordinary work in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. They should not be left to carry the financial consequences of a national challenge on their own.

Fourthly, we need urgent action on the flood recovery framework to ensure that localised weather incidents are treated just as seriously as national events. This is a big problem in a small place, and it needs a big solution. Fifthly, we need a national strategy for households displaced by coastal erosion to be in place by March 2027.

Lastly, we need a commitment to provide Government-backed insurance for coastal erosion, and insurance policy premiums must be capped for people whose properties have been damaged by coastal flooding, including those in Torcross. I am very aware that not all those asks are the responsibility of MHCLG, but I hope the Minister will relay them to colleagues in other Departments.

I will close by making a broader point, because although this debate is about Start bay, it is also about something much larger. Communities the length of England’s coastline are facing versions of what Start bay is facing right now. From the Holderness coast in Yorkshire, where land is disappearing into the North sea faster than almost anywhere else in Europe, to the eroding cliffs of Norfolk and Suffolk, coastal communities are watching the ground literally shift beneath their feet. Many of them are already among the most socially and economically vulnerable in the country, and many feel forgotten. According to the EFRA Committee’s report, over 10,000 properties are at risk from coastal erosion in the next 80 years, as are 183 km of roads and 6 km of railway. If local authorities are to be able to manage the impacts of coastal erosion, they must be supported by the Government to carry out long-term strategic planning.

What this Government do in response to the crisis in Start bay will be noticed far beyond South Devon. It will send a signal about whether coastal communities can expect a national Government to treat their situation with the seriousness it deserves, or whether they will continue to be managed at the margins and left to local authorities and agencies that are doing their very best with nowhere near enough support. The sea does not respect administrative boundaries, departmental silos or funding formulae designed for a different kind of emergency. It requires a response that is strategic, sustained and genuinely cross-governmental. The EFRA Committee has provided a road map, and the communities of Start bay have provided the urgent human case. What is needed now is the political will to act.

The people of Torcross, Beesands, Hallsands and the wider Start bay are not asking for the sea to be stopped; they are asking for a Government who see them, who invest in them and who work with them to find a way forward. They are proud and resilient communities that deserve a response equal to the challenge they face, and so do coastal communities the length and breadth of this country.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. I start by saying that the Government absolutely understand and sympathise with those impacted by coastal erosion in Start bay. I was hugely saddened to see the impacts of the recent storms on the hon. Lady’s constituents and communities. The Government are committed to supporting her communities and indeed all coastal communities, because we understand and appreciate the urgency of the issue and the huge impact it is having.

I want to reiterate that coastal communities are a vital part of our national identity, serving as a reminder of our national pride and shared maritime story. We know that we must do more to both protect and preserve these communities against the vulnerabilities they face with coastal erosion. That is why, between April 2024 and March 2026, around £609 million has been invested into protection from sea flooding, tidal flooding and coastal erosion. It is also why the Government announced major changes to our flood and coastal erosion funding policy last October. This reform, which will take place this April, will make it quicker and easier to deliver the right flood and coastal defences in the right places by simplifying our rules.

Most recently, in January, the Government announced £30 million for coastal adaptation pilots, £12 million of which will be made available across England to deliver adaptation action in areas affected by coastal erosion. These pilots will help communities to take practical steps to prepare for coastal change, from relocating vulnerable community buildings to strengthening local infrastructure, such as beach access and coastal tourism facilities. The insights from these pilots will be applied across all coastal communities as they adapt to coastal change.

The hon. Lady is rightly concerned about the communities in her constituency. We know that residents in Torcross are concerned by the recent flooding, with wave overtopping and structural vibrations affecting some properties. As the hon. Lady has pointed out, the Environment Agency has done a huge amount of work in the area, and early investigations are clear that the defences remain structurally sound. However, we will continue to keep this under review.

The feasibility of further defence work at Torcross is currently being assessed by the Environment Agency and we expect the initial cost-benefit analysis findings to emerge shortly. Future schemes will, of course, depend on developing a full and detailed business case and securing the necessary funding, which the Department is committed to doing.

[Caroline Voaden]

Does the Minister accept that in such a cost-benefit analysis, there is also a cost of doing nothing? Maybe she could advise me if this is already the case. The cost of moving an entire community, with all the social and economic impact that has, is possibly much more than the cost of improving defences so that that community can stay put.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are very alive to the cost of inaction in the context of not just coastal erosion, but climate change more broadly. We are very clear that we need to take robust action to prevent, adapt and build our resilience to the change that is coming. My colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are working very closely with both the Environment Agency and communities themselves to ensure that we are responding in the right way. To reassure residents, it is worth saying that the process of looking at how we bolster our defences is under way and being taken seriously, in addition to the work that DEFRA is doing.

I will take away the asks that the hon. Lady has set out. She will know that many of them sit with my colleagues over at DEFRA, and not with us at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but we do work closely together; as she says, the boundaries do not stop at DEFRA, and we absolutely need to work in lockstep. I will make sure that we relay all her questions, and ask the relevant Minister to respond to her and potentially arrange a meeting to discuss the particular issues in her area.

Alongside recognising the critical issue of coastal erosion—I hope the hon. Lady is reassured that we are taking that matter seriously and understand the need to act—we are also very clear that we need to continue investing in and supporting our coastal communities. We want to ensure that we are investing in the areas that are under pressure, and putting vital assets into retaining the heritage, the life and opportunities in our coastal communities.

That is why we have put in place Pride in Place funding across many of our coastal communities; at least 56 across the UK will receive more than £1 billion through the Pride in Place programme over the next decade. That money will be targeted at regeneration and, fundamentally, at investing in the priorities of the local community. Many will be thinking about how that investment in their infrastructure will best preserve their communities. We are also clear that the programme will champion local leadership, foster community engagement and strengthen cohesion. For me, that is important because we must absolutely do the job of protecting and insulating against the change that is coming. We must also make sure that we are investing and bolstering our communities, so that they continue to be thriving, vibrant places.

I thank the hon. Member once again for securing this important debate. I can reassure her that we will highlight the points that she has made with our colleagues in DEFRA and that we will do our part to build communities that are resilient and support those communities as they go through a very difficult transition to adapt to the changes that are coming. We will continue to do our bit to support coastal communities, and it is important that hon. Members continue raising the case for them.

[Caroline Voaden]

Something that came out in conversations that I had today was the complication of Torcross having assets that are owned by the Environment Agency and other assets, such as the road, that are owned by the council. There might also be third-party assets, such as quayside walls and other infrastructure. The complication of managing all the different agencies involved, alongside the complication of the MHCLG, DEFRA and the Department for Transport all having to work together, might suggest that we are reaching the point where the Government need to think about an office for climate change events or something like that; I do not know what we would call it, but we need to bring all those things together and for there to be oversight, because it is incredibly complicated to navigate this patchwork landscape of responsibility.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The hon. Member is right. We are acutely aware that the landscape is incredibly complex and has evolved over time. We are trying to work at a local authority level, but, increasingly, as we try to build up the structure at regional level, we want to allow far greater co-ordination so that, ultimately, all the priorities of the local area can come together. Critically, rather than working in silos, we Departments should be working with one voice, in lockstep with the community.

I come back to the point that I have consistently made. This is an urgent issue. We are hugely aware of the impacts on our coastal communities. We are very aware of the need for us to work across departmental silos, and with the Environment Agency and the local authorities, in order to respond. There is an absolute commitment on all the part of us all to do that for the very reasons that the hon. Member has set out. This issue is having a huge, profound impact on communities. If we do not get this right, if we do not adapt, if we do not build resilience and if we do not build the infrastructure, there will be communities that will fall into the sea, and that is an unconscionable outcome.

I hope the hon. Lady is reassured that we are trying to work across boundaries. I will pass on the points that she has made to my colleagues in DEFRA who hold some of the levers, but there is a commitment for us to work alongside them in order to make sure that we are supporting our coastal communities, not just so that they are protected but, critically, so that they can thrive.

Question put and agreed to.

Representation of the People Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I like to start with the positives and the areas of common ground. I warmly welcome the fact that this Bill has come forward and a number of measures in it. It is very positive that the Government are taking forward votes at 16—something that the Green party has campaigned for since the year dot.

It is really good that there is some commitment to improving transparency on political funding. I very much welcome what the Secretary of State was saying earlier about getting rid of the political control of the strategy and policy statement over the Electoral Commission. I also welcome the increase in the commission’s fining capacity. Those are all really positive measures, but there is much more to do. We need stronger action to stop disinformation, get dirty money out of politics and improve trust in our political system.

Briefly, on votes at 16, let me say that 16 and 17-year-olds are engaged, active, interested and really passionate about the political system. It is right that they should be—they will have to live with the decisions that we make for longer than any of the rest of us—so I very much welcome the extension of the franchise. As young people themselves say, it is crucial that the investment is made in supporting political literacy, both in schools and more broadly, to ensure that young people—and all of us—have the political literacy to engage actively in the political process, which is an increasing challenge because of the grave threat of disinformation. We have heard from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and a range of other Members about the problems, and there is a clear need to place duties on the large online platforms to ensure that AI-generated or manipulated content is flagged and controlled.

While the Rycroft review is very welcome, it is not enough, and serious concerns remain about external influence on our politics. I repeat my call for a Mueller-style investigation into Russian and other influence on British politics. We need to know what attacks were made in 2016 and since so that we can have greater clarity and transparency over our politics.

I warmly welcome the points made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) about the importance of a transparent register of political adverts. We need to know who is saying what to who so that there is transparency, because currently we do not know that, and really disruptive and disinformative things are happening.

As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) said, we must have, at a minimum, a cap on donations and a full ban on crypto-donations. That is critical. It is really quite extraordinary that the Thailand-based crypto investor Christopher Harborne has been allowed to donate £9 million to Reform UK—I notice that its Members are still not here. We also need annual spending limits, so that our politics is not distorted by money being spent around the edges of elections, for example.

What else is missing? We need to scrap voter ID, which is a barrier to political engagement and has no justification, and we need increased investigative powers—more money and teeth for the Electoral Commission. It is a profound irony that the Representation of the People Bill does not tackle the fundamental problem with our representation. True representation of the people requires seats to match votes and every vote to count equally, so I call on the Government to take this opportunity to bring forward proportional representation. Ensuring that everyone’s vote counts equally is the principled thing to do, and it is the popular thing to do.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Chowns]

I will not, because of the time. The British Social Attitudes survey shows that a majority of all political supporters are in favour of proportional representation, and of course, it is pragmatic and will improve our politics—

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

The Bill presents a vital opportunity to pave a new way for politics —a politics that is good, honest and free from foreign interference.

I welcome many of the Government’s proposed changes, but the Bill does not go far enough. Loopholes can still be exploited, with foreign billionaires simply needing someone in the middle willing to co-operate and act as the middle man before a donation reaches the party’s pockets. Using company revenue rather than profit to determine eligibility for political donations is also too weak a safeguard against foreign money. Furthermore, the issue of cryptocurrencies has also not been addressed in this legislation, as many Members have said this evening.

International IDEA reports that 49% of countries worldwide place some kind of cap on donations to political parties. Labour must do what is right and use this Bill to finally cap donations to political parties. Free and fair elections are central to our democracy, so I am pleased that the Minister listened to my concerns when I met her last week, and the strategy and policy statement will now be withdrawn. This will ensure the independence of the Electoral Commission.

There is also the growing issue of disinformation, which this legislation fails to address. With the welcome change in voting age, even more of our electorate must now wade through online content and determine what is real and what is false. It is therefore imperative that we do not go into another election without robust, updated measures to tackle disinformation. As we consider voters, I am pleased to see changes to move the postal vote application deadline to three days earlier in the electoral timetable, and I hope that this helps our overseas electorate.

Finally, this Bill makes progress, but it cannot be the end of the road for electoral reform.

[Caroline Voaden]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as our electoral system fractures into a multi-party system—we have traditionally had a system involving two parties in this country—there is a massive missed opportunity to use the Bill to introduce a commission that could bring forward a proportional voting system? That would ensure that we never again had a Government who won 62% of seats with only 34% of the vote.

[Helen Maguire]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I believe that at recent Labour conferences, many Labour members brought up the same point.

This House must strive for a system that is bold and ambitious, and that puts everyday people at the heart of British politics. The legislation needs to go further to deliver for our constituents.

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 & 3rd reading
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

Consideration of Lords amendments
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.