Train Services: Extreme Weather

Charlotte Cane Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing the debate.

Many decades ago, I did an excavation in Rugeley of a Mesolithic cave site. Moving forward a little to the bronze age, we know from the excavations at Flag Fen that our forebears knew how difficult it was to travel across the fenland and how to build, maintain and keep an investment in good routes. Moving forward to the 21st century, it is extremely disappointing that we do not seem willing to put the same level of investment into our transport systems as they did back in the bronze age.

In June and August this year, one third of the trains on the line between King’s Lynn and King’s Cross did not run at all. Of the two thirds that did, 80% were delayed. That is extremely unreliable for commuters, students and people just trying to go about their daily lives—to go to the theatre and sports events. They cannot rely on a train that may or may not come, and may or may not arrive on time.

The other insult is that the train quite often terminates partway through the journey, so someone trying to get back from London will get as far as Cambridge, be told that that is as far as the train will take them and have to work out how to finish their journey from there. I myself have been impacted by that, obviously quite often, with all the going back and forth, but there was a particular instance when I had a surgery in Littleport. I left in plenty of time, but the train that I was trying to catch was cancelled and the next train terminated at Cambridge, so I arrived an hour later than I had intended and therefore was late for my surgery, which is extremely rude, and I really hate being rude to my constituents.

Worse than that is what constituents have written to tell me. One in particular has written to say that because their train has been so unreliable for getting to their job in London, their employer is now putting them under pressure. They are becoming an unreliable member of staff; their employer does not know when they will turn up to work. They are also having to make up the time at the end of the day, which means that they are getting home very late—often later than they expected, because not only have they left late but the train has then been delayed. That makes it a complete nightmare for them, because they have to be up early the next morning to go in.

The reasons are many and various, but one of the main ones is the overhead power lines. They do not like very hot weather. I think they do not like very cold weather either, but in the summer the issue was the very hot weather. However, the really big problem is that the tracks are buckling, because the soil underneath is moving. We have the same problem with our roads. This is a major problem and, with climate change, it will happen year in, year out, so we need to put investment into sorting that out.

I have talked to Great Northern and, in fairness, it is doing a lot to try to make the service less unreliable, but it will need proper funding from Government to help it to address the problem. My constituents rely on the service. As I have said, they need it for getting to work. Many students rely on it because the sixth-form colleges are in Cambridge and they need to get to college. Our main hospital is in Cambridge, so people need to get to the hospital. These train services are vital to people, so I call on the Government to look hard at what the particular issues are with extreme weather and the impact that it has on fen soils and at how we can make our rail lines more resilient so that my constituents can rely on a good train service.

Budget Resolutions

Charlotte Cane Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

On growth in every postcode, the Chancellor seems to have forgotten the people in Ely and East Cambridgeshire. There was nothing in the Budget and no funding for the Ely junction improvements, which would increase capacity on that rail line for freight and for passengers and make it more reliable. There was nothing to reduce rail fares, which are getting out of many people’s reach.

There was nothing to help the county council with the phenomenal cost of mending our soil-affected roads. It estimates the cost to be £500 million, an amount that no county council can find. It is roughly 10 times its annual budget for road repairs. We have roads that, over this summer, actually had no earth underneath them any more, and when people go out to repair them, they instead have to close the road, because there is no earth on top of which to repair it.

On buses, it is great that we have capped bus fares, but many of my villages do not have buses at all. There was nothing in the Budget about improving bus routes and getting more buses. There was nothing on the A10. The money for that has been removed, and nothing has been put back in the Budget. So is growth really for every postcode? Not for mine.

As for the farmers, who had that catastrophic sustainable farming incentive process that closed within hours, there is nothing for them. There is nothing to recognise the problems they had over this long, hot, dry summer. We need to back our farmers. They are in my postcodes, and they feed all of us.

On the breathing space, there are some good things in the Budget to help people with the cost of living, but not for people on heating oil. I have had a letter from a young mum who tells me that she has to find £650 just to buy the minimum amount of oil that can be delivered, and that would not last her the winter. She cannot ask for money from the crisis and resilience fund, because she had that back in the spring, and she has been told she cannot ask again. Yes, she will probably get £100 in January, but she needs £650 now. To add insult to injury, the Chancellor has cut the budgets for helping people get away from their dependence on oil heating, so I cannot even be sure that all my constituents can take advantage of moving on to heat pumps or other technology. At the very least, will the Chancellor please look again at how he can help people on oil central heating, because they desperately need it this winter, and please can we not just tell them to eat gherkins?

Local Government Reorganisation

Charlotte Cane Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

We published the criteria at the start of the process, and those criteria stand. They are unweighted; the idea is that they give us the freedom to take into account that England is very diverse, and what is right for one county might not be right for another. In the end, decisions have to be as sustainable as possible. They have to balance efficiency and identity, and these are not easy decisions.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the opportunity for a modification proposal, we are now receiving proposals, and there is no additional window to do that. Also, consultations have already been carried out. However, there will be a “minded to” process for all these decisions, so that he and others can make representations. In the case of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and also West Sussex, I am very happy to confirm the details by writing to Members shortly.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

As many Members have said, this process has been a shambles, but I welcome the “minded to” approach, and the fact that people have time to give their views. Although I want this process sorted quickly, the timetable has to be long enough for a real consultation. Bear in mind that all local government has to give proper due notice of its meetings, and of what will be on the agenda, so that the public can come and have their say. I am not at all sure that three weeks is long enough. Will the Minister please look at having a timetable that makes it practical for local authorities and local people to properly make their representations?

[Jim McMahon]

The way we approach “minded to” decisions is not to assume that the council will be the conduit for every view in an area. In a single area, there may be very different views from different political groups, local charity organisations and other public service providers. The deliberate intention is for councils, local residents, the business community and whoever has an interest to make representations, and our view is that three weeks ought to be enough time to do so.

Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Charlotte Cane Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am an East Cambridgeshire district councillor—a district council that erroneously boasts of being debt free because it sold its housing stock many years ago, and that criticises the other district council in my constituency, South Cambridgeshire, and indeed Cambridge city, for having major debts, without mentioning that those councils have retained their council houses, built more, and continue to build more. I agree with the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) that we have to address that.

Average house prices in my constituency are about 10 times the average salary, and the average rent is over £1,000 a month, so it is not surprising that a lot of emails in my inbox are about social housing need. I have had people in my surgeries in tears because they cannot get a decent home for their family. We must build more council houses; I support that. I would like the Minister to consider rural areas carefully. In such areas, we might be able to accommodate only two or three units, but we really do need them. It is not just a case of building large quantities in the bigger towns; we need a good mix of council housing, including larger houses for larger families, and bungalows for people who are getting older and want to downsize.

We also need to make sure that the houses that we have are in really good condition. I really welcome the warm homes social housing fund, which is helping many of my constituents to replace their oil-fired boilers with air source heat pumps, but I wonder if there could be a similar sort of grant to bring those houses up to a good standard. Many of them were built in the ’20s and ’30s, and were then very poorly insulated around the ’70s, which added to the damp problems. Addressing those problems is a huge cost for social housing providers. As we have heard, when those houses become empty, because the providers cannot make the figures stack up—the cost of the repairs versus the future income stream from rent—they sell the houses in the private sector. Some of those houses are in my villages, where we already do not have anything like enough social houses. Providers really need financial help to bring that stock up to a decent standard.

People are also worried about shared ownership. They feel trapped into paying very high service charges that they cannot afford, but when they try to sell their property, potential buyers see the charges and pull out of the sale. I am glad that the Government will review that.

Local Government Reorganisation

Charlotte Cane Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I have to say that I am not a big fan of referendums, if I am really honest. That is my personal opinion, but I am open to having discussions about how we can make sure that the hon. Member’s local residents feel like they are engaged and see the benefits of local government reform. That is my ultimate aim as part of this process, and I look forward to working with him on that endeavour.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a district councillor on East Cambs district council. The residents of Ely and East Cambridgeshire will be relieved that they are not going to have the wrong unitary imposed on them, but they will be worried about the chaos and uncertainty that we have heard about, and about what happens next and when. What is the remit of the review? How is it going to be run to ensure that local people get their voices heard? And what is the real timetable? “As quickly as possible” and “at pace” are all great, but what is the actual timetable? Also, the Secretary of State appeared to say that May’s elections would be held on the existing district council boundaries unless the unitaries were in place by then. What did she mean by that?

[Angela Rayner]

I have asked the Minister for local government, devolution and regional growth to undertake a rapid review of the local government reorganisation programme. That is a review regarding the decisions that were announced in March and July, and the two remaining areas of West Sussex, and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. I have said that the review will cover 18 decisions already taken and the two areas where decisions have not yet been made. I want the programme to be reviewed at pace and will report back to Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

Charlotte Cane Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I agree with the hon. Member. We urgently need clarity. On the statement that was made before recess, we saw a huge amount of discontent across both sides of the House with the decisions that had been taken previously, and it is essential that we get real clarity on exactly what the process is going to be. I appreciate that the Minister has come back into his role having had some time away and may be having to catch up, but I assure him that the strength of feeling is high.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I will make a little progress.

Further to this, in his letter of 16 July, somewhat contradictorily, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), stated:

“I have decided that more time is needed to consider which option, if any, to implement at this time in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.”

We now have a new—old—Secretary of State. Can the Minister clarify whether the Secretary of State also requires more time in order to make a decision? Whether she does or does not, can the Minister clarify when the Secretary of State plans to have made her decision by? Her Department has held no further discussions with Huntingdonshire district council, so what precisely is in need of further discussion that warrants a delay of two months? Can the Minister outline why there has been a delay? Can he also clarify when Labour MPs were informed of the delay to a decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough in the first place?

I ask the Minister to clarify, on the record, whether his departmental colleague, Baroness Taylor, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, participated in a meeting with Labour MPs and councillors on Wednesday 15 July 2026, during which local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough was discussed. I ask him to choose his “yes/no” answer to that question very carefully, lest he might later be accused of misleading the House.

My position remains extant: I back a Huntingdonshire unitary authority, which is known locally as option E. It is the option that was overwhelmingly backed by councillors from all parties across Huntingdonshire district council. Disappointingly, the only people not to have backed this option are Huntingdonshire’s two other Members of Parliament. I maintain that a united front in this respect would have sent a stronger message to the Government.

I have led two debates in Parliament about local government reorganisation, both of which highlighted the potential issues that arise from getting the decision wrong. The more recent of those debates was last November and during it I provided an in-depth assessment of why option D specifically was unworkable. It is almost as if I expected the Government to stitch up the decision. I will reiterate the points that I made then for the benefit of the Minister who is here today.

Option D rips Huntingdonshire in half, creating east and west Huntingdonshire. There is a significant risk in attempting to disaggregate Huntingdonshire district council. There is a lack of precedent and an absence of lessons being learned, not to mention the destruction of local identity in Huntingdonshire, which is already stronger than local identities elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, particularly in separating Huntingdon from Godmanchester and St Ives. Disaggregating Huntingdonshire district council would also come with greater transition costs and affect service delivery.

Peterborough is a basket case. It is estimated that 11% of Peterborough’s budget is needed simply to service its own debts, with 80% needed to fulfil its statutory adult and children’s social care obligations. How on earth does it plan to run all the other existing county and district functions on a 9% budget?

Peterborough council’s debt gearing is 91%, against a national benchmark of just 50%. Under the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s local authority financial resilience index analysis, Peterborough is rated as high-risk for its overall level of reserves, its unallocated reserves, its earmarked reserves, its interest payable or net revenue expenditure, its gross external debt, its fees and charges to service expenditure ratio, its council tax requirement or net revenue expenditure, and its growth above baseline. Huntingdonshire is not deemed to be high-risk in a single one of those categories.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

No, I am going to carry on.

The option D business case itself states:

“As Peterborough has historically required exceptional financial support and comes from the most financially challenged position, increasing the scale does not necessarily provide the desired resilience. Reserves still remain low. The cost of servicing debt continues to eat into a significant proportion of the net budget and the funding headroom is tight. This could be mitigated by resizing services in line with available funding.”

Option D provides a significantly lower level of reserves, leaving it more vulnerable to shocks. The reserves of Greater Peterborough are comfortably the lowest in Cambridgeshire at just 16%, which is again deemed high-risk. By comparison, Huntingdonshire would be 42%.

On employment, we need look no further than the percentage of universal credit claimants in the local authority; in Huntingdonshire, it is 2.8%, while in Peterborough it is 8%, which is far and away the highest rate locally; Peterborough has the highest unemployment rate in Cambridgeshire. Greater Peterborough is also projected to have the highest prevalence of education, health and care plans, and the greatest risk of special educational needs and disabilities escalation. At present, Huntingdonshire has the second lowest rate of EHCP prevalence in Cambridgeshire.

This analysis strongly suggests that the system would all but immediately collapse. Greater Peterborough will have the highest spend per resident for adult social care and for children’s social care, more than double that of the other two unitaries, as well as the highest SEND spend per resident and the highest percentage of homeless households, at nearly double that of Greater Cambridge.

It is akin to the Berlin Wall being put up overnight, condemning one half of Huntingdonshire to eking out an existence in the bleak Peterborough Democratic Republic while the eastern half enjoys the trappings of a slightly better existence in the Federal Republic of Mid Cambridgeshire. But will we? Is Mid Cambridgeshire any more viable than Greater Peterborough? No, it is not. A unitary authority for Mid Cambridgeshire would be centred upon St Neots as the biggest town, compared with Cambridge or Peterborough in the neighbouring unitaries.

The option D business case barely even attempts to sell the viability of Mid Cambridgeshire, stating:

“It encourages reflection on ensuring the resilience of all unitaries, especially Mid Cambridgeshire”.

It goes on to outline that

“targeted action can be taken to sustain its market, towns and rural communities”

and that this model safeguards the rapid growth trajectories of the two city regions. It makes no effort to address the challenges that this would leave Mid Cambridgeshire to face.

[Charlotte Cane]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a district councillor on East Cambridgeshire district council. One of the other big problems for this proposed Mid Cambridgeshire unitary is that it will have most of the soil-affected roads in Cambridgeshire, which are really expensive to maintain, and most of the internal drainage boards, which need significant funding to keep our market towns and villages dry so that people can live in them. It will be a very challenging unitary to run financially.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I agree. The numbers that I saw were terrifying. I think somewhere in the region of 80% to 90% of Cambridgeshire’s peat roads would be based in the Mid Cambridgeshire authority; the roads budget itself simply would not be able to cope with that. I did not know the point about the internal drainage board and the mid-level commissioners, but having seen some of that infrastructure I can well imagine that the bill for replacing that will be terrifying if it falls solely on Mid Cambridgeshire.

The business case also states that Mid Cambridgeshire’s

“proposed lower levels of funding may result in difficulty in being able to deliver services to residents within its budget envelope. A significant transformation programme will be required to ensure services are resized accordingly”.

We can read that to mean “reduced”. The business case later adds that

“Mid Cambridgeshire may face particular challenges in both capacity and funding for high-cost statutory services”,

and that Mid Cambridgeshire

“in particular, may require additional support to ensure it can participate fully and equitably in regional initiatives”.

That is very reflective of the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire about the land grab for high-growth areas that Greater Peterborough is attempting. Mid Cambridgeshire will be set up to fail.

Local Government Reorganisation

Charlotte Cane Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which she champions her constituents, whom she so ably represents. She is quite right: one of the key reasons for local government reorganisation is to streamline local government so that areas right across England are ready for mayoral devolution and the additional powers that will come with that in due course. That benefits people across the country where they already have those powers, and I want to see it extended right across the country, including to her constituents.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am an East Cambridgeshire district councillor. There will clearly be a great deal of uncertainty across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Has the Secretary of State considered additional funding for the electoral staff who are planning for elections in May, which the Secretary of State says he intends will go ahead, when they do not know the boundary of the council, let alone the ward boundaries or the number of councillors? Will he also explain what process he has in place to liaise and consult with local people over the next few months to make a proper decision on what will happen in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough?

[Steve Reed]

I will ensure that the decision is taken in good time for the appropriate electoral arrangements to be put in place. That will be shortly after the summer recess. The council will then be able to prepare for those elections. As I made clear in my statement, there is a record amount of money available for transitioning services into the new authorities, which her constituents and her constituency will also benefit from.

Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

Charlotte Cane Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as an East Cambridgeshire district councillor. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate and on his excellent speech. I thank all hon. Members for their strong contributions to the debate.

It is good to see cross-party recognition that the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor will play a critical role in the years ahead in growing the UK economy. To achieve that growth sustainably, we need it to go hand in hand with investment in housing and vital infrastructure. First and foremost, we need a land-use framework in place. The consultation closed in April, but there has still not been a Government response. We cannot plan for housing and the infrastructure needed without that framework, because it is that framework that will ensure we have allocated enough land to nature and to all our needs. Will the Minister tell us when the land-use framework will be published?

The Liberal Democrats believe that growth without corresponding investment in local infrastructure risks leaving communities behind.

[Charlie Maynard]

East West Rail is a huge project and will bring a lot of benefits, but my hon. Friend’s constituency of Ely and East Cambridgeshire is at the far end in Cambridgeshire and my constituency of Witney is at the far end in the west. Does she agree that such projects need to be spread county-wide? We desperately need transport infrastructure, such as rebuilding the railway line that links Oxford, Eynsham, Witney and Carterton, to support the 18,000 houses that are coming our way.

[Charlotte Cane]

I agree that we need to have the wider transport network, and I will touch on that later in my remarks.

Local communities must have a genuine voice in infrastructure decisions that affect them. As we have heard, big projects like East West Rail benefit them in some way, but what would really help communities like Bicester, Cottenham and Milton is investment in proper local bus routes and road upgrades, which would provide an obvious benefit and improvement in people’s everyday lives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said, connecting people to each other and to work, education and leisure is vital.

At the same time as we are going for growth between Oxford and Cambridge, there needs to be investment to ensure that we have good water supplies; waste water and sewage are managed so our rivers are clean; people can get to see a GP; electricity grid capacity is increased; and people can easily access more active travel and public transport options. My hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) was right to highlight the need for GPs, schools and shops to grow as our communities grow.

The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for the rail project along the A40 corridor to Witney and Carterton, for electrification from Didcot to Oxford and along the whole of East West Rail, and for the redevelopment of Oxford station to be finally completed, along with other important rail improvements. We know that rail is the key to growth, and that it can bring opportunities if we invest in it properly.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for supporting my calls for the Ely junction upgrade but, in this speech, I am going to make a different request for rail investment. I would like East West Rail to extend at least to Newmarket, allowing for more frequent, reliable trains through Dullingham into Cambridge and beyond.

I welcome plans for a Cambridge east station, and ask that the current Waterbeach station is kept open. Between the new station in north Waterbeach, the current Waterbeach station, Cambridge North, Cambridge, the soon to be completed Cambridge south and the proposed Cambridge east, we have the makings of a metro-style transport network that could help reduce congestion and improve air quality in Cambridge.

When undertaking such significant rail projects, it is vital that we ensure that they actually deliver tangible benefits for the communities they serve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) told us, the London Road level crossing in Bicester is due to be closed by East West Rail. While the project will indeed have wide benefits, we should do something to support the local community and ensure that that infrastructure benefits them. For example, the Government could commit to a motorised underpass to keep the town connected, and I hope the Minister will do so today.

Recent research revealed that Brexit is costing taxpayers £90 billion a year in lost tax revenue. Let us think how much of that we could invest in the ambitious businesses in the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor if we joined the single market. The hon. Member for Cambridge talked about the knowledge clusters, which would be so much stronger with Europe-wide participation.

Since being elected, I have had the pleasure of visiting many exciting and dynamic companies in Ely and East Cambridgeshire, including Xampla, Pragmatic, Hologic UK, the Royal Society of Chemistry and Cambridge Future Tech, all of which want to see the full potential of the Oxford-Cambridge corridor unlocked for new investors and for businesses to join that thriving ecosystem. I am proud to be an MP for such a dynamic, innovative and flourishing region. I am fascinated every time I visit one of those local businesses, and I am struck by their ambition not just for themselves but for our region and our country. They need the Government to follow through on their ambition, and work with them and local communities to deliver a sustainable Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Charlotte Cane Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who does an excellent job championing the chalk streams in his constituency. A public-facing, recognised standard for chalk streams, similar to those that we have for other environmental designations, would be incredibly welcome.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I also have a chalk stream in my constituency, the River Snail. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we give these chalk streams statutory protection through measures such as those set out in Lords amendment 38, rather than relying on national planning frameworks that can be changed without referring back to this place?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Proper statutory protection for the internationally valuable resource that is our chalk streams is long overdue. I welcome the Minister’s words in his opening remarks, but until we see those designations we will continue to advocate for proper statutory protection for chalk streams. We urge the Minister to go further on that.

I now turn to the amendments on democratic and parliamentary accountability. The Bill does not just tinker at the edges but fundamentally concentrates power into the hands of Secretaries of State. Lords amendment 33 would ensure that if and when the Government implement their proposed regulations to remove powers from local planning committees and councillors, they must come to this House under the affirmative resolution procedure.

Clause 51 gives unlimited power to all future Secretaries of State to remove any and all decisions from planning committees—there is no limit imposed on that power. The very least that the Government should be willing to accept is a commitment to meaningful parliamentary oversight when they bring forward the regulations to remove powers from planning committees. No amount of consultation on a national scheme of delegation will change the extraordinary power in clause 51 and what it takes away from local planning committees, locally elected councillors and local communities. Lords amendment 33 offers only a small safeguard against that centralisation. For such powers to not even be affirmed by Parliament would make a mockery of the democratic process.

Similarly, Lords amendment 1 would ensure that the Government continue to be fully accountable to Parliament on their changes to national policy statements. NPSs govern the biggest projects in the land, from Hinkley Point to Sizewell, from rail freight terminals to the largest solar and wind farms in the world, and transmission lines. It is the fact NPSs are approved by Parliament that provides them with the efficacy they have in guiding decisions on such projects. In the Commons, we proposed a compromise that case law could, for example, be reflected without parliamentary processes, but policy changes on matters as significant as future plans for nuclear power stations should remain fully subject to the decisions of Parliament. We therefore oppose the Government’s attempt to remove scrutiny of national policy statements.

Amendments 2 and 3 are about protections for reservoirs, and we oppose the Government’s attempt to remove those provisions. We also oppose the Government’s intention to remove protections for assets of community value. We remain concerned about proposals for badger shooting on building sites, which remain unamended in schedule 4.

The Liberal Democrats have set out our proposals for housing and planning. Our programme for public housing, which is far more ambitious than the Government’s, is for 150,000 publicly-funded and genuinely affordable social and council rent homes per year for local people, not the 20,000 that the Government have established as their target. It is a mistake to pit development against nature and communities. On Second Reading, only the Liberal Democrats voted to stop the damaging effects on nature this Bill could have. The Government have made some changes, which we welcome, but the amendments that remain before us today could be accommodated. They are essential to ensuring that the people and nature affected by building the homes and infrastructure that we need are heard and have their place in shaping that development. We must not give up—the Liberal Democrats will not give up—on ensuring that nature and people are protected in the rush to build the homes that we need.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Charlotte Cane Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which states that I am a sitting member of East Cambridgeshire district council.

We can surely all agree that power should be devolved as close to communities as possible, because they know what is best for their areas far better than anyone else. Strong and empowered parish, city and principal councils that are accountable to residents help our democracy and make better decisions for the communities that they serve. Sadly, the Bill does not deliver that. Although the Government’s intention of devolution by default is commendable, the Bill represents centralisation by choice. Instead of providing for genuine decentralisation of power to communities, it empowers regional mayors at the expense of local councils, and the Secretary of State.

Local councillors have expressed concerns, including about the uncertainty that these proposals have caused at a time when councils are trying to set their budgets amid the wider crisis in local government funding, and fears that bigger authorities, particularly in rural communities, will lead to weaker connections with the areas they serve. The Bill has caused considerable uncertainty locally because it comes at a time when integrated care boards are being changed, which means that relationships with key health partners are being doubly unsettled.

Councillors in my constituency fear that because the Bill has been drafted hastily, it will not fix some obvious anomalies in our existing boundaries, such as what some people have called the “Newmarket bite”. The town of Newmarket is almost completely surrounded by my constituency. Many of my residents look to Newmarket for some of their services, and many in Newmarket look to Cambridgeshire for some of theirs. Newmarket and the surrounding villages should have had the opportunity to choose between a Cambridgeshire-based and a Suffolk-based unitary.

I am particularly concerned about the Bill’s provision to enable mayors of strategic authorities to appoint seven unelected commissioners to deliver specific areas of policy. We already have an established system for that very purpose. In most councils, we have an administration consisting of elected councillors, from which the leader of the council chooses a small group to form their cabinet. In other councils, we have committees that are responsible for oversight of policy areas. Like an earlier speaker, I am also worried about the Government’s plans to impose a leader and cabinet model on these authorities. East Cambridgeshire district council has kept the committee system because that is what our residents tell us they want. We cannot have a Minister telling us that we cannot run ourselves in the way our local community wants.

Appointing commissioners rides roughshod over the current system of democratically elected councils by allowing mayors to nominate unelected commissioners to lead on policies. How can the public hold these commissioners to account, if not at the ballot box? Who will scrutinise their judgment calls? How can we improve the transparency of their decision making at a political level?

The Bill is a missed opportunity to meaningfully decentralise power to our communities and make a fundamental shift in where power lies in this country. Where the Government are claiming to make devolution the default, they have introduced centralisation. These proposals weaken existing systems of accountability, and even in parts of the Bill where progress is made, such as on electoral reform, it tinkers at the edges. We urgently need a system where every vote counts, so we need proportional representation.

True devolution comes as a result of grassroots consultation rooted in communities. Top-down attempts at devolution, such as this Bill, sadly end in being well wide of the mark. People in my constituency do not want to be forced into a unitary authority that is, on the one hand, too big to understand local needs and, on the other hand, too small to cover the areas where they work, spend leisure time and receive healthcare. They do not want decisions to be taken by appointed commissioners rather than elected councillors. They would value real devolution and a proper say in the changes they want. I urge the Government to reconsider this Bill so that it delivers the devolution in England that people want.