Holocaust Memorial Day

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for not just his opening remarks but his commitment to this cause, both in this House and outside it. The Holocaust was a unique event in human history in which the state waged external war with expressly genocidal aims, combined with the industrialisation of killing as a transcontinental enterprise.

The Holocaust matters to us today because we owe it to the dead, and to the living who went through that horror, to commemorate their suffering; because we should pay tribute to those still with us, as well as those who have gone before us and who brought an end to the Hitler regime, whose raison d’être was the mass murder of Jews and others whom they saw as less human; and, perhaps most importantly, because we owe it to ourselves to remind each other of where the poison of racist hatred takes humanity.

Holocaust Memorial Day matters more this year, because there has undoubtedly been an appalling rise in antisemitic violence and in the public and private abuse of Jews. If the Holocaust teaches us anything, it is to stand up and call out hatred and racism. There is now a barely hidden campaign to drive Jews out of public and civic life in Britain—a campaign, I am sad to say, in which Members of this House are active participants or complicit. The eruption of antisemitism in Britain since 7 October 2023 has underlined how supposed progressives and anti-racists are fine to speak out, unless it is about hatred of Jews. Campaigners have marched alongside open supporters of fascistic Hamas and shouted slogans advocating a global war against Jews. They have done all this because they believe that their new-found allies are merely “anti-Zionist” and not actually antisemites at all.

The arguments that dominate today’s antisemitic discourse are superficially more sophisticated, and are increasingly shaped by the melting pot of extreme ideas that is provided by social media, but the reality is that the far right, the far left and the Islamists still rely on the old tropes of hidden Jewish power and manipulation, Jewish blood lust, and Jews as the killer of Christ. They now hide this behind the words “Zionism” or “Israel” and hope that people will not spot the difference. Through social media, many of these ideas have seeped into the discourse of what is supposedly mainstream.

In 2019, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) told the Bruges Group of the supposed threat of “cultural Marxism”, an idea that has direct Nazi roots. It is a phrase that the former MP Andrew Percy warned others against using. In 2024, Liz Truss was forced to remove a bogus and antisemitic quote attributed to Mayer Rothschild from her memoirs. Then there is the case of Reform’s recently announced candidate for Gorton and Denton, who, like the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), appears not to believe that ethnic minority children born here can ever be British or understand British humour. This is the antisemites’ baseline argument about the otherness of Jews, retooled for the use of today’s insurgent far right and far left.

It behoves all of us to call out the issues in our midst, and there has been too much silence in this regard. Members of this House have been involved in stoking the fires of Islamist hatred, antisemitism and Holocaust inversion. Perhaps some will make very fine speeches about Holocaust memorial, as they did last year, but we should not allow ourselves to be fooled. One Member of this House, writing about the middle east on social media, invoked images of the gas chambers, a barbaric creation used for the industrialised and systematic murder of Jews—Jewish men, women and children. That trivialises the Holocaust.

However, there is not only Holocaust inversion; there are outright antisemitic tropes. Members of this House have shared posts on social media of images of political leaders being “dog-walked” or controlled by Israeli politicians or the Zionist lobby. This draws on stereotypes of Jewish power and control, and alludes to some kind of malign Jewish influence. These classic antisemitic tropes have existed for thousands of years, but are continually being repackaged and updated to fit the contemporary political context.

In the Budget debate, the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) talked about her constituents “bleeding…dry”, because of our Government’s support of Israel, and we also heard a Member of this House talk about Israel’s—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I want to make sure that protocol has been followed. First, we obviously do not mention Members by their names, not that the hon. Member has done that. She has, however, referred to a few Members by their constituencies, so can I have her assurance that she let them know that she would be referencing them in the Chamber during this debate?

[Joani Reid]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I can confirm that I have written to all the Members I have included in my speech.

Another Member talked about Israel’s “blood-soaked tentacles”. There is no safe limit of antisemitism that we should tolerate, and no requirement for us to apply weaker moral tests of what is an acceptable opinion because of the religious heritage of our interlocutor. Human rights apply universally, and so do human responsibilities. We need to enforce those responsibilities before it is too late. The warning lights are already flashing. We do not have to look back to the 1930s to see how democracies can crash under the burden of political extremism and contempt for the rule of law, because we see that in the news every day.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to speak in this debate and to follow such passionate speeches, including that of the hon. Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid). I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) not only on such an eloquent introduction to this debate, but on such an interesting history of the persecution of Jews in Britain for the best part of 1,000 years. That was very informative and provided a much-needed context for our discussion.

Many Members spoke about the individuals, charities and organisations working tirelessly to ensure that the nation and schoolchildren in particular are educated about the Holocaust and will not forget it. As the average age of Holocaust survivors is 87, it is very prescient that the Holocaust Memorial Day theme is “Bridging Generations”. The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust plays a vital role in ensuring that remembrance is not limited to those whose families were murdered in the Holocaust, but includes those who, having been mercilessly killed by the Nazis, were left with no one to speak their names. The legacy of victims with no surviving family or relatives must be safeguarded through education, remembrance and memorial.

If the words “never again” are to mean anything, they must represent a shared commitment to challenge hatred wherever it appears. Sadly, this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day comes against a backdrop of rising antisemitism. Jewish people in the UK are facing unacceptable and rising levels of hatred and violence—and I know from speaking to my constituents in Winchester just how isolating and frightening that can be. No one should feel anxious or scared when going to their place of worship and no one should be denied the freedom to express their religious beliefs. It ought to be a national shame that we need security measures outside places of worship, but with the murder of two members of the Jewish community just last year outside their synagogue, those measures are, unfortunately, necessary.

For so many British Jews, Holocaust Memorial Day is deeply personal. It is a day of grief, of remembrance and of resilience. Primo Levi wrote:

“The story of the death camps should be understood by everyone as a sinister alarm-signal.”

While hatred and division persist, that alarm signal must be in our minds today, and must remain in our minds for generations to come. On my way to the Chamber today, I walked past the very moving exhibition in Parliament of the replicas of the shoes of people who were killed in those death camps. Some of those shoes are of little children. That is a stark and haunting reminder of what the Holocaust required. The Holocaust depended on the systematic dehumanisation of its victims, casting human beings as non-human to justify the unjustifiable. To murder millions, the Nazi state had to treat even little children not as children with names, families and futures, but as something less than human.

In this Chamber and in our communities, schools and neighbourhoods, let us all stand with Jewish communities, because antisemitism has no place in our country or abroad. We must do all we can to ensure that Jewish people can practise their faith freely, live openly and participate fully in our society without fear. We remain today, and will always remain, committed to creating a society that never stops learning from the lessons of history.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Prinsley]

It has been an immense privilege and honour to listen to the many brilliant speeches in the House this afternoon. I thank anybody who said anything kind about me.

I have made some notes about what people said—there is no time to go through all of them, but I must mention one or two. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) spoke with such gravitas; I think she has a future as a distinguished rabbi, should she ever wish to go out of politics, which she perhaps will not. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) spoke about Peter Kurer BEM, who is my sister-in-law’s father. He will be so chuffed to learn that he was mentioned here in Parliament, and I thank the hon. Member for that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) spoke about the Windermere children. We all know that story, but Samantha, who was a University of East Anglia student, became a close friend. She is one of the granddaughters of a Windermere boy, so it was great to hear about that. We will never forget the Heaton heroes.

If there is time, let me quickly explain Bevis Marks, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake). Bevis Marks in the City of London should actually be “Bury Marks”, but I have to stop.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

No, you don’t!

[Peter Prinsley]

Oh, there is time! In that case, I will tell hon. Members the story. The great Abbey of Bury St Edmunds had large landholdings all over the country, including land in the City of London. Wooden stakes were put out each year to define the land, which were called the Bury marks. “Bevis Marks” is simply a spelling mistake.

Local Government Reorganisation

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for her questions. I reassure her that I have imposed nothing. I took representations and listened to local councils, and today I am merely responding to the representations that I heard. Most councils will go ahead. It is the councils themselves that have reassured me that they have the resources to go ahead with elections and deliver the reorganisation that is so important to improving frontline services for local people. I am acting on the information that they have given me; I am imposing nothing. She will, I hope, appreciate that it is not appropriate or possible for me to comment on legal proceedings.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Today’s announcement raises three questions about waste, incompetence and trust in democracy.

First, on waste, councils across the country have already committed significant public money in good faith to preparing for these elections, which the Government repeatedly assured them would go ahead. Cancelling them at this late stage is not cost-free. Will the Secretary of State commit today to reimbursing councils in full for every pound spent as a result of these cancellations, or are local taxpayers now expected to pick up the bill for ministerial indecision?

Secondly, on incompetence, will the Minister—who repeatedly told hon. Members, including at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on 11 November and during oral questions in the Chamber on 24 November, that elections scheduled for May 2026 would go ahead—explain why a U-turn happened a few weeks later, in December? What new information came to light between November and December that prompted that change of heart?

Finally, on trust in democracy, councillors in West Sussex will serve for six instead of four years. That is not the “short period” stated by the Secretary of State. In 2021, the world was a very different place. We were at the peak of the Boris bounce. The electoral map and the world have changed dramatically since then. When public trust in politicians is low, it can never be right for those who are up for re-election to decide whether they want to face their electorate. Today’s decision undermines trust in elections and in democracy. Surely the Secretary of State can see that this plays into the hands of those who want to undermine our democratic institutions.

New Towns

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I will not introduce a formal time limit, but if Members keep their speeches to under eight minutes, that will help everybody else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With a speaking limit of seven minutes, I call Chris Curtis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

I think my hon. Friend knows fairly well! But Harlow is nearly the oldest new town.

Harlow might not be the best new town—well, I think it is, although probably not if you are a fan of being able to park your car anywhere near your house—but it absolutely is the new town with the biggest heart. I hope when the Government consider the creation of a new generation of new towns, they will look at the things that did work in Harlow. Creating a new town is not just about bricks and mortar, about trees and gardens; it is about people and communities too. I am proud to represent Harlow and its history, but I am determined for it to have a strong future.

The Government’s commitment last year to ensuring that Harlow is the permanent home of the UK Health Security Agency is huge. As I mentioned earlier, the decline of the manufacturing industry has had an impact on Harlow. We still have some fantastic industry, including Raytheon and other important businesses, but the decline has affected us. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friends about the need for continual investment in our new towns, so that they survive and thrive, and for their long-term stewardship.

Let me give the House one interesting fact about Harlow before I wind up my remarks. Harlow has a fantastic cycle network—of course, it needs more investment, and I will always push Essex county council to continue investing in it—and thanks to that network, as well as to our green wedges and green fingers areas, which are hugely important to the sense of community, it is possible to get from one side of Harlow to the other without ever going on a main road.

Everybody deserves a place in the history of Harlow—even those who, like me, came to Harlow from afar. Together, we are the perfect blend.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That sounded more like a maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Baker]

I could not agree more. In Scotland’s new towns, railway stations are either not there at all or are a great distance away from the town centre. We have to learn those lessons for the future.

On issues in town centres, the Kingdom shopping centre in Glenrothes is the centre and the high street of the town, but it is ageing. It needs investment in its infrastructure, and it requires a collective approach to offering new retail and entertainment opportunities. We need more community facilities in our housing estates, and we have an ageing housing stock, with homes that are not energy-efficient and are expensive to heat, in a town where 20% of children are living in relative poverty. That is one of many strains on low-income households in the town struggling with the increasing costs of living. That is why it is so important that this Government took action on energy bills. The fact that housing stock in new towns is too often aged and needs to be improved is a key issue in that policy area.

The sad reality is that years of under-investment in local authorities under a Scottish National party Government have resulted in a housing crisis across Scotland. Glenrothes, which was established in the first place to address these challenges, is no exception. Fife council has a housing stock of around 30,000 properties but a waiting list of around 13,000 people, which is badly affecting so many of my constituents in Glenrothes, yet the Scottish Government’s budget, announced on Tuesday, gave a rise of just 2% to local authorities. That is despite record-breaking block grants for the Scottish Government, with Labour delivering an additional £10.3 billion for public services in Scotland since the last election. A 2% increase for councils will not address the challenges faced by new towns in Scotland.

After all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch said, these towns are not new any more—they are not preserved in aspic. They need investment. The establishment of new towns shows that change is inevitable but that the principles and values which inspired their creation remain constant. We need to hold on to the ideals that created Glenrothes and other new towns in the first place: we need to continue to strive for progress, growth and modernity in our built infrastructure, as well as in our transport connectivity and our public services—in education and health in our new towns. For that, we need leadership from Government at all levels. In Scotland, that means a Scottish Government with a vision to actively support local authorities that have responsibility for new towns, like Fife council, to achieve the positive change that our new towns are badly in need of. That means investment. That is why we need a Scottish Government capable of making new towns like Glenrothes feel new again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) mentioned that it is his mother’s birthday. I have been given an update: she is called Yvonne Bonavia. Happy birthday, Yvonne.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Sam Rushworth.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am often last with my contributions, but hopefully not least. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for an excellent opening speech, as well as other colleagues—in particular those from new towns—who have spoken. I represent a town that was founded in the seventh century, and I am really proud of our history and heritage, but something that has really struck me as many of my colleagues have spoken is the importance of neighbourhood and community in what makes a great town.

This Government’s plan to build 12 new towns is a positive change from the short-termism, lack of ambition and decline that we have experienced over the past decade and a half. For too long, Britain’s lack of affordable housing has been put in the “too difficult” box, where challenges are tinkered with but the big, difficult decisions are perpetually delayed and politicians do what is easy for now, rather than what is right for the future. I welcome this Government’s decision to restore the dream of home ownership for the rising generation. We will have new towns, new transport infrastructure in the north, which was announced yesterday, and new, home-grown clean energy that will, over time, mean that energy bills make up a smaller share of household incomes—a new Britain.

Although we will get new homes, there will not be a new town in County Durham, as other areas need them more. However, the whole country will benefit from not just the economic growth, but their potential to modernise our country. As others have said, when these towns are built, I hope that they are truly 21st-century towns for a new era—beautiful, green and harnessing the best of British ingenuity. I was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), who spoke eloquently about what those towns should look like.

I have come here today with one simple ask: that every new town be sustainably built, with a modern district heating network. That is not radical or a new or untested approach to providing cheaper and lower-carbon power. The Government announced last year six areas that will be put on to heating networks, but I have not heard them mentioned in conjunction with the new towns.

In Denmark, 70% of houses are already connected to district heating networks. Some 75% of those are already using fully renewable green energy sources, and they have a goal of increasing that to 100% by 2030. The average Danish home on a district heating network has an average energy bill of £835 a year, which is around £1,000 less than the energy bill of the average home in the UK. In Germany, about 15% of homes are on district heating networks, but in cities such as Munich, Hamburg and Berlin the figure is closer to a third, with an ambitious goal to bring it up to a half. The very fact is that being part of a heating network is more energy-efficient, but energy efficiency grows when the most sustainable energy sources are used for the network.

I encourage the Government to look seriously at the opportunities presented by geothermal energy so that we do not risk being left behind. Germany has a goal to increase its geothermal energy tenfold by 2030. That can mean deep geothermal, where deep wells bring water to the surface at a very high temperature, such as at the Eden Project or United Downs in Cornwall. That is also used in Stoke-on-Trent’s heating system and in Southampton, where a city heating network draws from deep geothermal wells—I believe that project was set up by the Minister for Energy Security when he led Southampton city council. We can also use shallow geothermal, where water is passed through a heat exchanger. That includes places using mine water, such as in Gateshead or Lanchester Wines in Durham.

Geothermal can be done anywhere, but three of the new towns—Victoria North in Manchester, Leeds South Bank and Adlington—lend themselves particularly well to it because of their geology. Having listened to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), though, I can suggest other alternatives where the geography is even more advantageous.

The use of geothermal and heating networks would be beneficial to the UK’s just transition from oil and gas, since we have skilled workers in drilling and pipelines. The National Geothermal Centre and the Durham Energy Institute are world-leading in this area and on hand to work with the Government to develop the right solutions. Imagine moving into a new home in a new town, knowing that it has 100 years of free heating flowing through the pipes from under the ground.

I gently ask that the Government seriously consider looking at how these new towns and their infrastructure draw their energy. Doing so will benefit the efforts that we are making in other parts of the country, including in Durham, to be part of this national story of renewal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for a really engaging speech about how it is the people who invest their lives in the community who make it what it is—a sentiment that I am sure we all share. I have learnt a great deal more about new towns from hon. Members across the House, and it has been a privilege to listen to the debate.

In our manifesto, the Liberal Democrats committed to 10 new garden cities, so we welcome this debate and the Government’s ambitions for new towns—depending on how they are implemented, of course. It is vital to have a new generation of major communities, given the terrible state of affordability that the housing sector got into under the Conservative Government. That is why we have a big ambition of 150,000 social homes per year, which is above the Government’s current target. However, new towns must not come at the expense of existing communities and towns. My hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches are engaging in a positive and constructive spirit with a range of new towns on their boundaries, alongside the Government and local communities.

New towns must deliver in social terms—the homes provided—but also environmentally and economically, as the mark 1, 2 and 3 new towns did so successfully. In our view, three critical principles need to be met: new towns must be environmentally ambitious, they must be successful in social terms—that means infrastructure— and there must be long-term financial investment. That investment must be sufficient to ensure that housing is genuinely affordable and will offer a decent home in a good environment, in all senses of that word, as hon. Members have expressed it in many different ways throughout the debate.

On environmental ambition, I regret to say that garden cities seem to have been airbrushed out of this programme —unintentionally, I hope—in ways that are out of keeping with the post-war new towns programme. What was originally called the town garden in Stevenage was a great reflection of how the garden city principle informed and provided the basis for the new towns. The Garden City Association campaigned for a new towns programme before the war. Now it is the Town and Country Planning Association—I should probably declare an interest as an honorary, voluntary vice-president of that organisation.

Garden cities are not just words; as we have heard, they were the basis of the new towns of Letchworth and Welwyn, and of many others. “Let the countryside invade the town” was one of Ebenezer Howard’s cries. I often wonder whether he wrote those words at the very desk that is in front of me, because his day job was as a parliamentary Clerk. In his spare time, he wrote a radical piece called “To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform”. It did not sell very well, so a year later he renamed it “Garden Cities of To-morrow”, and that book laid the foundation for the garden cities and new towns that were to be built throughout the country. He was surely right to espouse a vision of how people and nature, town and country, and society and the environment can thrive together. He was right then, and surely that vision is right now.

These new towns must set the highest standards for nature protection. They need well-insulated homes that are cheap to run, with solar panels on the roof, as promoted by the sunshine Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). They need district heating and cheap heat, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) pointed out—that is good for the planet, as is good public transport that does not pollute and jam up the roads.

Those ideas were pioneered by many of the garden cities. As the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) explained well, the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation endowed the environment with assets and resources so that it would continue to be protected into the future. For over 100 years, as he said, that trust has been able to fund and care for the environment and put money back into Letchworth as a community. That provided a great model. In another reflection of how garden cities provided the basis for new towns, Milton Keynes’ Parks Trust does exactly the same thing. Where such estates have not been sold off, as has been described in relation to other new towns, that is an incredibly successful model. As Members have said, it is vital to endow the public realm and the environment with the resources and investment needed to sustain them for 100 years.

Turning to social impacts and infrastructure, we Liberal Democrats would like to ask the Minister how councils and communities are going to make decisions about the impacts of the new towns. Any spatial development strategy is going to come after the event, as the new towns have already been designated. Parish councils such as Somerton in Oxfordshire, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) is working hard to advocate for, have pointed out a range of simultaneous proposals in Oxfordshire, including the Oxfordshire strategic rail freight interchange, 280,000 square metres of warehousing at Baynards Green—which, coincidentally, is being considered today by Cherwell district council—the Puy du Fou leisure park, and many other developments that will collectively generate 47 million additional trips per year. The Government are engaged in the ongoing strategic environmental assessment, which I welcome, and it may assess some of the impacts, but there is no plan that involves local authorities in resolving these decisions, in taking decisions about how the new towns, such as Heyford Park in Oxfordshire, will land in their midst, and in considering how such developments will affect the existing network and hierarchy of towns and communities. There is a missing link with strategic planning, and it needs to be put back. That would allow the community-led approach to these developments that we want to see and allow affected local authorities to have their say. After all, the location for Milton Keynes was negotiated between central and local government.

As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch said, it is vital to respect the identities of the places in which these new towns are located. Will the Minister commission a rapid sub-regional plan process for the councils in each of these locations so that they can resolve the issues? He has already indicated that he may, but will he visit in due course all these locations, so that he can engage with the local communities concerned? As other Members have asked, will he confirm—I think he said he said that he was thinking about it—that the planned housing numbers will indeed count towards local plan targets imposed by the Government’s standard method? It will be impossible for local leaders and local councils to develop these new towns at the same time as trying to deliver the impossible housing targets that many of them are facing. There is a 41% increase in local plan numbers in my Somerset council area alone, for example.

On social impacts within towns, the pre-war garden cities and post-war new towns were 90% social housing. In the Select Committee, the Minister indicated that the Government may be walking back from the 40% affordable housing target. What is the minimum that they will accept?

Infrastructure is needed by new and existing towns, particularly those affected by these plans. For example, Ardley station is needed to serve the Heyford Park new town and the existing community. Other forms of infrastructure also too often go missing, and that is true not just of new towns. For urban extensions, promised and needed GP surgeries have never come forward, including in Orchard Grove in my Taunton and Wellington constituency and in Bicester in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock. Will the Government ensure that existing communities will not lose out on GP surgeries as a result of new towns being given those facilities? These vital relationships with existing communities need to be resolved. Infrastructure for transport, water, energy, health and active travel must come first, and before the housing.

Let me turn to the financial support that these developments will need if they are to be successful. All these things cost money—we recognise that. We are therefore disappointed that the Minister, I think, said to the Select Committee that there is no pot for new town funding, and that poses a real risk that the £3.9 billion a year funding for the affordable housing programme will be used to fund the new towns programme, inevitably taking money away from other areas. Although the land value capture model that the Government are promoting is welcome and we support it, it will not be enough.

As many Government Members will know, the original post-war new towns had significant, 60-year Treasury loans. They were worth about £4.7 billion; that is about £140 billion today. Those loans were repaid—not just in full, but with a surplus coming back to the Treasury. The bulk of it was repaid in 1999. Since then, almost another £1 billion has been repaid from further land sales and receipts from that investment. It is a sound investment. No doubt the Treasury will say, “Don’t worry, the market can deal with this. We don’t need any public money.” But markets do not look 50, 60 or 100 years ahead. Markets do not know how to build communities with facilities for real people—the kind of people that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch spoke about. We need long-term financial investment from the Government so that these schemes will be successful. Without it, we risk repeating some of the failures of the past.

We stand ready to work with this Government in a constructive way on their new towns programme, but only if it provides the financial investment that is needed so that it is a success and, crucially, so that existing towns do not lose out. It must commit to long-term investment over and above land value capture, so that local councillors and mayors are not left out in the cold, trying to promote these projects with one arm tied behind their back. Finally, the programme must recognise that, in a society under threat from climate change, environmental ambition needs to be at the forefront, learning from the very best of the garden city ideals.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Indices of Deprivation: England

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Webb]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words; I think we all know it across the parties in this House. We see it in our mailbags every week, in our casework and from the thousands and thousands of individuals who reach out to us for help when they have nowhere else to turn.

Aspiration is not the problem. In February, I hosted Blackpool’s biggest ever jobs fair, welcoming 4,000 jobseekers and over 100 employers, with more than 1,500 roles on offer. Five hundred positions were filled on the day and another 500 positions were filled later on. The indices highlight a lack of good jobs, not a lack of work ethic.

Meanwhile, the IoD’s education domain captures how disadvantage reproduces itself in Blackpool. Residents are concerned about access to quality education, SEND support, post-16 pathways, adult literacy, mental health in schools and workplaces, and the impact of deprivation on learning. These are the mechanisms by which neighbourhoods remain at the bottom of indices for generations.

This February, I will host my jobs fair again, with a sharper focus on career pathways and quality employment, showing what local employers, community partners and political will can achieve. But even with the greatest opportunities on our doorstep, residents are on the back foot from childhood, with disadvantaged school pupils falling furthest behind. Just over half of Blackpool pupils achieve expected standards at key stage 2. At GCSE, Blackpool’s average Attainment 8 score is among the lowest in the country.

Fewer than half our young people achieve a strong pass in English and maths, compared with nearly two thirds nationally.

The indices’ health deprivation and disability domain measures premature deaths, hospital admissions, disability and mental ill health. Some 58.5% of neighbourhoods in Blackpool fall within the 10% most deprived nationally on this measure. Men in Blackpool have the lowest life expectancy in England, with our current toddlers, my son included, not expected to reach the age of 74—a decade less than their peers in Hampshire. I am not going to let that stand.

Severe mental illness rates are shockingly high: in 2018-19, more than 500 people were admitted to hospital for intentional self-harm, and suicide rates among men were the second highest in the country. By 2022-23, Blackpool had the highest prevalence of GP-diagnosed depression in England, and 6,300 people are now claiming personal independence payment for psychiatric disorders—the highest level in Lancashire and in the top 10 nationally.

Health services are at breaking point, and there is a clear human impact—like there was for Jamie Pearson, who tragically took his own life in Blackpool hospital, after waiting nearly 24 hours in A&E during a mental health crisis. Every day I deal with constituents battling to access not only mental health support but a dentist, a GP or hospital care.

People turn to me when there is nowhere left to turn to—people like Steven, himself a mental health nurse, who contacted me after developing serious neurological symptoms. Despite repeated warnings, his first neurology appointment is scheduled for October 2026. This case of a frontline worker who wants to work and support our NHS, but is being failed by it, demonstrates how poor health, economic inactivity and deprivation reinforce one another.

The indices of deprivation crime domain shows that crime and antisocial behaviour are concentrated in areas of multiple deprivation. Similarly, a recent report by the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods notes that crime persists in areas facing persistent poverty, under-investment and neglect. In such places, residents report concerns about antisocial behaviour, illegal drugs and safety, and feel less connected and optimistic—people like Chantelle, who endured two years of threats and antisocial behaviour in Bloomfield, a neighbourhood ranked 12th out of 33,755 neighbourhoods of the indices of deprivation. Despite repeated police involvement, she and her neighbours felt unsafe, but could not move because of financial barriers.

We also know what works. In Brunswick ward, which is within the ninth most deprived neighbourhood nationally, Blackpool’s multi-agency youth antisocial behaviour working group reduced youth-related incidents by 45% through targeted interventions, alongside the work of the brilliant PACT—police and communities together—meetings led by Brian Robinson. Scaling up that approach, with co-ordinated, cross-Government strategies and devolved funding, can make deprived neighbourhoods safer, stronger and more connected.

Perhaps the biggest problem that this Government could tackle to improve life for my constituents is housing, which directly impacts poverty, health, education, employment and so much more. The IOD’s barriers to housing and services domain captures affordability and access, while the living environment domain measures housing quality, air quality and road safety. More than one in four cases that my office handles relates to housing or the living environment, because poor housing and unhealthy environments reinforce disadvantage at every turn.

Blackpool council has done some good work building new council houses in areas such as Grange Park, where my grandparents, Dougie and Maggie, were some of the first to collect their keys when the post-war estate was built. Now, new generations of families have the same opportunity to have quality, secure homes, but we still have a huge shortage: a stock of only 5,000 social homes and 12,000 people on the waiting list. More than 20,000 households privately rent, many in properties well below standard, and thousands live in damp and unsafe conditions.

Chelsea was seven months pregnant when she was served with a section 21 notice. She could not raise a deposit for other private rentals, and her bid for social housing was unsuccessful. Saleem lost a leg and was forced into a care home, separated from his family for almost a year because there were no adapted homes available. Meanwhile, Tia and her two young children were placed in a B&B with no cooking facilities, where her baby’s health deteriorated. I see these situations every day.

Investment in homes and streets is not a luxury; it is the foundation for better lives, safer communities and opportunities. Recent Pride in Place funding offers hope but, as I told the Secretary of State just the other week, one scheme is not enough. Blackpool is suited to multiple, targeted, place-based interventions to address housing, the environment and opportunities. It is also exactly the kind of place that should have benefited from the Government’s new fair funding formula. Instead, the local government finance settlement will potentially harm some of the most deprived communities further.

My council also informs me that the new formula disproportionately penalises deprived northern and coastal towns. We need a fair, progressive new system if we are to radically change lives. I will work with the Department further in the run-up to February to see what more can be done.

Overall, 82% of neighbourhoods in the most deprived decile in 2025 were also there in 2019. Only a handful of constituencies have shifted position at either end of the scale. It is clear from these statistics that we must do something different to tackle entrenched deprivation. We must put our money where our mouth is with targeted, long-term, place-based investment, guided by the indices. Moving beyond short-term pots to multi-year investment, tied to measurable outcomes like better jobs, improved health, higher educational attainment and a narrowing of the life expectancy gap, is essential, and that must be done on a scale that meets the extent of the problem.

Blackpool has enormous pride and potential. Despite the challenges captured in the statistics, people in our town will not be defined by them. Our communities are strong, our young people are ambitious, and our organisations drive change every day. This spirit of resilience and determination is the foundation on which renewal can be built. With the right support, investment and political will, that local energy can be harnessed to transform opportunity, improve lives and rewrite the story of our town. The people of Blackpool are doing their bit and, by showing us where the need is greatest, the indices have done theirs; now the Government must do their bit, too. With enough political will, Blackpool does not have to be a poster child for deprivation; it can be the poster child for renewal. If the Government can turn around Blackpool, they can turn around the country, and if Blackpool succeeds, Britain succeeds.

I take this opportunity to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers, alongside all the staff in this place, but especially the staff in my office—Wendy, Holly, Antonia, Kate, Luke, Grace and Amber—for all their work. I wish all staff and all Members across this House a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I second that. I call the Minister, whom it is good to see here, and not writing her new Christmas cards.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) for securing this important debate, for the eloquent and passionate way that he talks about the issues in Blackpool, and for the powerful way that he champions voices from his community. I concur completely that his community will never be forgotten by this Labour Government.

Coastal communities such as Blackpool are a vital part of our national identity, serving as a reminder of our national pride and shared maritime history. However, we know that behind these places lies another story, as my hon. Friend has rightly pointed out. The new indices of multiple deprivation show the challenges faced by all areas across the country, but particularly by coastal communities, which feature as a distinct category of concentrated deprivation in England. Blackpool features prominently in the new indices of deprivation, as my hon. Friend has demonstrated; seven of its areas are among the 10 most deprived neighbourhoods nationally. That is a sobering statistic that shines a spotlight on the issues that my hon. Friend has highlighted.

My Government are acutely aware of the multidimensional challenges that these communities face, and we are committed to doing our part to reverse them. The Government’s mission is to tackle inequality and unlock the full potential of all our communities, including those like Blackpool, to ensure that they play a vital role in our economy and our future, and so that they are not held back.

Through long-overdue reforms to the local government finance system, we will redirect around £2 billion of funding to places and communities that need it most, enabling councils to reliably deliver for their residents. Blackpool, for example, will see an 11% increase in its core spending power between 2025-26 and ’28-29, but we recognise that more needs to be done to reverse a decade and a half of under-investment in my hon. Friend’s community. We also recognise that delivery costs vary across the country, with deprivation, remoteness, variance in the ability to raise tax locally and the impact of commuters and tourists all affecting how hard it can be to deliver services in seaside towns like Blackpool. That is why we are committed to ensuring that these factors are accounted for in future funding allocations.

We are also delivering a wide range of programmes to address economic, social and health disparities across the country. Our £5 billion Pride in Place programme, which my hon. Friend spoke about, will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support over the next decade to 244 deprived communities. Little Layton and Little Carleton in Blackpool South will receive up to £20 million in funding over 10 years. Fleetwood town in Blackpool North and Fleetwood will also receive up to £20 million over the next 10 years. That funding will be used by each local community, based on its set priorities, to lift up the community, invest in regeneration plans and build community wealth.

Across the country, the Pride in Place programme will help communities improve cultural venues, health and wellbeing services, and local infrastructure. It will champion local leadership, foster community engagement and strengthen social cohesion. It will also give people agency, voice and power to drive the change they want to see in their places. We are also providing funding to Blackpool through our Pride in Place impact fund, which will provide £1.5 million of investment over the next two years to restore pride in place, support communities and stimulate local economic activity through visible, short-term, community-led improvements.

My hon. Friend raised the critical challenge of housing. He is right that good, decent housing is foundational; it is the rock on which people can build a life and get ahead. The Government understand the need to build more homes, and more social housing in particular. That is why we have outlined a plan to support the largest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation and transform the safety and quality of existing social homes. A new 10-year, £39-billion social and affordable homes programme has also been confirmed —the largest long-term investment in social housing in recent memory. That is an important first step, but we know that more needs to be done.

Tackling deprivation is the work of the whole Government. My Department will play its part, but it is an endeavour across every single Department, with a range of targeted measures across health, poverty, employment and antisocial behaviour. Over 1 million children will be lifted out of poverty as a result of the Government’s historic child poverty strategy, which tackles the root causes of poverty by cutting the cost of essentials, boosting family incomes and improving local services so that every child has the best start in life.

Funding has also been made available by the Department for Work and Pensions to support Blackpool residents who are struggling with rising living costs via the household support fund. That will support those vulnerable households in most need of help with the cost of living.

The Government are acutely aware of the crime and antisocial behaviour located in areas of multiple deprivation. On crime, we have committed to five core missions that seek to address some of the fundamental challenges that society will face over the next 10 years. The safer streets mission will tackle serious crime. It will halve violence against women and girls, halve knife crime, and restore confidence in policing and the criminal justice system. It is focused on addressing both harm and confidence in parallel by taking a whole-system approach. Tackling antisocial behaviour is at the heart of the mission. We are determined to rebuild confidence through investment in neighbourhood policing. We will also be at the forefront of the fight against antisocial behaviour.

On employment deprivation, which my hon. Friend talked about so eloquently, our “Get Britain Working” White Paper focuses on building a thriving labour market, reducing economic inactivity and increasing the number of people in work, which is central to growing the economy. Backed by £240 million of funding announced in the 2024 Budget, the White Paper sets out the biggest reforms to employment support for a generation.

The Government are absolutely committed to tackling entrenched health inequalities through targeted support for coastal communities. We understand and appreciate the specific challenges in our coastal communities, which is why the Coastal Navigators Network was launched by the NHS in 2024, in response to a report by the chief medical officer, to help tackle the acute health challenges facing coastal towns. It reflects the need to tailor our approach to the specific challenges of coastal communities, which can include poor transport and housing, economic decline and a high prevalence of residents with complex conditions.

We understand the acute challenges that our most deprived communities face—our coastal communities doubly so. We are taking significant steps to tackle deprivation in communities such as Blackpool, but we are open to hearing more ways in which we can play our part in supporting communities to grow, improve and thrive. I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing this debate; I look forward to hearing more from him and to working with him to ensure that we tackle the challenge of Blackpool. He is right: when Blackpool does well, the rest of the country is doing well. I look forward to hearing more when I visit in the new year.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and the rest of the House a very merry Christmas.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the final time this year, at the end of the final Adjournment debate of 2025, I shall put the Question that this House do now adjourn. Happy Christmas, everybody.

Question put and agreed to.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The time limit for speeches is now three minutes.

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

I will speak in favour of new clause 38, which I tabled. It seeks to introduce measures to prevent developers from using their own surveyors who have a vested interest in downgrading agricultural land in order to secure planning permission—particularly for solar farms—to build all over our countryside, taking farmers’ land and livelihoods.

The new clause was born out of a specific issue that was raised with me in my constituency. In Washford, a farmer called Mr Dibble—no kidding—has a farm in his family’s name. They have been there for generations. Some time ago, developers came to see him with a plan for development on the farm, and he refused. His lease is guaranteed for another generation, but the solar farm developers did not seem to care. He reached out to me because of the unfairness of the situation. I was shocked to find out that the developers had organised a surveyor to visit his property, who had deemed it sub-par agricultural land. Anyone with eyes can see that that is not the case. Farmer Dibble would not have been able to grow the crops that he has on that land had it been of the quality that the developers claimed it was. His land is grade 1 or 2 at the very least, yet surveyors are coming in, paid for by the developers, to say that—surprise, surprise—it is grade 3 at best.

At present, local authorities’ hands are tied. They have no powers to order independent assessments of land quality, nor the ability to pass judgment on the assessments made by others. My new clause seeks to give them that power. It also seeks to enshrine the employment of a land use framework for planning and development decisions. Along with many others in this place, I am sure, I am still waiting to hear the results of the land use framework consultation from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I hope that it follows the principles set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). If a development is proposed for agricultural land that falls outside the land use framework and there are competing assessments of the agricultural grade of that land, then new clause 38 would give local authorities the power to demand that a new, independent assessment of land quality be undertaken. That would stop the railroading of farmers and help to preserve good agricultural land, rather than seeing it built over.

Our farmers are our future. I call on hon. Members to back new clause 38 and new clause 17, which has been tabled in the name of my party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I welcome the opportunity this debate offers to lift our eyes to the bigger picture of what a better, fairer country might look like. New clause 13 on the charter for community rights, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), does exactly that, and it represents the sort of change my constituents in Poole are crying out for. It rests on two simple, but transformative principles: first, that communities in England deserve a real say in the places where they live, with a legally enshrined right to challenge local decisions that shape their lives; and, secondly, that people should enjoy basic rights, including the right to a clean, healthy environment and the right to a decent home.

A legal right to a quality home in a healthy environment may not sound like a lot to ask in the sixth richest country in the world, but it is a million miles from the lived reality of so many of our constituents. Poor housing, alongside access to decent healthcare, stable incomes and healthy food, is one of the core social determinants of ill health. Enshrining the rights to a healthy environment and a quality home in law would support the kind of cross-government approach we urgently need to reduce health inequalities. Those rights can be seen in the same vein as the long-awaited socioeconomic duty, which requires public authorities to consider how their policies and decisions can reduce inequalities. Properly implemented, it could help address structured, avoidable disparities in housing and health. I urge the Government to introduce that duty as a matter of urgency.

A Labour Government must raise the bar: not simply building more housing, but building better homes in decent communities at a price that people can afford. That should be our legacy to future generations and it can start now.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Colleagues who have contributed to the debate should be here for the wind-ups. That is a notice. I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds]

I open by drawing the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I hold some voluntary roles in local government. I place on record my particular thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who served with such distinction on the Bill Committee.

Local government is the most efficient part of the public sector. It is uniquely democratically accountable among our public services. It is also uniquely financial constrained by the requirement for council budgets to balance in-year. We know that the average local authority delivers over 800 different services, which range from public health and child protection to housing the most vulnerable, trading standards, markets, parking and road maintenance. Councils empty the bins, recycle the waste, lend books and care for the elderly, but Governments rarely rise or fall based on what happens in the local government sector. It is not the most dramatic or glamorous part of our state, but day to day, as contributions from right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber have reflected, it probably has the most important impact in our constituents’ lives.

As we heard in Committee, and as we have heard in the amendments and in this debate, our local government is under unprecedented pressure due to this Government’s poor decisions. On the track record of my party in office, we saw local authorities using their discretion but for the most part seeking to keep council tax low, with the additional revenue from projects such as the new homes bonus, council tax freeze grant and the approach to business rate grant being implemented to support local businesses and local communities.

Today, with few exceptions across the sector, we see local authorities facing the maximum possible council tax rises, the maximum possible business rate increases and the maximum possible increases in fees and charges, against a backdrop where housing delivery, supposedly the Government’s top priority, has collapsed, despite a legacy of 1.5 million new homes—their target for the whole of the Parliament—with planning permission already granted. All this green belt-grey belt nonsense, which has caused such concern and anxiety to Members and our constituents, is entirely irrelevant. They already have an entire Parliament’s supply of homes with planning consent ready to build. The jobs tax has left our local authorities worse off by £1.5 billion net. It has driven up the cost of almost every local government service, from the care of the elderly and vulnerable children to the day-to-day maintenance of our roads and our environment.

Tonight, what we have before us is this Government’s botched and incoherent restructuring, with no clear vision of what local government in England is even for. When we consider the matters that we will press to a Division, new clause 69 on election cancellations and new clause 80 on statutory notices are among a very extensive list of options. We have heard from one or two Members that the retention of the committee system was democratically approved locally. Although measures adopting the Opposition’s proposals on councillors’ addresses make some minor improvements to the Bill, the cancellation of local elections is a clear example of a mess of the Government’s making.We support our local colleagues in making the best of the very difficult set of decisions that they have to take. However, having been told by Ministers—as the Opposition did when in office—that elections to local authorities that were due to be abolished would be cancelled, that was not what the Government then did. They simply deferred those elections for 12 months, making the waste of taxpayers’ money and the concern of local residents even greater, while raising the prospect of a lack of accountability as this important process goes through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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

I am privileged to be able to open this Third Reading debate following constructive debates on Report. Let me first reiterate my thanks to Members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful contributions during the Bill’s passage.

The Bill cements the Government’s commitment to powering up our regions, rebuilding local government and empowering our communities, which is fundamental to achieving the changes that our constituents expect and deserve: better living standards, improved public services and politics being done with communities, not to them. This Government’s ambition is to bring power and decision making closer to the people who know their areas best. The Bill will truly empower residents to shape the places where they live and work, and from fixing our broken local audit system to empowering mayors to unlock the economic potential of their places, it will set local government on a firmer footing and enable local leaders to deliver a decade of national renewal. These changes are long overdue, and we are now taking ambitious action where previous Governments have failed.

I extend my thanks to everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for his dedication and commitment to this agenda. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) for his leadership, and for the huge amount of work that he put into developing this impressive piece of legislation. I thank the Members on both sides of the House who scrutinised the Bill in such detail in Committee, and I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for his constructive and, for the most part, collaborative approach.

Let me also put on record my thanks to representatives of the wider local government sector, especially those who gave evidence earlier this year. They are critical actors in providing the frontline services that residents need and deserve, and, whether they are councillors, mayors, police and crime commissioners or third sector representatives, the House thanks them for their service. I hope that colleagues in the other place continue to take the same collaborative approach that has been taken in this House, and I wish Baroness Taylor of Stevenage the best with moving the Bill forward. I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister said something that was inaccurate during his statement on the G20 summit and Ukraine, when he wrongly said:

“The Green party…says that we should pull out of NATO”.

That is not correct. Our party policy explicitly says that we recognise that NATO, while imperfect and in need of reform, has an important role in ensuring the ability of member states to respond to threats to their security. We support the principle of international solidarity, whereby nations support one another through mutual defence alliances and multilateral security frameworks. Madam Deputy Speaker, what advice can you provide on the Prime Minister correcting the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. It is not a point of order for the Chair, but she has most definitely put her point on the record.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 44—Licensing functions of the Mayor of London.

New clause 2—Council tax: CAs and CCAs to be subject to same increase as most county and unitary councils—

“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 52ZC, after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) Where, for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State determines categories of authority for the year under consideration, one of the categories determined by the Secretary of State must include all mayoral combined authorities and CCAs (‘the CA and CCA category’).

(4B) Where the Secretary of State has determined a category that includes the majority of county and unitary councils (“a county and unitary category”), a principle that must be applied to the CA and CAA category is that the means of determining whether the relevant basic amount of council tax is excessive is the same as any means set out in a principle applied to the county and unitary category (but for the purposes of the determination references to any referendum principle for county and unitary councils that specifically relates to expenditure on adult social care should be discounted).’”

This new clause would limit increases in the mayoral precept according to similar principles limiting council tax increases.

New clause 4—Application of CIL to householders—

“(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 205 (The levy) after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) In making the regulations, the Secretary of State may not charge CIL on householders’ property extensions that are for their own use.

(2B) The Secretary of State must amend the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 so that they are in accordance with the requirements of subsection (2A).’”

This new clause disapplies CIL from householders extending property for their own use.

New clause 5—Power of mayors to convene meetings with local public service providers and government—

“(1) After section 17B of LURA 2023 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—

‘17C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government

(1) The mayor for the area of a CCA must convene regular meetings with—

(a) principal local authorities within their area,

(b) public service providers in their area, and

(c) town and parish councils within their area.

(2) A meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’

(2) After section 103B of LDEDCA 2009 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—

‘103C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government

(1) The mayor for the area of a combined authority must convene regular meetings with—

(a) principal local authorities within their area,

(b) public service providers in their area, and

(c) town and parish councils within their area.

(2) A meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’

(3) After section 40B of GLAA 1999 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—

‘40C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government

(1) The Mayor must convene regular meetings with—

(a) principal local authorities within their area,

(b) public service providers in their area, and

(c) town and parish councils within their area.

(2) A meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’”

This new clause would require mayors of combined authorities, mayors of CCAs, and the Mayor of London to regularly convene meetings with local government actors within their area.

New clause 7—Consideration of existing adult skills provision—

“(1) A strategic authority has a duty to consider—

(a) existing education and training provision for persons aged 16 to 19 in its area, and

(b) existing higher education provision in its area

when carrying out any function conferred on it by virtue of Schedule 10 to this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about how a strategic authority may comply with the duty under this section.”

This new clause would require strategic authorities to consider existing provision for 16 to 19 education and higher education in their area when exercising adult education functions.

New clause 8—Annual reporting on adult education funding—

“(1) A strategic authority exercising any function conferred on it by virtue of Schedule 10 of this Act must publish an annual report on its exercise of such functions.

(2) A report under this section must include—

(a) how a strategic authority has applied adult education funding to meet local skills needs;

(b) a summary of coordination arrangements with employer representative bodies and other skills providers within the authority;

(c) a summary of outcomes for adult learners and local employers regarding—

(i) learner achievement of qualifications and progression to employment or further learning,

(ii) employer satisfaction with the skills and capabilities of adult learners, and

(iii) the alignment between skills provision and identified local labour market needs.

(3) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about—

(a) any further content of, and

(b) publication of reports under this section.”

This new clause would require Strategic Authorities to publish annual reports on their exercise of adult education functions, demonstrating how public funding has been deployed, coordination arrangements with local skills providers, and outcomes achieved for adult learners and employers.

New clause 9—Authority involvement in local skills improvement plans—

“(1) Section 1 of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (7), after ‘relevant authority’ insert ‘and, where the specified area covers any of the area of a strategic authority, the strategic authority’.

(3) After subsection (7) insert—

‘(7A) Where a specified area covers any of the area of a strategic authority, the Secretary of State may approve and publish a local skills improvement plan for the specified area only if satisfied that—

(a) the strategic authority and the employer representative body for the area have exercised joint leadership in developing the plan,

(b) the plan has been agreed by both the strategic authority and the employer representative body, and

(c) the boundaries of the plan align with the strategic authority boundaries.

(7B) For the purposes of subsection (7A), ‘joint leadership’ means that—

(a) strategic priorities for skills development in the area are agreed by both the strategic authority and the employer representative body, and

(b) spending priorities relating to devolved adult education funding are jointly determined.

(7C) A local skills improvement plan may only be altered if both the strategic authority and the employer representative body agree to any proposed alterations.

(7D) Where there is disagreement between a Strategic Authority and an employer representative body exercising joint leadership under subsection (7A), either party may refer the matter to the Secretary of State, who may—

(a) issue guidance to resolve the disagreement;

(b) give directions to either or both parties to ensure effective coordination;

(c) require the parties to adopt alternative arrangements for decision-making;

(d) approve and publish a plan that addresses the disagreement.

(7E) In exercising functions under subsection (7D), the Secretary of State must have regard to—

(a) the effective delivery of post-16 technical education and training in the area,

(b) employer engagement in identifying local skills needs,

(c) value for money in delivery of services by Strategic Authorities, and

(d) democratic accountability of Strategic Authorities in delivering such services.’

(4) Section 4 of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows.

(5) In subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—

‘“strategic authority” has the meaning given by section 1(2) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025;’”.

This new clause would require Strategic Authorities to exercise joint leadership with employer representative bodies in developing Local Skills Improvement Plans. The amendment also requires Local Skills Improvement Plan boundaries to align with Strategic Authority boundaries to enable effective coordination and provides dispute resolution mechanisms where joint leadership arrangements encounter difficulties.

New clause 14—Policy delivery in areas of competence—

“(1) Any function of a mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority which—

(a) relates to an area of competence, and

(b) is not a mayoral function exercisable solely by the mayor

must be exercised by or under the direct authority of the constituent members of that authority.

(2) No person may be appointed to exercise any function that relates to making or delivering policy relating to an area of competence unless that person is an elected member of—

(a) the relevant strategic authority, or

(b) a constituent council within the relevant strategic authority.

(3) Nothing in this section is to be taken as preventing the appointment of staff by the strategic authority or its elected members for the purposes of administrative, advisory or technical support for the exercise of its functions.

(4) For the purposes of this section, “a constituent member” means any elected representative who is—

(a) appointed by a constituent council to be a member of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority;

(b) acting in the place of a person appointed under paragraph (a).”

This new clause provides that any policy delivery or development relating to an area of competence in a strategic authority is carried out by an elected representative.

New clause 15—Duty to ensure public trust and financial transparency—

“(1) The mayor for the area of a combined authority or combined county authority must take reasonable steps to ensure that information regarding the authority’s financial affairs, including its annual budget, significant expenditure, and financial performance, is made accessible to local communities in a clear and understandable manner.

(2) The mayor must publish a policy setting out how the combined authority or combined county authority will engage with local communities on its financial priorities and major spending decisions, and review this policy periodically.”

This new clause requires mayors of CAs and CCAs to ensure that financial information is accessible and understandable to local communities.

New clause 23—Transport authority functions: funding and support—

“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that relevant authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to transport conferred on them by this Act.

(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of those authorities in relation to their transport functions, taking into account the scale and complexity of those functions.

(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘functions relating to transport conferred on them by this Act’ means—

(a) functions of a local transport authority as described in Schedule 9, and

(b) any other functions reasonably connected with the transport.”

This new clause creates a requirement for regular reviews of the financial and administrative needs of authorities to carry out their transport functions.

New clause 24—Duty to publish and implement a forward devolution strategy—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, prepare and publish a forward devolution strategy (‘the strategy’).

(2) The purpose of the strategy is to set out the proposed timeline for the establishment of new strategic authorities, or the expansion of existing strategic authorities, in areas of England that are not currently within the area of an established mayoral strategic authority.

(3) The timeline set out in the strategy must include a period within which the Secretary of State intends to issue invitations or directions for proposals for the establishment or expansion of such new strategic authorities for those identified areas.

(4) Any annual report required under section 1 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 (inserted by section 19 of this Act) must include a statement on the progress made in implementing the strategy, including information on any revision of or replacement for the strategy.

(5) Before preparing, publishing, or revising the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the mayors for the areas of established mayoral strategic authorities; and

(b) the constituent councils of combined authorities and combined county authorities.”

This new clause would introduce a commitment to publish a strategy and timeline for further devolution.

New clause 25—Community infrastructure levy charges: guidance—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance for charging authorities on—

(a) the implementation and administration of community infrastructure levy charges;

(b) appropriate procedures for handling technical errors in the calculation, notification, or collection of community infrastructure levy charges; and

(c) best practice for resolving disputes relating to community infrastructure levy charges where technical errors have occurred.

(2) The guidance under subsection (1) must include—

(a) guidance on what constitutes a technical error in the context of community infrastructure levy charges;

(b) recommended procedures for reviewing and, where appropriate, waiving or reducing community infrastructure levy charges where a technical error has occurred;

(c) principles to guide the proportionate collection of community infrastructure levy payments when technical errors have been identified; and

(d) time limits for the rectification of technical errors.

(3) In this section—

‘charging authority’ has the meaning given in section 106 of the Planning Act 2008, as amended by Schedule 14 of this Act;

‘technical error’ means an error in the calculation, notification, or administration of a Community Infrastructure Levy charge that is not related to a material change in the development to which the charge applies.”

New clause 28—Regional governance—

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the establishment of a regional governance body in any part of England, where in the opinion of the Secretary of State there is demonstrable local support for such a body.

(2) Regulations made under this section must—

(a) provide that—

(i) a regional governance body is a body corporate,

(ii) the name of any such body is determined locally, and

(iii) the structure and membership of any such body is determined following consultation with people who live in the relevant part of England;

(b) confer functions upon a regional governance body in relation to—

(i) education and skills,

(ii) transport,

(iii) health and social care,

(iv) housing and planning, and

(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) in making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to—

(a) the promotion of effective and accountable regional governance,

(b) the identity and aspirations of the region concerned, and

(c) the principle of subsidiarity.

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would enable the establishment of regional governance bodies in parts of England, such as a Yorkshire Parliament or Cornish Assembly, with locally determined names and structures, and allow them to be conferred with responsibilities in areas including education, transport, health and housing, where there is local support.

New clause 29—Duty to contribute to delivery of nature, clean air and climate targets—

“(1) When exercising their functions, a strategic authority, mayor, or local authority must contribute to—

(a) meeting the targets and carbon budgets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(b) meeting the targets and interim targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021;

(c) meeting the limit values set under Schedule 2 of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; and

(d) the delivery of the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008.

(2) A strategic authority, mayor or local authority must not make any decision that is incompatible with the duty described in subsection (1).

(3) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance describing the contribution that each strategic authority should make toward meeting the targets listed in subsection (1).

(4) Guidance under subsection (3) must include clear metrics and measurable terms for strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to meet.”

This new clause requires strategic authorities, mayors, and local authorities to act in accordance with the statutory Climate Change Act and Environmental Act targets, carbon budgets, Air Quality Standards Regulations, and climate adaptation programme across their functions. The Secretary of State must publish guidance for defining authorities’ contributions towards these objectives.

New clause 30—Visitor levies—

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review into giving local authorities powers to introduce visitor levies within their area.

(2) The review in subsection (1) may only consider a visitor levy which directs receipts from the levy into the relevant authority’s general fund.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the review in subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament within 12 months of the passage of this Act.”

New clause 31—Overnight accommodation levy—

“(1) An EMSA may impose a levy on any overnight accommodation provided within the EMSA’s area (‘the OAL’).

(2) The levy is payable by persons staying for one or more night in exchange for payment in any—

(a) hotel;

(b) guest house, or bed and breakfast;

(c) self-catering accommodation;

(d) short-term let;

(e) campsite or caravan park;

(f) any other premises that the mayor of an EMSA may designate.

(3) Before introducing or modifying an OAL the mayor of an EMSA must consult such as persons as they consider necessary, which must include communities, business and organisations working in or affected by the tourism industry.

(4) The mayor of an EMSA may determine the rate and structure of an OAL, including concessionary rates and exemptions where they consider it appropriate.

(5) The mayor of than EMSA may specify arrangement relating to—

(a) the collection of the OAL,

(b) the administration of the OAL, and

(c) arrangements for circumstances in which the OAL is not complied with.

(6) Receipts from the OAL are to be paid into the general fund of the EMSA.

(7) Monies received under subsection (6) may be used by the mayor of the EMSA for the purposes of—

(a) promoting, developing and managing tourism within the EMSA area;

(b) enhancing infrastructure for the purposes of benefiting tourism in the area;

(c) supporting cultural, sporting and business activity;

(d) preserving or improving heritage assets;

(e) supporting economic growth in the EMSA area

provided that, in the view of the mayor of the EMSA, such use is consistent with the EMSA’s local growth plan.”

New clause 32—Greater London Authority: decision-making—

“(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended in accordance with this section.

(2) In section 42B (Assembly’s power to reject draft strategies), in subsection (5)(b), leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.

(3) In schedule 4A (Confirmation hearings etc)—

(a) in paragraph 10(5) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’;

(b) in paragraph 11(5) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.

(4) In schedule 6 (Procedure for determining the authority’s consolidated council tax requirement)—

(a) in paragraph 8(4) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’;

(b) In paragraph 8C(4) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.

(5) In schedule 7 (Procedure for making of substitute calculations by the authority), in paragraph 7(4), leave out ‘at least two thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.”

New clause 33—Joint planning committees—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for local authorities which share a border to establish a joint planning committee.

(2) Joint planning committees under subsection (1) may only consider planning applications which are within 0.5 miles of the adjacent authorities’ border.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish joint planning committees for adjacent authorities to jointly consider planning applications which are within 0.5 miles of their adjoining border.

New clause 39—Regulation of waterborne transport services by regional mayors—

“(1) A mayor for the area of a combined authority, combined county authority, or other mayoral strategic authority may exercise functions relating to waterborne transport services operating wholly within the authority’s area.

(2) Functions exercisable by a mayor may include—

(a) making regulations concerning the provision, operation, safety, accessibility, affordability, and reliability of waterborne transport services;

(b) requiring operators of waterborne transport services to provide such information as the mayor considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring or enforcing compliance with regulations made under paragraph 2(a);

(c) imposing and enforcing conditions relating to a requirement or duty imposed under this section;

(d) imposing and enforcing any penalties resulting from non-compliance with conditions set out under paragraph (2)(c);

(e) regulation of fares and fare structures for waterborne transport services, including imposing a fare cap;

(f) functions relating to accountability of waterborne transport services providers for the delivery and performance of services, including by holding public hearings or inquiries;

(g) any such additional functions as a mayor considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring effective regulation of waterborne transport services within an authority’s area.

(3) Before making regulations under this section, the mayor must consult—

(a) the constituent councils of the combined authority (or equivalent local authorities),

(b) any local transport authorities affected,

(c) operators of waterborne transport services within the area, and

(d) other such persons as the mayor considers appropriate.

(4) Regulations under this section may include provision for appeals against any enforcement action taken by the mayor.

(5) In this section ‘waterborne transport services’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that such specification must include—

(a) ferry services, and

(b) water taxi and private hire transport services,

which carry passengers by water between two or more places within the area of the authority.”

This new clause gives mayors of combined and other strategic authorities powers to regulate waterborne transport services in their areas, including the ability to cap fares.

New clause 41—Mayoral CAs and CCAs: any increase in council tax to be subject to referendum—

“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 52ZC, before subsection (1) insert—

‘(A1) A mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA’s relevant basic amount of council tax for a financial year must be determined to be excessive if the financial year is the first financial year in which the authority has charged a relevant basic amount of council tax.’

(3) At the beginning of subsection (1), for ‘The’ substitute ‘In any other case, the’.”

New clause 48—Regulation of ferry services by regional mayors—

“(1) A mayor for the area of a combined authority, combined county authority, or other mayoral strategic authority may exercise functions relating to ferry services operating wholly within the authority’s area.

(2) Functions exercisable by a mayor may include—

(a) making regulations concerning the provision, operation, safety, accessibility, affordability, and reliability of ferry services;

(b) requiring operators of ferry services to provide such information as the mayor considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring or enforcing compliance with regulations made under paragraph 2(a);

(c) imposing and enforcing conditions relating to a requirement or duty imposed under this section;

(d) imposing and enforcing any penalties resulting from non-compliance with conditions set out under paragraph (2)(c);

(e) regulation of fares and fare structures for ferry services, including imposing a fare cap;

(f) functions relating to accountability of ferry service providers for the delivery and performance of services, including by holding public hearings or inquiries;

(g) any such additional functions as a mayor considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring effective regulation of ferry services within an authority’s area.

(3) Before making regulations under this section, the mayor must consult—

(a) the constituent councils of the combined authority (or equivalent local authorities),

(b) any local transport authorities affected,

(c) operators of ferry services within the area, and

(d) other such persons as the mayor considers appropriate.

(4) Regulations under this section may include provision for appeals against any enforcement action taken by the mayor.

(5) In this section ‘ferry services’ means services for the carriage of passengers or vehicles by water between two or more places, all of which are within the area of the authority.”

This new clause gives mayors of combined and other strategic authorities powers to regulate ferry services in their areas, including the ability to cap fares.

New clause 58—Obligation to align decision-making with nature, air quality, and climate targets—

“(1) When exercising their functions, a strategic authority, mayor, or local authority shall refrain from taking any action or decision that would contradict—

(a) the fulfilment of the carbon budgets and targets established under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(b) the achievement of the environmental targets and interim targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021;

(c) compliance with the limit values provided for in Schedule 2 to the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; and

(d) implementation of the programme for adapting to climate change prepared under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008.

(2) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance describing the contribution that each strategic authority should make toward meeting the requirements in subsection (1).

(3) Guidance under subsection (2) must include clear metrics and measurable terms for strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to meet.”

This new clause places a duty on strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to operate consistently with the targets and requirements in the Climate Change Act, the Environment Act, the Air Quality Standards Regulations, and the statutory climate adaptation programme. The Secretary of State must publish guidance for defining authorities’ contributions towards these objectives.

New clause 60—Power to provide for an elected mayor to appoint a deputy mayor—

“(1) The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (section 107C) is amended as follows:

(2) In subsection (1), leave out “one of the members of the authority to be the mayor's deputy” and substitute ‘a deputy mayor’.

(3) In subsection (3)(c), leave out ‘the person ceases to be a member of the combined authority’ and insert ‘the person ceases to be a councillor of a constituent council of the authority’

(4) In subsection (4), leave out ‘another member of the combined authority’ and substitute ‘another councillor of a constituent council’.”

This new clause would amend section 107C of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 so that a mayor is no longer restricted to appointing a deputy mayor from among the leaders of the constituent local authority members of the Combined Authority.

New clause 61—Mayoral special advisers—

“(1) The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (section 15) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 15 (Definition of ‘special adviser’) insert—

‘15A Mayoral special advisers

(1) A mayor may appoint one mayoral special adviser

(2) A ‘mayoral special adviser’ is a person (‘P’) who holds a position within a mayoral strategic authority and whose appointment to that position meets the requirements in subsection (3).

(3) The requirements are—

(a) P is appointed to assist the Mayor after being selected by the Mayor personally;

(b) the appointment will end not later than—

(i) the day on which the Mayor ceases to hold office, or

(ii) if earlier, the end of the day after the day of the poll at the election following the appointment.

(4) The Secretary of State must publish a code of conduct for mayoral special advisers (‘the code’).

(5) Before publishing the code (or any revision of it) the Secretary of State must consult the Council of Nations and Regions.

(6) The code must provide that a mayoral special adviser may not—

(a) authorise the expenditure of public funds; or

(b) exercise any power in relation to the management of any part of the mayoral or strategic authority.

(7) The code must provide that a mayoral special adviser may—

(a) engage in political activity; and

(b) provide party-political advice to the Mayor.

(8) The code must form part of the terms and conditions of service of any mayoral special adviser.

(9) A person appointed under this section is not to be regarded, for the purposes of Part I of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political restriction of officers and staff), as holding a politically restricted post under a local authority.’”

This new clause would insert a new section into the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 to establish a statutory framework for the appointment of “mayoral special advisers”. It makes provision about appointment, function, code of conduct, and exemption from political restrictions.

New clause 62—Business Rates Supplement: mayoral authority—

“(1) The Business Rate Supplements Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 2(1) (levying authorities), for the definition substitute—

‘In this Act, ‘levying authority’ means—

(a) the Greater London Authority;

(b) an established mayoral authority in England;

(c) a county council or county borough council in Wales.

(3) Omit section 4(c).

(4) Omit section 7.

(5) Omit section 8.

(6) Omit section 9.

(7) In section 10, omit paragraph (2)(c) and subsections (10) and (11).

(8) In Schedule 1, omit paragraphs 19 and 20.”

This new clause would allow an established mayoral authority in England to levy a Business Rates Supplement. It would remove the ability of county and district councils in England to do so, and would remove the existing requirement for such a supplement to be approved by referendum.

New clause 64—Decisions on GLA strategy and budget: simple majority requirement—

“(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 42B (Assembly’s power to reject draft strategies), in subsection (5)(b) for ‘at least two thirds’ substitute ‘a simple majority’.

(3) In Schedule 6—

(a) in paragraph 8(4), leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority; and

(b) in paragraph 8C(4), leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority.’”

This new clause would require certain decisions of the London Assembly in relation to the mayor’s strategy and GLA budget to be taken by a simple majority rather than a two-thirds majority.

New clause 65—Power of the London Assembly in relation to mayoral decisions—

“(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 59 (review and investigation) insert—

‘59A Power of the Assembly in relation to proposed mayoral decisions

(1) The powers of the assembly under this Act include—

(a) power to direct that any decision that the Mayor proposes to take is not to be taken while it is under review and scrutiny by the Assembly, and

(b) power to recommend that any decision that the Mayor proposes to take be reconsidered.

(2) The Assembly must publish details of how it proposes to exercise its powers in relation to the review and scrutiny of proposed decisions and its arrangements in connection with the exercise of those powers.

(3) Before complying subsection (2), the Assembly must obtain the consent of the Mayor to the proposals and arrangements.

(4) In the proposals and arrangements published under subsection (2), the Assembly may make provision to require the Mayor to submit to the Assembly details of any decision the Mayor proposes to take.

(5) Provision under subsection (4) may include provision for deadlines by which any such details should be submitted to the Assembly.’”

This new clause would give the London Assembly the power to direct that proposed decisions of the Mayor are not taken while under the Assembly’s review and scrutiny. It would also give the Assembly power to recommend that the Mayor reconsider a proposed decision.

New clause 66—Consultation on GLA reform—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, carry out a consultation on potential reforms to the Greater London Authority.

(2) The report must examine as a potential reform the scope for greater direct engagement with elected representatives of the London Borough Councils in decisions made by the Greater London Authority.

(3) The Secretary of State must, within nine months of this Act being passed, lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out the findings of the consultation.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on proposed reforms to the London Assembly, including proposals for greater involvement of London Borough representatives in GLA decisions.

New clause 70—Duty to confer ESMA powers on Cornwall Council—

“(1) This section applies where Cornwall Council has applied to the Secretary of State for a power available to an established mayoral strategic authority in or under any Act of Parliament (a “relevant power”) to be conferred upon it.

(2) On receipt of an application, the Secretary of State must make regulations to confer the relevant power upon Cornwall Council.

(3) Where a relevant power has been conferred, any reference in or under any Act of Parliament to the exercise of the power by the mayor of an established strategic authority should be read to allow the exercise of the power by the leader of Cornwall Council.

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.”

This new clause would allow Cornwall Council to apply to the Secretary of State to be conferred ESMA powers and requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to that end upon receipt of such an application.

New clause 71—Requirement to establish and consult neighbourhood area committees—

“(1) The Secretary of State may not make an order or regulations under any Act of Parliament to establish, expand or confer functions on any strategic authority until the Secretary of State is satisfied that the strategic authority will, at the moment of establishment, expansion or conferral of functions, have in place—

(a) neighbourhood area committees which collectively cover the whole area of the strategic authority,

(b) mechanisms to ensure that the neighbourhood area committees are consulted on any decision the strategic authority may take that might affect the area covered by the neighbourhood area committee.

(2) A neighbourhood area committee must ensure that, when consulted by a strategic authority under subsection (1)(b), it responds to the consultation in accordance with any reasonable deadline set by the strategic authority.”

New clause 72—Visitor levies (No. 2)—

“(1) Within one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision enabling established mayoral strategic authorities to impose a levy charged on the purchase of overnight accommodation.

(2) Following consultation, regulations under this section must—

(a) define the basis on which the levy is to be calculated;

(b) specify the process and consultation requirements for an area seeking to impose a scheme;

(c) set out reporting requirements for relevant businesses and mayoral strategic authorities; and

(d) specify the investigatory powers and penalties available to mayoral strategic authorities for the enforcement of a scheme.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on, and subsequently make, regulations enabling established mayoral strategic authorities to impose a tourism levy on overnight accommodation.

New clause 74—Power of mayors and local authorities to regulate advertising—

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make regulations to enable mayors and local authorities to carry out functions relating to the display of advertising.

(2) Such regulations must—

(a) transfer or otherwise provide for the exercise of powers under section 220 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to mayors and local authorities; and

(b) provide that such functions include—

(i) a duty to consider the impact of advertisements on public health, and

(ii) the regulation of content of advertisements deemed to have an adverse impact on local health or likely to exacerbate inequalities in health outcomes.

(3) Regulations under this section may amend provision made by or under an Act passed—

(a) before this Act, or

(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would provide mayors and local authorities with the power to regulate advertising, and include duties on their use of that power in relation to public health and health inequalities.

New clause 76—Duty to establish a London Combined Board—

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a London Combined Board (“the Board”).

(2) Regulations under this section must—

(a) specify the Membership of the Board as—

(i) the Mayor of London, and

(ii) the membership of the Executive Committee of London Councils;

(b) make provision about joint decision-making between the GLA and the Board, including in relation to—

(i) powers exercised by the GLA on behalf of any London borough;

(ii) funding devolved to the GLA;

(iii) governance of any integrated settlement for London.

(3) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consider—

(a) existing best practice cooperation within other combined authorities in England, and

(b) existing cooperation between the GLA and London boroughs.

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a London Combined Board to ensure cooperation and joint decision-making between the GLA and representatives from London borough councils.

New clause 77—Proposals for alternative models for devolution—

“(1) One or more leaders of any strategic authority may notify the Secretary of State of—

(a) any changes to the boundaries and structures of a strategic authority;

(b) any changes to the governance of strategic authorities, including the relationship between a strategic authority and any local authority within its area; and

(c) any other changes to the structure of local devolution in its area

which the leaders believe would contribute to securing the effective exercise of functions either by the strategic authority, or by any local authority within its area.

(2) Before making any notification under subsection (1), the relevant strategic authority must consult—

(a) local authorities within its area;

(b) representatives of the community within its area, including businesses, education providers, health providers, and civil society, and

(c) any other persons that the strategic authority considers expedient.

(3) The Secretary of State must respond to a notification given under this section within three months beginning on the day on which it is submitted to the Secretary of State.

(4) A strategic authority may publish a notification made under this section, and the Secretary of State may publish a response to any such published notification.”

New clause 78—Abolition of PCCs—

“(1) In any mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA, within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to transfer all PCC functions to the mayor and abolish the PCC.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”.

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to abolish the PCC and transfer their functions to the mayor in authorities which already have a mayor.

Amendment 175, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

“(d) Cornwall Council.”

Amendment 176, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(d) Cornwall Council, notwithstanding any requirement for the authority to have a mayor.”

Amendment 91, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, after “economic development” insert “, poverty and socio-economic inequality,”.

This amendment would make poverty and socio-economic inequality an area of competence for devolved authorities, ensuring they can take action to address the root causes of disadvantage in their areas.

Amendment 37, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—

“(1) A unitary district council or a county council may submit a proposal to the Secretary of State for designation as a single foundation strategic authority.

(2) A proposal under subsection (1) must be prepared in such form and contain such information as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate a unitary district council as a single foundation strategic authority if—

(a) a proposal has been submitted in accordance with subsection (1), and

(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the designation is appropriate having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in relation to the areas of competence.”

This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State's power to designate a single foundation Strategic Authority. Instead, a local authority would initiate the request by submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State.

Amendment 104, page 2, line 31, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 32 and insert

“a referendum has been held in which residents of the council have consented to the designation.”

This amendment would create a requirement for a referendum to be held prior to the Secretary of State designating a council as a strategic authority.

Amendment 53, page 2, line 32, at end insert—

“(3A) Before making a designation under this section, the Secretary of State must consult town and parish councils within the area of the proposed single foundation strategic authority.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils prior to the unitary district council or county council within which they are situated being designated as a single foundation strategic authority.

Amendment 61, page 2, line 32, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receives adequate funding to facilitate their transition.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receive funding to facilitate their transition.

Amendment 165, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State may not designate a council if the council’s area is within, or is, the area of a National Park unless the Secretary of State has consulted with the authority for that National Park.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the area of a council which the Secretary of State is designating is within, or is, the area of that National Park.

Amendment 85, page 11, line 1, leave out clause 9.

This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision to grant mayors of CAs and CCAs the power to appoint commissioners to deliver policy.

Amendment 161, in clause 9, page 11, line 4, leave out “not more than 7”.

This amendment would remove the statutory cap on the number of commissioners that may be appointed by a mayoral authority.

Amendment 162, page 11, line 29, leave out “not more than 7”.

See explanatory statement for 161.

Amendment 77, in clause 19, page 23, line 6, at end insert—

“(f) funding which has been allocated to support the establishment of new strategic authorities.”

This amendment would require the annual report on devolution to include an account of funding provided to support the establishment of new strategic authorities.

Amendment 79, page 23, line 6, at end insert—

“(f) progress with the implementation of the strategy provided for in section [Duty to publish and implement a forward devolution strategy].”

This amendment is consequential on NC24.

Amendment 39, in clause 21, page 24, line 4, leave out subsection (b) and insert—

“(b) one or more of the following—

(i) health and social care;

(ii) planning;

(iii) environmental concerns;

(iv) funding;

(v) sustainability measures;

(vi) education;

(vii) transport provision and

(viii) green and community spaces.”

This amendment ensures that mayors must consider specific community matters when consulting with local partners.

Amendment 27, in clause 40, page 41, line 11 , at end insert—

“(2A) In section 144, after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must engage with town and parish council within its area.

(1B) Engagement under subsection (1A) must include—

(a) consulting town and parish councils on tourism strategies, policies, and investment priorities; and

(b) creating opportunities for town and parish councils to contribute to activities relating to the exercising powers under subsection (1).

(1C) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must publish a report summarising the authority’s engagement with town and parish councils which includes—

(a) form of engagement used;

(b) the views of town and parish councils on the authority’s exercise of powers under subsection (1); and

(c) the role of town and parish councils in exercising powers under subsection (1).

(1D) The Secretary of State may issue guidance regarding requirements for engagement under subsection (1A).’”

This amendment would require local and/or strategic authorities exercising powers to encourage visitors to their area to engage with town and parish councils.

Amendment 75, in clause 43, page 44, line 21, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a combined authority has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support the duties in subsections (1) and (2).

(2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a combined authority insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of combined authorities with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas.

Government amendment 116.

Amendment 92, in clause 43, page 44, line 31, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 93 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”.

Amendment 72, page 44, line 36 , at end insert—

“(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”.

This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which combined authorities must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities.

Amendment 87, page 44, line 36, at end insert—

“(e) access to green space and nature,

(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.

This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.

Amendment 88, page 45, line 3, at end insert—

“(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to “green space and nature” includes—

(a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and

(b) any urban or rural natural feature,

that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section.

Amendment 172, page 45, line 11, at end insert—

“107ZBA health inequalities strategy

(1) Each strategic authority must prepare and publish a health inequalities strategy setting out how it will operationalise the duty under section 107ZB.

(2) The strategy may be a standalone document or incorporated within another statutory or strategic plan of the authority.

(3) The strategy must promote health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities between persons living in the strategic authority area.

(4) In preparing the strategy, an authority must have regard to relevant national and local strategies relating to health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities.

(5) The strategy must set locally appropriate targets and policies designed to meet them, set for the end of a 10- year period beginning on the day on which the strategy is published.

(6) The metrics may include, but need not be limited to metrics relating to—

(a) healthy life expectancy,

(b) infant mortality rate, and

(c) poverty (including the child poverty rate).

(7) The strategic authority must, once every five years, alongside its local growth plan, produce and make publicly available a report on progress against the strategy.”

Amendment 76, page 45, line 21, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a CCA has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to have regard to the needs described in subsection (1).

(2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a CCA insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of CCAs with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas.

Government amendment 117.

Amendment 93, page 45, line 31, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 92 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”.

Amendment 73, page 45, line 36, at end insert—

“(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”.

This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which CCAs must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities.

Amendment 89, page 45, line 36, at end insert—

“(e) access to green space and nature,

(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.

This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.

Amendment 90, page 45, line 39, at end insert—

“(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to ‘green space and nature’ includes—

(a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and

(b) any urban or rural natural feature,

that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section.

Government amendment 118.

Amendment 47, in clause 45, page 50, line 31, at end insert—

“(c) a draft of any such order is subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State to alter the size of PCC areas when transferring powers of PCCs to strategic authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendment 48, in clause 46, page 53, line 43, at end insert—

“(7) Regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State regarding the functions of fire and rescue authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendment 40, in clause 49, page 55, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) Where a notification under subsection (1) is given, the Secretary of State must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the notification is given, give effect to the change or changes proposed by the mayor or mayors.

(4) Effect may be given under subsection (3) by means of regulations made by statutory instrument.

(5) A statutory instrument made under subsection (4) is —

(a) subject to the affirmative procedure if it—

(i) amends an Act of Parliament, or

(ii) confers or modifies a function which relates to an area of competence;

(b) where neither of the conditions in paragraph (a) apply, subject to the negative procedure.”

This amendment creates a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to seek parliamentary approval before implementing mayoral requests for greater powers over funding or legal changes.

Amendment 36, page 55, line 21, at end insert—

“(4) No decision under subsection (3) may be implemented unless—

(a) the Secretary of State has made regulations giving effect to the decision,

(b) a statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament, and

(c) save as where provided for otherwise, regulations giving effect to any decision made under section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This amendment would require any decision of the Secretary of State following a request from a local authority to be implemented by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.

Government new schedule 1—Charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways.

Government new schedule 2—Licensing functions of the Mayor of London.

Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 81, line 15, leave out subparagraph (b).

This amendment, and Amendments 9 to 15, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without consent of the councils involved.

Amendment 9, page 81, line 33, leave out subparagraph (b).

See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Amendment 10, page 82, line 18, leave out “subsections (3) to (5)” and insert “subsection (3)”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Amendment 11, page 83, line 6, leave out paragraph 8.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Amendment 12, page 83, line 8, leave out paragraph 9.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Amendment 13, page 84, line 36, leave out paragraph 16.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Amendment 169, page 85, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) The proposal does not include Cornwall Council, or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.”.

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making a proposal to establish a combined authority which includes Cornwall or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.

Amendment 54, page 85, line 27, at end insert—

“(6A) The Secretary of State must consult town and parish councils within the proposed new combined authority area.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils prior to proposing a new combined authority in the area in which they are situated.

Amendment 166, page 85, line 27, at end insert—

“(6A) If the proposed area is within, or is, the area of a National Park the Secretary of State must consult with the authority for that National Park.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the proposed area for a new combined authority is within, or is, the area of that National Park.

Amendment 170, page 85, line 40, at end insert—

“(1A) The order does not include Cornwall Council, or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council”.

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making an order to establish a combined authority which includes Cornwall or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.

Amendment 105, page 86, line 28, at end insert—

“(7A) A referendum has been held in which residents of the proposed combined authority have consented to the area being established as a combined authority.”

This amendment would create a requirement for a referendum to be held prior to the Secretary of State making an order to establish a combined authority.

Amendment 62, page 86, line 37, at end insert—

“(8A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure the combined authority receives adequate funding to facilitate its establishment.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that combined authorities receive adequate funding to facilitate their establishment.

Amendment 14, page 88, line 14, leave out paragraph 19.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Amendment 50, page 88, line 20, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State has obtained consent for the proposal from any affected local government area.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain consent from all affected areas in preparing a proposal to add a local government area to an existing area of a combined county authority.

Amendment 171, page 88, line 20, at end insert—

“(1A) The proposal does not include Cornwall Council, or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council”.

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making a proposal to add a local government area to an existing area of a combined authority if the area in the proposal includes Cornwall or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.

Amendment 167, page 88, line 41, at end insert—

“(5A) If the proposed local government area or existing area is within, or is, the area of a National Park the Secretary of State must consult with the authority for that National Park.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the local government area or existing area the Secretary of State proposes to merge is within, or is, the area of that National Park.

Amendment 55, page 89, line 2, after “to” insert “and thereafter consult with”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with any of the relevant councils and persons given notice that an area is being proposed to be added to an existing combined authority.

Amendment 56, page 89, line 9, at end insert—

“(da) any town and parish councils whose area would be added to the area of the combined authority, and”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult local councils prior to proposing the area in which they are situated is added to an existing combined authority.

Amendment 51, page 89, leave out from beginning of line 25 to end of line 12 on page 90.

This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to have powers to prepare a proposal for there to be a mayor for the area of an existing combined authority.

Amendment 15, page 90, line 13, leave out paragraph 20.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Amendment 16, page 94, line 36, leave out subparagraph (b).

This amendment, and Amendments 16 to 21, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.

Amendment 17, page 95, line 21, leave out subparagraph (b).

See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 18, page 97, line 10, leave out paragraph 33.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 19, page 97, line 12, leave out paragraph 34.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 52, page 98, line 22, leave out paragraphs 37 and 38.

This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to have powers to prepare a proposal for the establishment of a CCA without a public consultation.

Amendment 20, page 98, line 34, leave out paragraph 38.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 164, page 99, line 27, at end insert—

“(6A) If the proposed area is within, or is, the area of a National Park the Secretary of State must consult with the authority for that National Park.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the proposed area for a CCA is within, or is, the area of that National Park.

Amendment 106, page 100, line 26, at end insert—

“(7A) A referendum has been held in which residents of the proposed CCA have consented to the area being established as a CCA.”

This amendment would create a requirement for a referendum to be held prior to the Secretary of State making regulations to establish a CCA.

Amendment 21, page 102, line 16, leave out paragraph 41.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 22, page 104, line 13, leave out paragraph 42.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 86, page 112, line 1, leave out Schedule 3.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.

Amendment 163, in schedule 3, page 113, leave out lines 1 to 32.

This amendment removes restrictions limiting appointments by mayors to one commissioner per competence.

Government amendments 122 to 124.

Amendment 24, page 117, line 25, at end insert—

“(2A) The relevant remuneration panel may not recommend allowances which exceed the amount paid in salary to a person employed at director level within the relevant authority.”

This amendment ensures that Commissioners cannot be paid more than Directors working for the authority.

Amendment 151, page 120, line 32, at end insert

“or,—

(c) prevent the commissioner from operating collaboratively with other commissioners across different areas of competence, recognising that the work of commissioners will often intersect and benefit from integrated working with a spatial lens to meet the needs of, and drive positive outcomes for specific places as a whole.”

This amendment broadens the scope of paragraph 4 of this Schedule to ensure that commissioners appointed by the mayor for the area of a combined authority are not only permitted to work incidentally across areas of competence but are also encouraged to do so collaboratively and with a spatial, place-based perspective.

Government amendments 125 to 134.

Amendment 23, in schedule 5, page 136, line 11, at end insert—

“(3) The regulations must include a requirement for the license holder to maintain sufficient docking space for the micromobility vehicles for which they hold a license.

(4) The regulations must include requirements for license holders which would require them to ensure that the micromobility vehicles for which they hold a license do not obstruct any highway, cycling path, footpath, bridlepath, or subway.

(5) The regulations must stipulate that failure of license holders to comply with subsections (3) and (4) will warrant a loss of license.”

This amendment would require that regulations ensure that license holders for micromobility vehicles are responsible for maintaining sufficient docking space for their vehicle and ensuring their vehicle does not obstruct any highways or public paths, or else lose their license.

Government amendment 137.

Amendment 35, in schedule 7, page 146, line 22, at end insert—

‘3 “(1) Part 1 of Schedule 7 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 is amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph (4) insert—

4A “(1) There is a parking contravention in England if a person causes an obstruction which, without lawful authority or excuse, causes or permits a motor vehicle to stand on a pavement in such a manner as to wilfully obstruct free passage along the pavement.

(2) A parking contravention under subparagraph (1) is a civil offence which may be enforced by the local authority in which the contravention has occurred.

(3) The relevant local authority under subparagraph (2) may issue penalty charges for a civil offence under subsection (2).

(4) The amount for a penalty charge under subparagraph (3) shall be determined by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(5) Regulations under subparagraph (4) may specify different penalty charge amounts based on—

(a) the obstructing vehicle class,

(b) the area of the local authority in which the obstruction has occurred, or

(c) any other relevant circumstantial consideration.

(6) In this paragraph—

(a) “motor vehicle” has the meaning given in section 136 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and

(b) “pavement” has the meaning given in section 72 of the Highway Act 1835.

4B (1) Penalty charge amounts for parking contraventions under this Part may be set by the relevant local authority.

(2) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must align with provisions under section 77 of this Act.

(3) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must have regard to any regulations made under section 87 of this Act.

(4) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must be published by the local authority and may be revised from time to time.”’

This amendment would allow local authorities to enforce obstructive pavement parking within their areas as a civil offence and devolves the power to set parking penalty charge amounts for all parking penalty charge offences to local authorities.

Amendment 74, in schedule 7, page 146, line 22, insert—

‘3 “(1) After Paragraph 10 of Schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004, insert—

“Exercise of functions relating to civil enforcement

11 Any functions related to civil enforcement described by this schedule must be exercised directly by—

(a) the elected mayor for the area of an authority, or

(b) a member of an authority who is an elected member of a constituent council.”’

This amendment ensures civil enforcement powers, when exercised by CAs and CCAs, must be under the direction of elected officials.

Government amendments 138 to 144.

Amendment 25, in schedule 12, page 174, line 24, at end insert—

“61DCB Density requirement

(1) A strategic authority issuing a mayoral development order must prioritise applications which—

(a) will deliver greater density in urban areas,

(b) are located in areas with greater public transportation accessibility according to the indices established by subsection (2), or

(c) if located within the Greater London Authority, are located in areas with a Transport for London Public Transport Accessibility level equal or greater than Level 4.

(2) A strategic authority must create ‘public transport accessibility index’ to categorise areas within the authority based on their proximity to public transportation.

(3) A strategic authority must issue a mayoral development order for any land which has been previously developed.”

This amendment would require mayoral development orders (MDOs) to prioritise planning applications in areas of high urban density and public transport accessibility, and would require MDOs to be issued for previously developed land.

Government amendments 145 and 146.

Amendment 71, page 175, line 22 at end insert—

“(ba) After subsection (1BB), insert—

“(1BBA) When exercising any power under this section, the mayor of a relevant authority must ensure—

(a) any plans received comply with any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan for the area, and

(b) any plans comply with any Land Use Framework applicable to the area”.’

This amendment requires mayors to ensure that when making decisions relating to planning applications, the planning applications have regard to any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan and, or Land Use Framework in place for the area.

Government amendments 147 to 149.

Amendment 26, in schedule 17, page 207, line 27, at end insert—

“7A After section 202, insert—

‘202A: restrictions on designation of greenfield land

Where an MDC exercises any functions in relation to the designation of land for development, the MDC must not designate any development on greenfield land unless there is no available land that has not previously been developed.’”

Amendment 69, page 210, line 12, leave out from “that” to end of line 13 and insert

“the majority of members of an MDC are elected members of relevant councils”.

This amendment would require that the make-up of Mayoral Development Corporation boards must have a majority of members from constituent councils.

Amendment 65, in schedule 19, page 214, line 30, at end insert—

“(d) comply with any Land Use Framework issued by the Secretary of State, and

(e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority.

(2A) The Secretary of State must take steps to support a mayoral combined authority in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.”

This amendment requires mayoral combined authorities to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies.

Amendment 80, page 214, line 30, at end insert—

“(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by—

(i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,

(ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and

(iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”

This amendment would require combined authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans.

Amendment 159, page 214, line 30, at end insert—

“(2A) The mayoral combined authority must include amongst the projects identified measures that will promote growth through the safeguarding and promotion of existing cultural, creative, and community infrastructure such as grassroots music venues, theatres and other live performance spaces.”

Amendment 173, page 214, line 30, at end insert—

“(d) take account of the statutory health duty and health inequalities strategy prepared by the strategic authority, and

(e) promote community wealth building, cooperatives, mutuals and the wider social economy as mechanisms to narrow health inequalities.”

Amendment 174, page 214, line 30, at end insert—

“(2A) In preparing a local growth plan, a mayoral combined authority must make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on areas which are rural, remote, or coastal.”

This amendment would require local growth plans to make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on rural, remote and coastal areas.

Amendment 83, page 215, line 19, at end insert—

“107MA Funding and support relating for local growth plans

‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral combined authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the—

(a) preparation,

(b) publication, and

(c) delivery

of local growth plans.

(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral combined authorities in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the—

(a) strategic importance, and

(b) complexity

of any such plans.’.”

This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral combined authorities with regard to local growth plans.

Amendment 66, page 216, line 29, at end insert—

“(d) comply with any Land Use Framework applicable to the area covered by the authority, and

(e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority.”

“(2A) The Secretary of State must make provision to support a mayoral CCA in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.”

This amendment requires mayoral CCAs to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies.

Amendment 81, page 216, line 29, at end insert—

“(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by—

(i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,

(ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and

(iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”

This amendment would require combined authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans.

Amendment 160, page 216, line 29, at end insert—

“(2A) The mayoral CCA must include amongst the projects identified measures that will promote growth through the safeguarding and promotion of existing cultural, creative, and community infrastructure such as grassroots music venues, theatres and other live performance spaces.”

Amendment 84, page 217, line 15, at end insert—

“32BA Funding and support relating to local growth plans

(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral CCAs have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the—

(a) preparation,

(b) publication, and

(c) delivery

of local growth plans.

(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral CCAs in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the—

(a) strategic importance, and

(b) complexity

of any such plans.”

This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral CCAs with regard to local growth plans.

Amendment 49, in schedule 21, page 224, leave out lines 6 to 12.

This amendment would remove the provision to allow mayors to appoint a person to manage policing and crime for their area.

Government amendments 112, 135, 136 and 113.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am delighted to bring the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill back to the House on Report. Before I go any further, I would like to place on the record my gratitude to Members from across the House for their continued engagement on this Bill, and in particular to the Chairs and members of the Public Bill Committee for their diligent and thoughtful contributions to line-by-line scrutiny.

This Bill will secure the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and communities in a generation. At its heart is the principle that if we take power out of Westminster and Whitehall and place it in the hands of local leaders and communities who know their patch, we can unlock the economic potential of places, revive communities that have been held back for too long, and deliver for people in the places where they live, raise a family and work.

We will provide mayors and their strategic authorities with new powers over planning, housing, transport and regeneration so that they can get Britain building and unleash the economic potential of their areas. We will reform and rebuild local government so that it can once again deliver good local services that people can rely on, and we will empower local communities to shape their places so that they can drive the change they want to see on their doorstep.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. May I urge hon. Members to make short interventions?

[Ruth Cadbury]

Yes, I will do. I welcome the lane rental measure, which the Government put in the White Paper and is now in the Bill. However, why do the Secretary of State and the Minister not trust other authorities? Why does it apply only to elected mayoral authorities? Would it not be fair for all authorities to be able to use lane rental, which is so important in improving roadworks?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Dare I say it, but I think the hon. Gentleman is probably being slightly naughty. We are trying to put into the legislation that we want to counter what this Government have been doing, which is to make it easier to build on rural areas where infrastructure is not deliverable, when we should be building first in town centres and high-density areas where most people in this country want to live, and that is why we will be supporting amendment 25.

Amendment 26 would place a simple, but vital restriction on mayoral development corporations: when they are designating land for development, they must not designate greenfield land unless there is no suitable previously developed land available. This principle has long commanded support across this House. Members on all sides, except for the Government, recognise that we must make the best possible use of brownfield land before contemplating the loss of undeveloped countryside.

Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Holmes, before you flick through any more pages, it is obviously very interesting to hear you speak, but over 25 Members are hoping to contribute.

[Paul Holmes]

The official Opposition have tabled other amendments, and I could speak about them all evening, Madam Deputy Speaker, but to reassure you, the officials in the Box and Members across this House, I will draw my remarks to a close.

We should not confuse amendments with progress, and we should not confuse this Bill with something that delivers true devolution. True devolution requires clarity, accountability and sustainability in funding, and this Bill offers none of those things. It is a patchwork of half-formed ideas, untested assumptions and powers handed out without the democratic scaffolding needed to hold them up. I believe in devolution done properly, but this does not do that. England deserves a coherent settlement, not a constitutional patchwork. Communities deserve real empowerment, not distant regional authorities replacing national ones. Taxpayers deserve accountability, not new structures that spend their money with little scrutiny. We urge the Government to look at this again and to accept the amendments I have outlined.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I congratulate the Minister on bringing this Bill back. On a happier note than that of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), I think this Bill does outline some of the powers going down to local communities. My understanding is that this is the first Bill to have “community empowerment” in its title, which shows the Government’s commitment to push on it. The Minister and I are fellow Labour and Co-operative MPs, and I am very excited about the community right to buy. I pay tribute to the many across the co-op movement who have been fighting for this for many years. I am mindful of the time, so I want to reflect on three specific areas.

First, new clause 25, tabled by my Select Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on community infrastructure levy charges on homeowners, including on how local councils will respond to technical errors. Our Committee heard representations from the CIL Injustice group, which represents dozens of homeowners who have been unfairly charged CIL for home extensions, self-build and other small projects, even though CIL is intended as a levy for large-scale developments. Councils have seemingly issued the charges due to technical administrative errors such as paperwork being completed incorrectly, but the impact of these charges are life changing for some residents. We heard evidence of homeowners facing unexpected bills ranging from £40,000 to £200,000. We heard that some councils are applying a zero-tolerance approach, with the threat of imprisonment if these bills are not paid. Ultimately, we are seeing homeowners suffering real distress as a result. Some of them have been forced to sell their homes because they have been charged for something they should not have been charged.

To the credit of the Minister for Housing and Planning, he told our Select Committee that the CIL regulations are

“not intended to operate in this way”,

and that the Government are

“giving very serious consideration to amending them”

to ensure no one is unfairly charged. However, that was back in July, and in a letter to the Committee earlier this month, he was unable to provide an update on the plans to amend the regulations. He told us that the Department

“has not issued any formal or informal communications”

to councils about charging CIL. New clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury, would require the Government to take the steps urgently needed to address the unfair CIL charges. It would be helpful if the Minister, when winding up, gave the House an update on when the review of CIL guidance is coming, or if we can expect any secondary legislation to address this. We understand that Ministers cannot intervene on individual cases, but a clear direction should be issued to councils that they cannot treat applicants in this way and that they should clear up the paperwork to stop more homeowners being pursued for thousands of pounds of charges.

Secondly, new clause 31, on the tourism levy, has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker). This new clause would give established mayoral strategic authorities the power to impose a levy on overnight accommodation in their area. Importantly, subsection (6) would require that money received from this levy is paid into the general fund of the authority, so it would be going directly to local councils. Our Select Committee has pressed the Government to go further with fiscal devolution. We welcome the empowerment of local councils in many areas, but we are very clear that the one omission from the Bill is fiscal devolution down to our local colleagues. Our report on the funding and sustainability of local government finance, which we published in July this year, included a recommendation to the Treasury to devolve tax-setting powers to local authorities, allowing them to set their own forms of local taxation, such as the tourism levy. I understand that, as the Minister outlined, anything to do with taxation is down to the Treasury and is not something for HCLG Ministers to look at, but I hope they are actively having such conversations with Treasury Ministers.

We acknowledge that visitor levies have pros and cons. Their benefits would not be equal right across the country, and the right approach must be taken in each local area. However, our Select Committee heard that, where it does work, it would be helpful as a new form of fundraising at the regional level. For example, Mayor Tracy Brabin, the mayor of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, told us that a visitor levy would give the authority an opportunity to become more self-sufficient. Councillor Louise Gittins, the chair of the Local Government Association, told us that some form of the tourist levy would be really helpful to deal with the pressures that tourists can put on local economies. The Government’s explanatory notes state that the purpose of the Bill is to transfer power out of Westminster, but, as I mentioned, the fiscal devolution element has been very quiet. I hope the Minister will recognise that until Westminster is willing to let go of its tight grip on tax setting and revenue raising down to local authorities, we will not see the kind of independence, community empowerment and local accountability we all want. New clause 31 would grant local authorities the power to impose visitor levies. It would be a positive first step in that direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

I am very happy to move new clause 29, should the hon. Member not have the opportunity to—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Ms Berry, if you need some information on how to process procedure, please ask the Clerks or the Chair—you can come to me in a minute. We are speaking to all the amendments. Ms Slade, continue.

[Vikki Slade]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Without new clause 29, my concern is that a mayor who does not honour the net zero commitments of the councils that sit within their area may undermine those councils’ principles and hard work, which will have been done over many years.

New clause 4, in the name of the shadow Minister, and new clause 25, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), relate to the community infrastructure levy, which is an important measure that councils rightly need to mitigate the impact of new homes. When residents come to me worried about developments, they are always asking about what will happen with new roads, schools and services, which is why CIL matters so much. However, in Dorset and elsewhere, homeowners have been wrongly charged CIL for extensions and self-builds, with £1.6 million taken in error. Ministers say that the system works, but if so, what do they say to homeowners out of pocket by tens of thousands of pounds? Accepting these two simple amendments or introducing clear and robust regulation would reassure homeowners that they will not be facing unfair bills.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am trying to calculate the time; I hope that we have more than one speaker bobbing.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Marvellous. As we have four more speakers and we definitely have to finish business by 10 pm, Back Benchers are on a speaking limit of 10 minutes.

[Andrew George]

It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). I also have ferries in my constituency, but I have not tabled amendments to deal with them in a Bill about devolution. I will return to the Cornish question raised by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon)—I will call him my hon. Friend. I will concentrate on whether it is appropriate to deal with the idiosyncrasies around the country in the way that he proposes in new clause 70, or in the way that I have done in amendments 175 and 176—our amendments would treat Cornwall as an exception—or whether the issue should be treated as a matter of principle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) has done in new clause 28.

I accept that everywhere is special and unique. The question is often asked: why is Cornwall asking for more consideration than other places? The answer is in part, as my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth said, that special legislation and regulations apply to us; there is our national minority status, recognition of the Cornish language, the existence of the duchy, and its separate constitutional relationship with the Crown. Of course, all places are the result of the accidents of history and geography, and in Cornwall, there is a confluence of the two. If we are not to go in the direction of breaking down all barriers and having one world government, with no distinction between one place and another, we must recognise the tipping point—the difference between English counties and Cornwall, which is a rather unique place that, as he and I believe, needs to be given special consideration.

Like my hon. Friend, I describe myself as Cornish and not English. That is not being anti-English; I am proud of my relationship with England, as all Cornish people are, but we as a people have a separate history. We start our contributions to these debates by saying “Meur ras”, to introduce the Cornish language. Although not many people in Cornwall speak the Cornish language now, not many people in Scotland speak Scottish Gaelic, but that is not to say that Scots are less Scottish because of that. The fact is, the last person who could not speak English died nearly 200 years ago.

There has recently been a great deal of coming together to recognise the importance of identity and our Celtic past. Indeed, I have spoken about the Cornish language with Breton friends, and found that there is a stronger association between Cornwall and Brittany than between Cornwall and Wales, from which we were separated by the Saxons some 1,500 years ago. Indeed, Athelstan drew the line between Cornwall and England in 936 because he felt that the Cornish were not worth the effort of inevitable annihilation.

All that history is interesting and relevant, and feeds one’s understanding of who one is, but as I said in an intervention, I am not interested in being backward-looking or insular. Rather than cut ourselves off, we need to cut ourselves into the celebration of diversity, and use our identity as a strength that helps us to look forward. Indeed, we had a very welcome statement earlier on the Government’s critical minerals strategy, and Cornwall can and should be looking forward with all our strengths in the space sector, critical minerals and green energy. We have a lot to look forward to, but we need to have a basis of confidence on what to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

It has been a long afternoon. I thank my Lib Dem colleagues in Committee who bravely stood up for towns and parishes and would like the role of town and parish councils to continue. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as I am still a sitting district councillor. District councils play an interesting role when we have town and parish councils because they form the connection between the towns and parishes, the district and the county. Those three layers work together, and they pull in a similar direction when it is working well. I could regale the House with the achievements of Dawlish town council, Newton Abbot town council or Teignmouth town council, or of the various parish councils. They have done fantastic things for their communities, but they can only do that when they are part of the process and are able to talk and act with the higher councils as well. What is missing from this Bill is anything like a duty to co-operate between the unitary, the town and the parish councils. Were that in place, there would be a much better conversation.

We have no set idea in Devon what the best layout of unitary councils would look like. There are six, or possibly 10, options coming up to the Government for consideration, which is clearly entirely unreasonable. One of the options is a single large unitary replacing the footprint of Devon county council. Something like that would take a localised idea of what was going on in the district councils, for example with five district councillors in Dawlish representing the people in that area, to a far distant control, where there could be two unitary councillors trying to deal with those issues. It would be difficult to persuade residents that that unitary council is working with their best interests at heart. That duty to co-operate is important.

We went through all the process, and the former Secretary of State, or Under-Secretary—I am unsure of the best form of address.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The previous Minister.

[Martin Wrigley]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; it has been a long day. The previous Minister was talking about neighbourhood area committees, and yet I was surprised when I looked at the Bill that there is nothing in there about neighbourhood area committees. They are not mentioned in any way, shape or form. Devon is very big at saying, “We’re going to make these neighbourhood area committees, and it is going to really work for you,” but it is not. This is why I have tabled new clause 71, which sets forth the need and requirement for neighbourhood area committees and to make them a statutory consultee within unitary councils because they currently are not.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

Lords amendment 32 disagreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. In an earlier Division, six Members behaved in the most disorderly fashion and pushed themselves past Doorkeepers. Those six Members have been identified, and I expect them to come and apologise to me before the evening is out, and to the Doorkeepers to whom they behaved in the most disrespectful way.

Clause 51

Delegation of planning decisions in England

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 33.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

--- Later in debate ---

Lords amendment 33 disagreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The Members who caused the earlier fracas have apologised to the Chair and the Doorkeepers, so that case is closed for now.

Property Service Charges

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. All Back Benchers are now on a six-minute speaking limit. I call Justin Madders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I welcome this important debate and thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) very much on behalf of the many constituents who come to my surgeries, who write to me, and who I meet when I am out and about in the many developments across Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth town.

I speak today on behalf not just of my constituents, but of leaseholders across the country who feel that they are being let down by the broken system—one that continues to allow unfair and sharply rising service charges, poor communication, and substandard services to persist unchecked. The limited rights to challenge such changes leave people feeling as if they are fighting the battle on their own. As we know from the number of Members present and from many other meetings, people across the country face these issues, so there is something wrong not just with the individual managing agencies that we are all thinking of, but with the system itself.

The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) mentioned regulation. Do we need more layers of it? We must also consider the checks and balances in the system. Asking people to go to the first-tier tribunal as a last resort is so daunting and cumbersome that it is not a proper check on the system. I welcome the Government’s decisive action to tackle long-standing injustices in leasehold and estate management. I thank the Minister for all his work on that, including the incoming changes. This debate is full of hope about those changes making a difference.

Ahead of the closure of the Government’s recent consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections, I conducted a service charge consultation in my constituency, where it is a big issue in so many developments. The results, which I have submitted to the Government, were deeply troubling. More than 200 constituents responded to my consultation, and I think they speak for hundreds more. Almost 90% of respondents reported significant increases in their service charges. Even more—96%—said that they felt those increases were unjustified. That comes down not only to poor communication, but to the fact that many of those services charges do seem to be unjustified.

Those are not isolated cases, as we are hearing in the debate. In 2024, service charges rose by 11% on average—well above the 2.5% rate of inflation—and, in my constituency, they average £2,300 per year. I see countless examples of eye-watering hikes. One constituent reported that their annual service charge had increased from £1,600 to £6,660 per year, for example, while another told me they were sent a large additional bill right before Christmas as their managing agent clawed back more money after an “error” in its accounting. That often happens during years in which the amount has already risen a lot, before rising more still because of extra charges and services provided—or not provided, as many constituents see it.

Too many leaseholders are ignored by managing agents and charged for services that are sub-standard or not delivered at all, including cleaning services that show no signs of leaving the building cleaner, painting in communal areas that do not need to be painted or for which the charge should be lower, and, in one case, gardening services for gardens that do not exist. One of the most shocking examples in my consultation was a large development in my constituency. Leaseholders reported a revolving door of housing managers who are inexperienced, unqualified, overstretched and unfamiliar with the building’s history. The managing agent presents accounts that simply do not add up. Contractors are paid without checks, faults go un-penalised and residents are left to clean up the mess time and again. The managing agent has ignored numerous industry experts who have stated that important plumbing works need to be carried out. Some have said that the building is in serious danger of complete structural failure. Basic services are not carried out, yet leaseholders continue to foot the bill. The managing agent is supposed to paint the exterior at least every 10 years, but nothing happens. It is the same old story again and again.

Six managing agents were named many times in my consultation. I will not name them here, because that would be damaging for the people who live in those developments. Clearly, there are some good managing agents and landlords, but there are also some very bad ones, and those are the ones that we need a new Bill to deal with. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 contains proposals for greater transparency through standardised accounts, mandatory reserve funds and easier routes to challenge unreasonable service charge rises, and managing agents will face mandatory qualifications and enforced membership of professional bodies. Those measures are all welcome. The previous Conservative Government had 14 years to act on these matters but passed leasehold reform law only in the dying days of the last Parliament, so their measures were rushed, poorly drafted and failed to ban new leasehold homes.

I am very glad that this debate offers us the chance to talk about going further on industry regulation and to welcome the commonhold Bill. Leaseholders in my constituency and across the country have waited long enough. The system is broken, the injustice is real, and the need for reform is urgent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call David Reed. Many congratulations on baby Reuben!

--- Later in debate ---

[David Reed]

I have one minute left and I will make my final points. The Act aimed to bring mandatory transparency, through standardised billing, greater rights to challenge charges, and easier routes to taking over management, but those reforms are not yet implemented. Why is that? I hope that the Minister, in his closing remarks, will set out a course for when those measures will be implemented, and will say what new legislation will be brought in to ensure that people are protected. I finish on a point on which I think we all agree: residents who are on these schemes do not need more consultations; they need action, and this Parliament must deliver.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. It is up to Members if they wish to take an intervention. If they do, they have an extra minute on their speaking time.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments 19B, 19C and 19D.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to agree with the Lords in their amendments 39B and 39C.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Today is a momentous day, because, subject to agreement from this House, the Renters’ Rights Bill will have completed all its stages and will therefore shortly become law. This House last legislated to fundamentally alter the relationship between landlords and tenants in 1988—I was just six years old. In the decades since, England’s private rented sector has changed beyond all recognition. It now houses not just the young and the mobile, but many older people and families with children, for whom greater security and certainty is essential to a flourishing life.

The need to overhaul the regulation of the private rented sector and, in so doing, level decisively the playing field for landlords and tenants is pressing. That is why we introduced the Bill within months of taking office. We promised that we would succeed where the previous Conservative Government had failed by legislating to transform the experience of private renting. I am delighted that we are now within touching distance of seeing the Bill become law. Before I turn to the final amendments agreed to in the other place, I want to put on the record once again my profound thanks to Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding through its House of Lords stages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have ongoing dialogue with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence about this issue, and if the hon. Member will allow me, I will elaborate on how we think these amendments will work in practice and how they interact with what the Ministry of Defence is itself doing. First, however, I once again thank Baroness Grender, Baroness Thornhill and the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for their continued support and advocacy for service personnel and their families.

The Government have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that our armed services personnel and their families must live in safe and decent homes. We remain determined to improve the standard of service family accommodation across the entire defence estate. Alongside the commitment to drive up standards through a record investment of £1.5 billion in service family accommodation over the next five years, the Government will soon publish a defence housing strategy setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve the lives of those who serve our country. That standard will be published, so service families will be able to see, judge their accommodation against and interact with this new statutory duty.

As I outlined in the previous debate on Lords amendments, the Government acknowledge the need for greater transparency and accountability to ensure that the commitments we have made are honoured. The amendments in lieu will place the commitments I made to this House last month on a statutory basis. The Government believe that this, alongside the wider steps I have already set out, will help ensure service personnel and their families have the quality of homes that they deserve. The amendments also include a delegated power allowing the housing quality standards that SFA is assessed against to be updated when the current version of the decent homes standard is no longer considered appropriate—for example, when it has been replaced by a new modernised standard. The Liberal Democrats have indicated their support for these amendments, and I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting them.

To conclude, I urge the House to support the amendments put forward by the other place, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I fully support my hon. Friend the Minister’s motion to agree with Lords amendments 19 and 39, and I thank him for all his work. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for piloting this momentous legislation through the House. If I may, I add my own thanks to the noble Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, who has been a doughty champion in the other place and, of course, in my constituency of Stevenage.

Some 7,000 households rent privately in Stevenage. They fear their tenancies coming to an end for no good reason. I was knocking on doors in the ward of Roebuck last weekend. A young mother opened her door, and I noticed that the window next to the front door was broken and patched up with a wooden board. I asked whether it was a council property, and she said, “No, I rent privately. He’s a good landlord.” I said, “Okay, so will he fix that window?” She replied, “Oh, no. He has given me this bit of wood. I am a bit worried that if I ask, he will throw me out.” That is what a “good” landlord is assumed to be. It must come to an end.

Renters like that young mother have been waiting 40 years for change. Today, should the House agree, the Bill will go for Royal Assent, and that fear will come to an end, so I support the motion. I thank the Minister.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I look forward to Parliament finally passing legislation that will bring long-overdue protections to tenants. We do not believe, like the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), that tenants’ rights are “all well and good”. They are not all well and good. No-fault evictions are not all well and good, and the previous Government’s failure to outlaw them is unacceptable. It is a good thing that this legislation will finally change that.

The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for—and stood on a manifesto that included—ending no-fault evictions of tenants, longer and more stable tenancies, a register of landlords, and decent homes for our forces families. Thanks to the Government agreeing to our proposals, all those things are to become law through the Bill and in MOD service accommodation. For too long, renters across the board have had a bad deal. It is time to redress the balance after years of Conservative government failing to deliver both on no fault evictions and on decent homes for our military families.

I warmly welcome Government amendment 39, which will make service family accommodation subject to the decent homes standard. I am glad that Ministers have listened to the calls from the Liberal Democrats and service families. I thank the Minister for doing the hard yards pragmatically in his negotiations on the Bill, and I pay tribute to my noble Friends Baroness Grender and Baroness Thornhill for their work to secure those important changes. The state of housing that service families have had to endure is a disgrace. The Defence Committee heard of dire conditions, with pest infestations, black mould, damp, flooding and unreliable heating and hot water in winter. I have heard similar stories and seen the photographs from constituent service families who were forced to live in damp and mouldy accommodation declared unfit for human habitation. Our soldiers, sailors, air force personnel and Royal Marines—such as those who serve in 40 Commando at Norton Manor Camp in my constituency, the Conservative closure of which I began campaigning against in 2017—sacrifice so much for our country. The very least that they deserve is a decent home for them and their family.

This is not an isolated issue. Research we obtained earlier this year found that, on Victory in Europe Day alone, more than 400 service families were forced to apply for emergency repairs. While the country celebrated our veterans, too many forces families were struggling with housing that falls far short of the standards that we rightly expect elsewhere. Their new decent home standard—which comes a year after my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) tried and failed to get the Conservative Government to deliver it, and 18 years after Sir Menzies Campbell began the Liberal Democrat campaign for decent homes for our military—is a matter of fairness, as I hope the House will agree. This is a great first step, and I am proud that the Liberal Democrats have had a hand in securing it.

Decent homes for service families should be not just reported on but acted on. Defence Ministers have assured the House that housing standards are on an upward trajectory. We will hold the Government to account on that commitment. Can the Minister give any assurances that resources will be put in place to ensure that that happens? Nobody wants to see an annual report that leads to no progress. I also ask him to ensure that service family accommodation meets the commitments made in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation’s consumer charter—most notably the requirement to complete urgent repairs within a timeline consistent with Awaab’s law. That would ensure that Lords amendment 39 strengthens a Bill that already delivers vital reforms for renters and rightly includes protections for service families. It delivers broader transformation in renters’ rights by ending no-fault evictions, creating more secure tenancies and raising standards across the private rented sector. Amendment 19 would also allow shared owners to re-let if a sale falls through. As such, we support it.

Of course, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture: the need to build a new generation of council and social rent homes—150,000 per year. This week shows that determination, persistence and principle can deliver real change. Our forces families will now have statutory protections for their homes, tenants across the country will gain greater rights, and every step like this brings us closer to the fairer housing system that we all want. I congratulate all those who have campaigned for this change, particularly the forces families who have contacted me. More secure homes are what private renters need, and decent homes are the least our military deserve.

Social Housing: South Cotswolds

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

I support the Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes. This debate refers more to social housing and I wonder whether you could give an indication from the Dispatch Box—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to the Minister. He cannot keep saying “you”. It is exhausting.

[Mr Dillon]

Apologies. Can the Minister give an indication of how many of those 1.5 million homes will be for social rent?