Local Government Reorganisation: South-east

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Pinkerton]

As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful, sagacious intervention. He will discover, if he is able to stay for the rest of my speech, that I will cover those fundamental topics: the funding of the transitional moment, and the certainty that joining two authorities together does produce long-term savings and the modelling that those assumptions rely on.

In late 2024, Surrey was placed on a fast-tracked path towards local government reorganisation. That process was triggered when the leadership of Surrey county council requested that the Government cancel the local elections that were scheduled for May 2025. That request was granted, and the result is that councillors elected in 2021 will now remain in office until April 2027, two years beyond their original mandate, and oversee one of the most significant and consequential restructurings of local government in our county’s history. The idea of cancelling elections has, more recently, fallen out of favour with both the Government and, as I understand it, the Conservative party. Sadly, for those of us in Surrey, that realisation came only after the Surrey Conservatives pulled the trigger on the policy that the Government had placed before them. Whatever one’s view of reorganisation, it is difficult to argue that such a profound change should proceed without giving residents the opportunity to pass judgment on those leading it. Local government reform should be carried out with democratic consent, not in its absence.

Alongside those democratic concerns sit serious financial questions. Over the past decade, several councils across Surrey pursued large-scale commercial property investments in an attempt to generate income as central Government funding declined. In some cases, those strategies have left councils carrying extremely substantial debt. The six councils that could form the proposed West Surrey council—Woking, Spelthorne, Guildford, Runnymede, Surrey Heath and Waverley—collectively carry around £4.5 billion-worth of debt. In my constituency, the then Conservative-led Surrey Heath borough council speculated wildly on commercial property between 2016 and 2019. It spent £113 million on a shopping centre with a knackered roof and a former department store riddled with asbestos. At the time, those purchases were described by the council’s then chief executive as “investments” that would help to secure the council’s long-term financial viability as Government funding declined. In practice, it amounted to a Conservative-run borough council borrowing heavily on the financial markets and through the public works loan board in the hope of defying the gravity of the cuts coming from Conservative central Government. Today, those assets are estimated to be worth around £30 million—not the original £113 million. They are operationally loss-making and together risk bankrupting my borough before we even reach unitarisation next year. Surrey Heath cannot afford to keep them but cannot afford to sell them because selling would crystallise the losses it has incurred.

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

My hon. Friend is eloquently explaining the serious financial situations that many potential unitary councils will be in. They will be saddled with such financial burdens that it will be difficult for them to deliver the services that local residents need. A three-year financial forecast for East Surrey has identified a potential £35 million deficit. The Whitehall funding settlement does not currently reflect the real cost pressures that such councils will experience. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour needs to fix a broken funding system and not leave residents paying the price?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Labour may not have broken the local government system in Surrey but there is now an obligation to ensure that people who live in Surrey are not faced with the bankruptcy of their new unitary authorities on day one of those authorities’ existence, especially given the vital services that they will be delivering.

In neighbouring Woking—where there was another Conservative-run council in those fateful years—the gravitational denialism was even wilder. During the same period, Woking borough council accumulated debts that now stand at approximately £2.1 billion. It is said that that debt is so large that it directly impacts the Government’s borrowing capacity in international markets. Versions of that story are repeated across much of west Surrey: it is a pattern of behaviour that has, frankly, never been properly investigated. Its impact has been compounded by systemic failures in the auditing of local government accounts.

Community Cohesion

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure as always, Dr Murrison.

As well as congratulating the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), I would like to say in opening how much value I place on the contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). In that part of the United Kingdom, we have had the opportunity over many years to learn a great deal about how cohesion can be done right and what happens when it goes wrong. It is particularly important to hear their voices in a debate on this subject. It is also important to hear from a range of Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), who set out some quite particular insights on how the city of Birmingham has had to deal with many challenges.

It is my privilege to represent an extremely diverse but thankfully very cohesive constituency. It is served by two local authorities, both of which are extremely proactive; they have interfaith networks and hold a huge variety of community events. In response to the situation when flags were being raised across high streets, which was clearly intended by many as an act of intimidation, they used those lamp posts and other public street furniture to display flags that celebrated the borough’s heritage and the heritage of the local community, in order to crowd out that space from those who sought to use it to divide the community. That shows a degree of local leadership that we all appreciate.

The fact that we are having this debate in the context of housing, communities and local government demonstrates the breadth of council services. I reflect on my own time as a councillor, when the 9/11 incidents happened. Suddenly, the airspace of the United States was closed. Hillingdon council worked to provide accommodation for thousands of stranded travellers from across the world and to enable them to communicate with their family members to tell them that they were okay and that they had somewhere to stay for the night when all the hotels were full. It also worked very closely with the military, for example, to ensure that the logistics were laid on so that people were supported.

As a number of Members have referred to, that kind of leadership came to the fore again during the covid era, when organisations such as H4All in Hillingdon and Harrow came out and ensured that people had food and medication delivered. We saw the work that was done by synagogues, mosques, churches and non-faith organisations to support each other not just in my community, but across the whole country.

We know that cohesion is something that we can do well, and we know that its leadership often sits with local government. Indeed, when the last Labour Government promoted the roll-out of food banks, it was a recognition—as was the case in my community—that there was a level of need that statutory services were not always able to meet, which that particular community initiative was able to serve. That is why we saw the spread of those across the country to meet that specific need.

We are having this debate at a time when there is a growing level of interest in issues around cohesion. Many will have heard the news coverage of the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, if not the speech itself, in which she set out a number of workstreams seeking to address many of the concerns that Members have described today. It seems to me that this is an area where there is a high degree of cross-party consensus; we know that we need to address these issues in order to strengthen our society.

Let me briefly set out some of the Opposition’s principles around cohesion, some of which are quite focused on local government and some of which are much broader. It is striking that all Members who have contributed to this debate have spoken of the importance of our society and values and the principles of freedom and the rule of law. I was particularly struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr; this must not become a debate about attacking Islam. We are a country that is a plural and liberal democracy. In a community like mine, that means that women and girls have the freedom to wear a headscarf if they choose to, and the protection of the law from those who would seek to force that on them if they choose not to. Both those things are equally important.

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

On Sunday, I celebrated iftar at the local Epsom Islamic Centre. We enjoyed lots of wonderful food and a real community spirit. Unfortunately, last October the centre was the target of vandalism and abuse, which included words and devils spray-painted on the building. That hatred does not represent the majority of people in Epsom and Ewell, but we cannot ignore the fact that there are those in our country who seek to divide us. Does the hon. Member agree that we must support our communities in standing firm against hatred and violence in all its forms?

[David Simmonds]

I do not think there is any argument against the points that the hon. Member raises, and they reflect things that I am sure we have all heard as constituency MPs. When I visited one of my local synagogues on Friday, the people there talked about the difficulties that some of the children in that community had faced at school with the rising tide of antisemitism that they had experienced. That is part of the bigger picture.

We need to ensure that, as far as we can, we build a level of common understanding. When we talk about shared values, sometimes people are prone to say, “We have sharia law in some parts of the country,” or, “We have the Beth Din, which sits outside of the law.” Indeed, the canon law of the Catholic Church, which has been part of our Christian community for centuries, permitted marriage at the age of 14 up until that law was changed in 2019. Sometimes these misunderstandings are not simply about a view of Islam; they are about different communities and cultures. We need to ensure that everybody recognises that the rule of law and the freedoms that it brings apply to everybody in our country.

All of our citizens are free to decide that in the event of a dispute about a business, they would like a sharia court to be involved in settling it. If two Jewish business people wish to use the Beth Din to settle the matter, they can do that as well. That does not remove, under any circumstances, the freedoms and the protections that the law of the land gives to everybody in our country. That must always be there as a clear recourse.

I will touch on an issue that we covered a little yesterday in the debate about the Representation of the People Act 1983. The issue of electoral interference is one that sits with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but is of concern to Members across the House. I reflect on a session of the Home Affairs Committee that was chaired by the now Foreign Secretary, who asked our intelligence services what evidence there was of Russian interference in the Brexit debate, which was the issue at the time. The response was illuminating. The point our security services made was not that Russia, China or Iran is seeking a particular outcome in a political debate happening in the United Kingdom. What those sponsors of terror are seeking to achieve is division in the United Kingdom and a lack of coherence in our society. We must make sure that we are always vigilant and that our laws are updated regularly to take account of how we can resist that.

Moving to more local matters, a lot of the debate has revolved around what makes a community. I know you represent a constituency with a diverse range of local settlements that are different to those in London, Dr Murrison. When we think of community, we think of thriving high streets and places that people can feel proud of. We think of a strong economy and of places where people can get and keep a job that supports their standard of living and their opportunity. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reflections, because those things have been hotly debated in Parliament. We see the impact of rising taxes in the hollowing-out of our high streets. We know that 89,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality and 74,000 in retail since October 2024. The relentless rise in unemployment under this Government is putting enormous strain on the cohesion of our communities.

Representation of the People Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Quarries: Planning Policy

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered planning policy for quarries.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the issue of planning policy for quarries to Westminster Hall today. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate.

I would like to declare at the very outset that, like many hundreds of my constituents, I will be impacted by the development that I am going to refer to. My South Leicestershire constituency has been home not just to me and many hundreds of my constituents, but to many quarries throughout the years. In 2022, a new proposal from Tarmac was floated for a mega-quarry in the hamlet of Misterton, which will have a huge impact on residents in Lutterworth, as well as the villages of Walcote, Cotesbach, Kimcote and Kilworth—to name just a few.

In engaging with that proposal, I have come to understand just how outdated, inconsistent and, in some places, inadequate the planning guidance for quarry operations has become. Nowhere is that clearer than the guidance on air quality. The documents that local authorities are expected to follow do not reflect comparable environmental standards in developed countries, the latest science or the reasonable expectations that residents like mine hold about their air that they and their children breathe.

I have had regular meetings with residents and the Misterton and Walcote residents group to examine the proposals for the mega sand and gravel quarry. I am pleased to say that some of those residents are here today. Three main concerns have emerged: the first is the scale of the proposed development, which covers 74 hectares—the equivalent of 104 full-sized football pitches—and will extract 400,000 tonnes of sand and gravel a year for at least 20 years. It has caused understandable concern over dust, noise and the movement of heavy goods vehicles, especially given that the site is directly opposite a proposed flagship housing development. There is an interesting potential conflict here, because Leicestershire county council is, rather unusually, the promoter of that housing development, as well as being the minerals authority tasked with approving the proposed quarry on the doorstep of its own proposed development.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. That is an everyday reality for my constituents in Epsom and Ewell: we have a chalk pit and residents are faced with dust, noise and traffic. Three agencies are involved: the Environment Agency, Surrey county council and Epsom and Ewell borough council. They all have different and sometimes overlapping responsibilities, so residents find it difficult to raise issues, and some just fall through the cracks. Does the hon. Member agree that the current system for regulating pits and quarries is too complex for residents to navigate and get their issues resolved?

[Alberto Costa]

As the hon. Lady will hear in the remaining parts of my speech, I entirely concur with her comments.

Given that the proposed quarry site is not allocated in Leicestershire county council’s minerals plan, which runs until 2031, we can understand why a group such as the concerned residents present today would try to seek the advice of a professional minerals planner to review the proposals, consider the data and write a report that the residents group could use as the basis for their representations to Leicestershire county council, as the appropriate local planning authority, on Tarmac’s proposal. What surprised me, as their Member of Parliament, was that it was nearly impossible to help them find someone in the industry willing to produce a report that the residents association could use. Why? Because virtually every qualified planner we approached—and there were a great deal—cited potential conflicts of interest with Tarmac. In fact, Tarmac is such a big beast of industry that it took nearly a year to find a planner willing to produce and put their name to an impartial report reviewing Tarmac’s Misterton quarry application.

I am concerned that ordinary groups of residents who want to hire a specialist barely stand a chance because of Tarmac’s influence on the industry. Does the Minister share my concern that local communities often struggle to access independent, impartial technical advice, particularly where the applicant is a large and influential company in the industry? If the Minister is unable to answer any of the questions I put to her today, I would be grateful if she would answer in writing, not least because the residents association would be most grateful.

On air quality, I have a specific concern about the regulation 25 notice issued by Leicestershire county council to Tarmac. Forgive me, Dr Murrison, for the highly technical nature of some of my speech. That relies on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2021 background model, which produces artificially low PM_2.5 figures that no longer reflect the current conditions on the ground. We now have local post-pandemic monitoring data from Harborough district council, showing that background PM_2.5 levels in rural areas close to Misterton are already at or above the Government’s future legal target. Even Tarmac’s own consultants—Vibrock—reported significantly higher background levels than those quoted by the county council.

Does the Minister agree that, to ensure evidence-led decision making, it is imperative that baseline data should be up to date and, if more recent local data exists, it should be used? Does she consider that, where a proposed major industrial development has the potential to increase community exposure to PM_2.5, a mandatory period of local monitoring should be undertaken to establish a reliable baseline before permission is considered?

The main guidance that developers and local authorities rely on comes from the Institute of Air Quality Management. Although the IAQM is a respected professional body that works closely with regulators, it is important to recognise that it is a membership organisation and, therefore, potentially vulnerable. For example, its members may also have commercial interests in consultancy firms that deliver air quality services to clients seeking planning consent, such as Tarmac.

The most relevant document used as guidance for developers and local authorities is the IAQM’s 2016 “Guidance on the assessment of mineral dust impacts for planning”. It is fundamentally used as the de facto industry standard by all who work in the industry, including developers, consultants and local authorities, but that guidance is now nearly a decade old. The document sets the industry standard for how dust, particulates and emissions must be modelled or evaluated when a quarry is proposed.

Last year, I wrote to the IAQM, raising concerns shared by my constituents, such as whether the IAQM guidance adequately distinguishes between nuisance dust and finer, more harmful PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 particles; whether the 250-metre screening criterion remains appropriate for fine particulates, given the emerging evidence showing that those dangerous particles can travel considerably further; and how well it aligns with forthcoming legal PM_2.5 targets, with which the Minister will no doubt be familiar. The IAQM has since contacted me and put a note on its website to say that the guidance on assessment of mineral dust for planning is now under review. That note says:

“The 2016 IAQM Guidance on the Assessment of Mineral Dust Impacts for Planning is now nine years old and as such there are some elements of the document that are dated”.

I repeat:

“there are some elements of the document that are dated”—

this is the document being used—

“and the focus of assessment is changing.

A full review is being carried out by an IAQM Working Group established specifically with regards to this guidance.”

Is the Minister’s Department liaising with the IAQM to ascertain when the review will be completed and a report published?

With the guidance now formally under review, developers and planning authorities need clarity on the interim approach, such as the one faced by the residents in my constituency. The Government’s own interim planning guidance on PM_2.5, published by DEFRA in October 2024, already encourages local authorities to take the 2028 interim and 2040 targets—10 micrograms per cubic metre annual mean—into account in planning decisions. Dr Murrison, I promised you that this speech would be full of technical details, and I hope that I am not letting you down.

Given the legally binding obligations under the Environment Act 2021 and Environmental Targets (Fine Particulate Matter) (England) Regulations (2023), can the Minister confirm, either today or by follow-up letter, how planning authorities should apply the most up-to-date scientific evidence and statutory air quality objectives when assessing quarry applications, especially given that the relevant IAQM guidance is under review, as I have just outlined?

The IAQM guidance to which I am referring is used by developers and planning authorities to assess air quality impacts, particularly in relation to fine particulate matter such as PM₁₀ and PM_2.5. I welcome the fact that it is under review, but I wonder: had the residents group not informed my team, and had my team and I not written to the IAQM to raise the concerns of South Leicestershire residents, would the review be under way now? The 2016 primary guidance documents from the IAQM, which are now under review, are used by the industry, and I understand that overall it is very good guidance, but in key areas it is behind current scientific understanding of the risks of respirable dust particle behaviour and the Government’s own commitments under the 2021 Act and the clean air strategy 2019. The guidance is also far too subjective, offering scope for varied interpretations and approaches.

We now know that PM_2.5 particles—those fine particulates that penetrate deep into the lungs—can travel much farther than previously assumed. The use of a 250-metre screening threshold, still applied in the current guidance, significantly underestimates risks, because it treats those dangerous particles as behaving in the same way as nuisance dust. Evidence from recent legal cases, including the Corby litigation, which was depicted in the Netflix hit series “Toxic Town”—I encourage listeners and viewers to watch that—has shown that those particulates can travel well beyond 250 metres, exposing far more people to harm than our assessments currently acknowledge.

Property Service Charges

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is a genuine pleasure to follow that constructive speech by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly). I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing a debate on what is without question a critically important and pressing issue for residential freeholders and leaseholders alike across the country, and one that, as the shadow Secretary of State rightly said, enjoys significant cross-party consensus. In opening the debate, the hon. Lady spoke forcefully and eloquently on behalf of her constituents in Redhill and, in sharing their plight with the House, brought alive the financial and emotional toll that leasehold terms can take on homeowners across the country.

The many excellent contributions that followed from hon. and right hon. Members powerfully reinforced the arguments that the hon. Lady made. The case studies littered across those contributions were shocking but will not have surprised anyone in this House. We all know from the work we do supporting leaseholders and residential freeholders in our constituencies that, for far too many of them, the reality of home ownership has fallen woefully short of the dream. It is precisely because this Government are no longer prepared to accept that situation that we are determined to honour the commitments made in our manifesto and do what is necessary to finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end in this Parliament.

I do not intend to detain the House for a huge amount of time—I know there is another debate to follow—but in the time I have available I would like to address the main issues that have been raised in the debate, starting with the various problems affecting homeowners on private and mixed-tenure housing estates. But, as ever, I am more than happy to meet any hon. or right hon. Member who has raised an issue that I am unable to cover.

As several hon. Members argued in their contributions, we have seen over recent years a significant shift away from a situation where local authorities and utility companies would generally adopt the respective amenities and public spaces within new residential developments to one where private management arrangements take hold—a so-called fleecehold arrangement. Shared amenities and open spaces are now routinely not adopted and maintained at the public expense, and the maintenance costs fall to residents through an estate rent charge, a fee paid in addition to council tax.

The estate charge also normally covers the management costs of the estate management company, although, as has been evidenced in the debate, residential freeholders frequently complain that these companies deliver little, if anything, beyond what a local authority would usually provide in an area where amenities would have been adopted.

My Department estimates that up to 1.75 million homes in England are located on such private and mixed-tenure estates, although not all are subject to charges. Properties on these estates often have restrictive covenants registered at the Land Registry. They may require homeowners to seek permission, often for a fee, from the management company for actions such as selling or letting their home or altering its appearance. In the worst cases, residents face excessive or unjustified charges levied for minimal services. Those may include fees for services normally provided by local authorities, arbitrary and costly administration fees, unexplained increase in charges and fees imposed during the sale of their home.

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

I just want to add one more case study to the plethora that have already been provided today. I have a resident who has a one-bed flat who saw their charges rise by thousands of pounds in just a few years. That financial burden also makes it even harder to sell their property. Simply too many rogue developers and estate management companies, as alluded to, are exploiting residents and demanding excessive fees for maintaining shared and public spaces in developments. Will the Minister, as many Members have called for, today commit finally to cracking down on these money-grabbing companies, capping unreasonable service and management charges, and urgently abolish ground rents on existing leases?

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Lady had been present for the debate, she would have heard extensive exchanges on this subject, but I will set out what the Government intend to do to provide leaseholders and residential freeholders with redress in these areas.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the sterling work he does in Torbay, and has done in the past as leader of the council, on these issues.

That change in the burden of proof may sound technical, but in fact it would gut the powers of local authorities to hold bad landlords to account, as my hon. Friend has just said. At a stroke, it would make justice for tenants far harder to achieve.

Lords amendment 53 points in the same wrong direction. It seeks to introduce fixed-term tenancies, but the whole point of the Bill is to shift to periodic tenancies—arrangements that give renters both flexibility and more security. Dragging us back to fixed terms, which would become standard across that particular element of student housing, would undermine those core principles.

On the other hand, there are amendments that make the Bill fairer and more workable, which we support. Lords amendment 19 recognises the reality faced by shared ownership leaseholders, who can be can be, and are, hit disproportionately hard when sales fall through, through no fault of their own. Without that exemption, they could face financial ruin. This is a simple matter of justice and we support it.

Lords amendment 64, which would create a new possession ground where a landlord needs to house a carer, is in keeping with the Liberal Democrats’ belief in the importance of supporting the millions of carers out there who are so often overlooked. It is right that the law should recognise the vital role they play, and if there are risks of abuse, it is open to the Government to table their own amendments to set out how they would make the same provision for accommodation needed by carers.

Lords amendment 39, which would legislate for a decent home standard for our military, goes to the heart of who we are as a society and our obligations to those who serve. I pushed for this amendment at earlier stages in the Commons, and indeed this has long been the Liberal Democrats’ position, having been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) in the previous Parliament. It is therefore disappointing that, while the Government have come forward with their own amendments on other matters, they have not come up with any such amendments on decent homes for our military, although that has been agreed across the parties in the other place.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Ministry of Defence itself says that the MOD housing standard is already higher than the decent homes standard, the Government should do the decent thing and accept Lords amendment 39 and put it on the face of the Bill?

[Gideon Amos]

Indeed, our military deserve no less than this being on the face of the Bill, in whichever way the Government wish to do it. If it is so easy and, as my hon. Friend points out, it is the Government’s position, surely it can hold no fear for them.

It would be disappointing not to have those amendments. We are told that 90% of service accommodation meets the decent homes standard—my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) had clearly already read this part of my speech—but those figures come from contractors who are responsible for managing those properties and have an interest in saying that they already meet the standards. There is no independent assessment.

The Defence Committee painted a very different picture, when families reported to it. The Committee stated:

“It is disingenuous for DIO to present glossy brochures about being ‘decent homes plus’ when they are anything but. It is clear that the DIO’s property frequently does not meet the standards.”

Crucially, it added:

“Moreover, there is no local authority”—

or anyone else—

“to hold them to account as would be the case for private and other local landlords.”

We are also told that it would be impractical to extend the decent homes standard to military housing because of access “behind the wire”, yet former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Stirrup, reminded colleagues in the other place that civilian officials already go into far more sensitive areas of military bases, so that is not a serious objection.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on sitting through such eloquent speeches on his first day in the job. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for securing the debate.

I am proud that people from all over the world have put down roots in Stratford and Bow. Some of them came bringing skills and experience, while others came seeking safe haven, but wherever they are from, they are welcome in Stratford and Bow. The story of Stratford and Bow is a story that can be found in every corner of Britain. It is about the very best of Britain—our humanity, our compassion, our fairness. It is a story that my own family know well. Fleeing pogroms in search of safety, my parents were given refuge in the UK, and they made east London their first home. That was nearly 50 years ago, and now they are proud British citizens.

I hear that story echoed by my BNO and Hongkonger constituents who came to the UK fleeing persecution. Since the publication of the Government’s immigration White Paper, dozens of my constituents who are currently already on the pathway to settlement have written to me to share their stories and concerns, specifically those about transnational arrangements for those who are already in the UK and on the five-year route to indefinite leave to remain. This is one of my constituent’s messages to me:

“Changing settlement requirements for those who are already in the UK risks a harmful message: that even those who play by the rules are not guaranteed fairness.”

I was struck by how so many of those who wrote to me introduced themselves and described their families as hard-working and law-abiding. They wanted to tell me about their incredible professions, from caring for our most vulnerable to driving innovation in the UK’s tech sector, and about how much tax they are paying, about how they contribute to the UK economy, about how they have made Britain their home and about the community groups they volunteer with.

Although it was nice to read their emails, it saddened me that we have reached a place in Britain where our neighbours and constituents—those who came here legally—feel the need to defend the fact that they belong here. Their stories also show me something else: pride—pride in participating in British life, pride in British values and pride in contributing to and playing their part in our national story. My constituent Chelsea wrote to share her pride in her own efforts to, in her words, uphold British values and integrate in British society. It is a pride that so many of us in this place know and share: a pride in contributing to our communities and playing an active role in shaping local and national life.

Another constituent wrote to me about bringing years of experience to work here in a highly specialised tech job. He told me that he declined offers in other countries and chose to come here,

“following the rules in good faith, trusting the commitments made when I arrived would be honoured.”

In a nation obsessed with queuing and fair play, what could be more British than a respect for the rules, standing in line and asking for one thing in return—fairness? Changing settlement requirements for those who are already in the UK risks sending a harmful message that undermines trust in legal routes: that even those who play by the rules are not guaranteed fairness in Britain.

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

Over the summer, I held a drop-in surgery for the Hong Kong community in Epsom and Ewell—there are over 1,000 of them—and I heard from many residents who were concerned about the proposal to extend the qualifying period from five to 10 years. They told me that this could have a profound impact, including disrupting their financial planning and causing increased stress and uncertainty for those individuals and their families. Does the hon. Member feel that it is imperative that this Government provide urgent clarity and reassurance to those affected?

[Uma Kumaran]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. That is what so many of us in this room, across the parties, are asking for at the moment. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that point.

My BNO constituent put it best:

“British nationality is a privilege not a right.”

I am sure that all in this room agree. However, it is also our right, as Members, to ensure that our system is fair. That means that we cannot treat migration like a sticking plaster on deep-rooted domestic issues such as skills shortages. It also means honouring the settlement expectations that people had when we welcomed them here legally, and honouring our historical obligation to Hongkongers who are claiming humanitarian protection and fleeing political repression.

As the Government prepare to set out their plans this autumn, I urge the Minister to consider the cause of constituents in Stratford and Bow and ensure that those who arrived under the five-year rule are allowed to complete the route to settlement without changes being applied retroactively. Allowing them to do so would reflect the British values that my constituents of all nationalities cherish. It would reflect the story of our fair, outward-looking and compassionate country, which we all hold so dear.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as someone who is still a sitting councillor. In fact, when I came into this place, I sat on three different councils, so I speak from a good history of local council knowledge.

This Bill focuses on mayors, yet we hear about putting power in the hands of local people. Having a Mayor of Greater Manchester, which has a single identity, is quite different from having mayors in Devon, which is a vast area containing different sorts of places—let alone, perhaps, a mayor of Devon and Cornwall. That is not power in local hands, and the idea that reorganising councils will save money is a fallacy. We will see a few senior executives go, but the numbers of people on the bins, doing the work in the streets that needs to be done across Devon, will not be reduced. Reorganising councils will not save money; in fact, it will cost a huge amount of money, which is not being funded.

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

The Government have claimed that the measures in this Bill, including merging councils, will save significant amounts of money. However, the County Councils Network has revealed that reorganisation could make no savings and cost money. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures in this Bill are based on out-of-date reports that risk further bankrupting local authorities?

[Martin Wrigley]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. However, in my remaining minutes, I will focus on two or three other areas that were not covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). In all the powers and broad strategic aims of this Bill, the key roles played by town and parish councils are forgotten; in fact, the Bill barely mentions them. It also omits the role played by our national park authorities.

Parish and town councils are the first port of call for residents. They are closest to the ground and most responsive to the day-to-day needs of their communities—these are the truly local hands. As district councils disappear, their local assets of less significant value to the new unitary authority will likely suffer, or be overlooked or sold off without considering local input from the town or parish council, despite any changes to the community right to buy, whose successes—as we have heard—are few and far between. This Bill must contain a statutory obligation to work with the most local and community-rooted bodies, which are our parish and town councils. A duty to co-operate must be put into the Bill. Neighbourhood committees or areas, as vaguely set out as they are in the Bill, may play a part in keeping planning and other functions local within the wider unitary geography, but they must also consider and work with the town and parish councils that they cover. This must be a statutory requirement. The Bill allows mayors to convene partners and request collaboration, but those are discretionary powers. They may be used, or they may be ignored. There is no enforceable duty and no statutory requirement to co-operate, and that is a profound weakness.

National park authorities are mentioned not once in the Bill, yet they carry the legal responsibility for some of our most precious landscapes. National park authorities, such as Dartmoor, have a majority of members from a mix of local authorities—five, in Dartmoor’s case—and a minority of Government-appointed members. Without changes, if Dartmoor ended up completely within the boundaries of a new unitary, it would effectively be managed as part of that unitary and lose its unique identity. Its planning authority will be overridden and its strategic vision may be subsumed. We must protect Dartmoor and the other parks for people to freely access and enjoy, and not let greed rip things apart for mere profit. The Bill must address how these authorities will maintain independence and protect the identities of the areas they serve.

Another missed opportunity is the need to make the provision of public toilets a statutory responsibility. Too often, councils in financial difficulties cut these vital facilities, and in Devon we know that there will be no money left over once the special educational needs and disabilities overspend has been paid for by the carefully managed districts and their reserves. It will still be a case of there being no money left.

Finally, I welcome the return of the alternative vote for mayors, but urge the Government to go further and introduce full proportional representation for all the new unitary councils, making every vote count.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The planning system certainly needs change, but local people know their area, which is why local planning authorities must retain their current powers, as outlined in amendment 1. As we have heard, each area is different. In my constituency we are fortunate to have the Loddon and Whitewater chalk stream rivers nurturing ecosystems and sustaining biodiversity.

The Labour manifesto promised

“more high-quality, well-designed, and sustainable homes… creating places that increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery.

Chalk streams in this country are at risk. A third are over-abstracted, a third failed their phosphorus targets, and a third failed their fish and plant assessments. Only 11 have any form of protection. We cannot rely on the local nature recovery strategy or the national planning policy framework to protect those ecosystems. These rivers need bespoke national protection written into primary legislation in this House, as outlined in amendment 16. We cannot make reparation after the fact. Once chalk aquifers are destroyed, they cannot be replaced. When we say irreplaceable, we mean it.

The Government also say they want to make the UK a clean energy superpower. My colleagues and I are thrilled that the Liberal Democrats’ call for solar panels on new homes is finally being implemented. Solar power is a key way to harness the power of the natural environment as we develop infrastructure for our communities. Supporting new clause 7 and putting solar panels on all new car parks would be the natural next step in the right direction.

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

Electric vehicles are key to achieving energy independence, but charging inequalities are simply holding us back, undermining net zero and energy security. Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities must be empowered to approve safe cross-pavement charging solutions without expensive and time-consuming street work licences or planning applications?

[Alex Brewer]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on those policies.

Solar panels do not just soak up the sun and create clean energy; they also provide shade, protect vehicles and, frankly, over a car park they look quite good while they are doing it. We should be prioritising solar panels on the 250,000 hectares of rooftops and car parks across the country, not on our precious green spaces. Car parks are often located in energy intensive areas— near hospitals, shopping centres and office buildings—so it makes perfect sense to generate the power right next to where it is needed.

[Alex Brewer]

We must find the right balance between agriculture and renewable energy.

France has already taken the lead by mandating that all car parks with more than 80 spaces must be covered with solar panels. The Bill is the right place for us to implement a similar clause. Solar photovoltaics produce about 10 times more energy per square kilometre than biomass. Solar is efficient, clean and ready to go. I am highly concerned that the Bill is overcommitted to biomass, which is not a form of renewable energy. In Britain, we have the knowledge and expertise to develop new housing, energy and infrastructure with nature in mind. The Government are treating this issue as an either/or, but we could and should be much more ambitious and have both.

[Helen Maguire]

I rise to speak in support of my new clause 93 and amendments 122 to 126, which aim to tackle the growing electric vehicle charging divide—an issue that is not only about infrastructure, but about fairness, affordability and climate action.

Nearly four out of every 10 households in the UK do not have a driveway. For many of them, the transition to EVs remains a challenge because bureaucratic barriers mean that they face charging costs that are 10 times more expensive compared with those who can charge their car at home. Today, someone with a driveway can charge their EV overnight for as little as 7p per kilowatt-hour, but a driver without one may be forced to pay up to 80p at a public charger. That means over £1,000 more per year, and renters, residents of terraced homes and lower-income families bear the brunt.

My amendments would cut unnecessary red tape and enable local authorities to approve safe cross-pavement charging solutions without expensive and time-consuming street works licences or planning applications. They would give councils control while empowering residents to take part in the EV transition. That is a vital step in closing the gap between those who can charge affordably at home and those who cannot. It would help to reduce reliance on overstretched public chargers, support grid resilience and build confidence in the EV transition, while unlocking green jobs and cutting emissions.

This is also an issue of energy security. Sky-high energy and fuel bills are hurting families and businesses, fuelling the cost of living crisis. Russia’s assault on Ukraine has reinforced the need to significantly reduce the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels and to invest in renewables, both to cut energy bills and to deliver energy security. Electric vehicles can help millions of families to avoid a petrol premium, save on travel costs and strengthen our national security and independence.

If we are serious about hitting net zero, cleaning our air and reducing the cost of living, we must make EV adoption a genuinely accessible and affordable option for everyone, not just for those with a driveway. I urge Members to support my common-sense, future-facing amendments and new clause 93.

Residential Estate Management Companies

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gideon Amos]

“Daylight robbery” is a good way of putting it. Those staggering increases in charges, with very little notice or warning to residents, are experienced in many of our constituencies, including my own.

In my constituency, I am receiving complaints about FirstPort from residents of Parsonage Court in Wellington, and from those of Quantock House, Pavilion Gardens, St George’s Square and Firepool in Taunton. I am also receiving complaints about Cognatum Estates from residents of Cedar Gardens and Fullands Court. These issues are arising in a whole range of properties.

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

One of my constituents, Mr Vivian Lythgoe, is here today because of FirstPort. Unfortunately, he has had to make the painful decision to sell his home because he is fed up with dealing with management companies that are not interested in leaseholders. He has been fighting FirstPort to try to make it carry out basic maintenance, which residents have already paid for. Residents are not cash cows for management companies or footnotes in company accounts; they are people. It is time that they were treated as such. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is time for this shocking behaviour to be rectified and for legislation to be introduced. I will continue to work for the residents of the properties in my constituency that I have mentioned, and to get the legislation that we need.

Those who suffer from poor management can, of course, be leaseholders or freeholders. There are 4.8 million residential leasehold properties in England, which is equivalent to a fifth of the housing stock. That system is a relic of the feudal period. Its abolition has long been sought by Liberals and Liberal Democrats. The abolition of residential leasehold could be one of the most important carried-forward pieces of business from the last Liberal Government of about 100 years ago, which goes to show how long overdue it is.