Windrush Day

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Are you wishing to contribute?

[Joy Morrissey]

If I may.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

You may.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was so inspired by the speech of the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) that I thought I would say a few words.

I just want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for bringing forward this debate and to say a personal thank you to the Windrush generation and their grandchildren for making me feel British when I first came here. We talk about what we have in common and what divides us, and what is great about the Windrush generation is that they came here, they contributed, they were proud to be British and they have brought so much enrichment to being British. When I came here as an immigrant, it was my West Indian friends who taught me how to be British, and who showed pride in being British and pride in the flag.

My first coronation party was a Jamaican-inspired coronation party, and that is the best kind of party to have. As the hon. Member mentioned, there were none of those transparent bags; it was classy and wonderful, and I had the best time. I think my being proud of being British came from the kindness shown to me when I first came here as an immigrant.

I just want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for having this debate and the Windrush generation and their grandchildren for their incredible contribution to this country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That was just lovely. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It gives me huge pleasure to call my constituency neighbour, the shadow Minister Mims Davies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I believe the hon. Lady to be my friend as well. I completely agree with standing up to that abhorrent behaviour and to those seeking to divide us. It is right that we reflect on the discrimination that many of the Windrush generation felt around housing, employment and daily life—barriers that no one in a fair society should endure. That is true now as much as then. Any injustices that are lingering need to be understood and dealt with.

The hon. Member for Brent East rightly said that the experience of racism should belong to the past. We must never forget it, but we should also recognise that, as a country, we have changed fundamentally. As the Sewell report made clear, Britain is not a racist country, and that ought to be celebrated as an immense achievement, giving us renewed commitment, as the hon. Member said, to continue to tackle inequalities and ensure that they do not remain.

There is a balance to be struck. In confronting injustice, we should also recognise how far Britain has come, so that people do not drag us back to the past. The overt racism that shaped the early experiences of the Windrush generation is unthinkable in today’s society—although we must recognise that some people may still experience it.

The Conservatives truly and simply believe in treating people as individuals, not categories. Perhaps that is why we have been led by four women, and two people with ethnic minority backgrounds, and I am incredibly proud of that. That brings us to a broader truth about modern Britain: the Leader of the Opposition has argued that our country stands as a successful multiracial democracy, where people from different backgrounds rightly can and should be able to live together under our shared laws, values and institutions with respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield reflected on learning to be British, but we still love her accent—she did not hear that because she is not listening, but there we go.

Our diversity is real, but so too is our unity. As the shield of Jo Cox on the Chamber wall behind me says—10 years on—there is so much more that unites us than divides us, and we truly have more in common. That was pointed out by the hon. Member for Brent East, who is my co-chair on the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament. We must push and highlight the importance of women having voices and the vote, as we head to 2029 and the anniversary of universal suffrage. We cannot stand by and let any of that be eroded in this country or beyond. Our public bodies and institutions must have a common commitment to fairness and opportunity, so that we can preserve all that lies within that ideal.

The Windrush generation shows that people from different backgrounds can come together, contribute, and fully and roundly succeed, by not retreating into separate identities—that is the danger—but building something that is truly shared and celebrated.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I particularly loved hearing about the work of Baroness Benjamin—I think we all look up to the Baroness. In fact, coming to work in this place and finding out that she worked here too was pretty cool, which slightly shows my age—I don’t think I should keep going down that route! Today, we truly honour the Windrush generation’s great legacy. We do so with gratitude and we celebrate their success. It is a national success that is worth sharing this year and into the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The shadow Minister is evergreen—which means very young.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting how important it is that young people in our constituencies have the opportunity to learn about, talk about and celebrate the contribution of the Windrush generation and what they gave this country. It is vital that they are able to articulate that, and I thank the young people in his constituency for doing so.

As well as celebrating the contribution of the Windrush generation, it is right that the state recognises the hurt caused by the Home Office Windrush scandal. The Government are committed to ongoing efforts to give those who were affected the support they deserve and the compensation they are owed. Through honest engagement and meaningful reform, the Home Office has worked to make the response to the Windrush scandal fairer, faster and more compassionate. The aim is clear: to right the wrongs as far as we can and deliver the maximum compensation as quickly as possible. More than £128 million has been paid in compensation, and more than 19,000 individuals have been issued with documentation confirming their British citizenship.

Although that demonstrates real progress, I recognise that some remain deeply frustrated. I know that no amount of compensation will undo the pain, suffering and loss of many victims who suffered. I have had the honour of meeting many from the Windrush generation, their children and grandchildren, both in my constituency of Barking and Dagenham and across the country. They speak about their experience and of feeling betrayed following the scandal. They know that the impact still lingers. The truth is that we should do everything we can to talk about their experiences so that we can get this compensation scheme to a much better place. Today is an opportunity for me to reiterate the Government’s position: we are determined to ensure that those affected receive the documentation they require and the compensation they deserve.

The Government have been clear that community feedback must be at the heart of improving the compensation scheme. I take particular note of the important points made by hon. Members, in particular on the disparity between the compensation secured when individuals apply for compensation alone versus the amount they might secure if they have legal advice. The Home Office will continue to listen and act on these concerns, and I will certainly be making that point in particular.

We know that the voices of those affected need to be heard loudly so that their views can shape the Government’s approach, as does the insight and expertise provided by the Rev. Clive Foster, who was appointed by the Government as the first Windrush commissioner a year ago. His role is to provide independent scrutiny and challenge in relation to the Government’s response to Windrush, support cultural change in the Home Office and act as an advocate for those affected by the Home Office Windrush scandal.

I note with interest the important points that Members have made about the cultural change still required in the Home Office so that victims are supported in an appropriate away. The re-established Windrush unit is working with the Windrush commissioner and stakeholders to ensure that we take a trauma-informed approach when designing restorative dialogue events, the purpose of which is to listen and acknowledge the harm that occurred and identify the actions that the Department and wider Government must take to rebuild trust and ensure that the lessons learned from the scandal lead to meaningful and lasting change. The Home Office is also completing a review of all 30 recommendations from the Windrush lessons learned review before considering the next steps.

I note the call for the compensation scheme to be moved from the Home Office to a different Department. I recognise that is in part because of the frustration with the process and the speed at which victims are able to secure their compensation; however, the Home Office view is that moving the scheme to a different Department may risk a delay in payments altogether. The focus is really on improving the experiences of claimants at this point.

This year marks 78 years since the arrival of the Windrush; in two years, it will be the 80th anniversary, which provides an important opportunity for us to mark this national commemoration and recognise the lasting contribution of the Windrush generation and their descendants. I wholeheartedly welcome the calls from Members across the House to ensure that we are ready as a Government and as a country to celebrate the Windrush generation, and steps are already being taken by the Government to secure a steering group to establish what events can take place across the country in order to adequately mark the occasion.

I once again thank all Members who have contributed today and my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood for securing the debate. I have heard all the points made. I will take them to the Home Office and speak to colleagues in my own Department—MHCLG—and across Government. The scrutiny that this kind of debate provides is absolutely critical to ensuring that we get the compensation scheme right.

I conclude my remarks with this reflection. As the granddaughter of two people who decided to leave one island to come to another, I know just how important it is that the experiences of those who live in this country are recognised even when they were not good ones—in fact, particularly when they were not good experiences. It allows us to be a better society and to recognise that the rich and diverse communities we live in have been built on the back of their experiences. As we celebrate the contribution of the Windrush generation, we also redouble our efforts to right the wrongs of the past. We do so for all those in the Windrush generation, because they deserve it, and it is the very least that we can do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Helen Hayes to wind up.

Forest City: West Suffolk

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, please accept my sincere apologies for being slightly late to the Chamber.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Minister, if you were late, you would not be able to respond, so you got here just in time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Excellent. I am very glad to hear it. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this debate. I assure him that I have heard loud and clear his concerns about the high-level Forest City 1 proposals, and that I will reflect carefully on them. I also thank the other hon. Members who have made contributions to the debate.

Setting aside the detailed criticism made of the proposals in question, the core argument the hon. Gentleman has advanced is that the Government have to date refused to “say no” to it, which I think were his words. I want to respond to this charge head-on at the outset, because as he knows full well, it is not the role of the Government to opine on every development proposal that materialises across the country. For good or ill, depending on one’s viewpoint, we have a discretionary planning system in which schemes of various sizes are judged on their site-specific merits by individual local planning authorities.

The Secretary of State has powers to call in or recover planning applications where they involve matters of more than local importance, and they are exercised where necessary. The Department can also take forward specific initiatives and programmes involving the delivery of large-scale new communities. The recent consultation and decision to establish a Greater Cambridge development corporation and the ongoing work taking place to progress a new towns programme are two good examples, but in each instance the Government clearly set out the parameters of their support and consult where appropriate. What we do not do—indeed, we are obliged not to do it, given the quasi-judicial role of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system—is to publicly pass judgment on every unsolicited proposal that the Department receives. The hon. Gentleman looks somewhat confused by that notion, but that is how the planning system operates.

The hon. Gentleman kindly provided me with advance notice of the questions he asked, so in response to each of them, let me give him as much clarity as I can. He asked whether the Government recognised that the Forest City promoters do not seek to go through

“the appropriate local consultations and approvals”,

and plan to rely instead on the legal, financial and political support of central Government. In response, I say to the hon. Gentleman that, while the size and nature of the proposed development would suggest as much, it is not entirely clear from the high-level material published by the promoters. Their website states, for example, that subsidy is not sought. A clear preference is expressed, however, for a development corporation as the delivery model, but it is not made explicit whether they are seeking Government backing for a centrally-led urban development corporation or are interested in a future mayoral or locally-led approach. In short, we simply do not have enough detail about this proposal to be able to say with any certainty precisely how its promoters believe it should be delivered.

When it comes to the east of England, however, the Government’s focus is firmly on the establishment of the Greater Cambridge development corporation and using it to deliver nationally significant growth in Cambridge and its surrounding areas, in partnership with local leaders and communities.

The hon. Gentleman pressed me on whether the Government will take this opportunity to rule out Forest City for good. For the reasons I have just set out, it is not for the Government to rule in or out any proposed scheme in general terms. He is aware that when the promoters of Forest City 1 applied to be part of the new towns programme, officials reviewed the application and concluded that it did not meet the programme’s objectives, specifically the deliverability objective. However, as per the remarks made by Baroness Taylor in the other place on 10 June, which he cited, it is open to the promoters of the scheme to engage with the relevant local planning authorities and communities about their proposals.

Coastal Communities: Government Support

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Ms Martin, I do not think my beaches were being discussed.

[Amanda Martin]

My apologies—I meant my hon. Friend’s beaches.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before we consider the Lords message, I inform the House that the Government have tabled a new motion in relation to Lords reason 123J and withdrawn the motions they tabled this morning relating to that motion. The motion relating to Lords reason 155J is unchanged.

The new amendment paper is available in the Vote Office and online. It was issued at 6.30 pm and includes a note indicating when it was issued, that it replaces an earlier version, and that the motion relating to Lords reason 123J has been withdrawn and a new motion has been tabled.

After Clause 37

Brownfield land priority

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

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 89B and 89C but proposes amendment (a) in lieu of those amendments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government motions:

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 36, 90 and 155, insists on its amendments 155A to 155F and 155H to the words so restored to the Bill by that disagreement with Amendment 155, and proposes amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill by that disagreement.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, insists on its amendments 123C to 123H and 123J to 123K in lieu, and proposes amendments (a) to (e) in lieu.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am pleased to speak once again on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I thank Members from across the House for their constructive engagement in getting the Bill to this point. This Bill matters because, if we are to transform our economy, drive up living standards and deliver better public services in every community, a fundamental change is needed in the way that the country is run. This landmark Bill will deliver just that. It represents the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and communities in a generation.

I am glad that we have found a way forward on several of the issues that we most recently discussed—namely, the role of strategic authorities and mayors in rural affairs, agents of change in the planning system, and the role of town and parish councils in neighbourhood governance. We have listened carefully to the concerns raised in both Houses on the remaining issues: the ministerial power of direction in schedule 1, the prioritisation of development on brownfield land, and the models of governance in local authorities. That is why the Government have today tabled three amendments, which I will now outline.

On the question of the ministerial power of direction in the Bill, I remind the House that ensuring that every part of England can benefit from devolution remains a key objective of this Government. I repeat for the record that we on this side of the House believe strongly that the Government have a duty to drive economic growth, unlock investment and deliver better outcomes for our communities. To deny communities that opportunity would be to hold them back. That is why we originally put in place a backstop power of direction for the Secretary of State to use in exceptional circumstances—I emphasise “exceptional circumstances”—but to be clear, the approach that we are taking in practice is to work with local leaders to forge enduring local partnerships and strong local institutions with their consent.

However, we have heard the concerns and strength of feeling from some noble peers about the scope of the powers previously included in schedule 1. To that end, and in the interests of not delaying the progress of the Bill and of showing that communities can benefit from the powers that we all wish to see enacted at the earliest opportunity, the Government are content to remove all powers in schedule 1 that would allow the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of a strategic authority, whether mayoral or non-mayoral, or to provide directly for a mayor of an existing non-mayoral strategic authority.

In addition, I am happy to commit that the Government will not seek to use the remaining power to direct the addition of a local government area to an existing strategic authority for a period of four years following Royal Assent. It will then remain subject to all the same safeguards that have been discussed at length. As I have said consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, our policy and our practice are very clear. We are working with local leaders and we will continue to work with them to develop devolution proposals that command broad support across their area. That collaborative approach will always be our clear preference. The concessions I am making here today put that commitment beyond any doubt.

I shall turn now to the issue of brownfield land. The Government consider Lords amendments 89B and 89C to be unworkable. They would undermine effective plan making, constrain proper consideration of local circumstances and introduce inconsistency between spatial development strategies prepared by mayors and strategic authorities and those prepared by other authorities. As I have previously said, national policy remains the most effective route through which planning reform can be pursued, and it is the right place to set clear expectations about where development should take place.

Where concerns have been expressed about the effectiveness of existing policy, it remains too early to assess the full impact of the recent and proposed changes to national planning policy. However, in recognition of the strength of feeling expressed about inappropriately located development and to further reinforce a brownfield-first approach, the Government have tabled their own amendment. This would set a requirement in primary legislation for the Secretary of State to use existing regulation-making powers to ensure that strategic planning authorities have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed.

This will put consideration of brownfield land on the same legal footing as other highly important issues that are also on the face of the legislation, such as promoting sustainable development and the impact on health and health inequalities. It will ensure that the prioritisation of brownfield land is front and centre when strategic planning authorities are producing a spatial development strategy and considering how to meet the growth needs of their area. The drafting of our amendment is consistent with national policy, making it clear that prioritising development on brownfield land is an overall objective and clearly desirable. Enshrining this requirement in legislation will elevate its importance and further solidify the Government’s clear commitment to a brownfield-first approach.

I now turn to the matter of local authority governance. As hon. Members will know, the Government have set a clear default position. Councils that are currently operating the committee system and are not otherwise protected should be required to move to the leader and cabinet model within one year of the relevant Bill provisions coming into force. That remains the Government’s firm expectation. However, we have heard concerns expressed in the other place and in this House that requiring a council to move to the leader and cabinet model within a year could create challenges for some councils, their members and officers—for example, where an authority has submitted a proposal for a boundary change or merger in response to the Secretary of State’s new power to invite such proposals.

The Government amendment we are bringing forward today responds to those concerns. It allows the Secretary of State to extend the one-year transition period for non-protected councils by a further year in certain circumstances. This provides flexibility where a council is already on a clear path to dissolution, so that it is not required to undertake a significant governance change that may have little practical benefit. This does not change the Government’s wider policy on local authority governance reform, but it does provide a proportionate and pragmatic safeguard in response to the points that have been raised over the pace of change.

To conclude, the Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result of the scrutiny in ping-pong so far, and I thank the noble Lords and this place for their contribution in helping us with that. We are pleased to be able to offer concessions on brownfield land, local authority governance and the ministerial power of direction. I urge the House to support the Government’s position and accept these concessions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I put on the record my thanks to the Minister and colleagues in her Department for the constructive spirit in which they have approached the negotiations around the Bill. It remains the official Opposition’s view that the Bill’s overall direction of travel is a centralising one: it brings into effect many new powers for the Secretary of State to direct the work of local authorities and, in particular, the new mayors and the strategic responsibilities that they undertake will all be subject to a degree of direct influence from Whitehall. However, it clearly is in the interests of all parties represented in the House to seek to reach agreement on those points that have remained in contention. I know that I share the Minister’s sense of delight at once again being here at the Dispatch Box discussing Lords amendments.

Let me briefly address the Lords amendments in turn. The Minister set out clearly the Government’s agreement to step back from some of the directions which were included in the original legislation. That is one example of where the Opposition felt there was centralising power within the legislation. However, the Government have been constructive in the way they have approached that and have recognised that there is a degree of justification around that backstop power to avoid a situation where the whole country is covered by combined authorities but some councils are left outside of those boundaries. I know that many Members have expressed concern in the debates, both in Bill Committee and in the Chamber, at the impact that that would have, particularly on opportunities for economic development.

Let me turn to the brownfield amendment. Opposition Members have been resolute from the outset in saying that whatever new arrangements the Government are determined to implement, we need to ensure that local communities can continue to stand up for and protect the green spaces they cherish, whether those are greenfield sites used for agriculture, or greenfield and green-belt sites used for leisure to provide that buffer around our cities and suburbs.

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on in what he says. Members across the Chamber have been surprised to hear Reform say that it wishes to tear up London’s green belt as part of the local election campaign. I am grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for recognising, in the fine tradition of many Labour councils, that we need to ensure that there are sufficient provisions in the legislation to ensure the protection of those vital green spaces for future generations.

I am especially grateful to the Minister for making what may seem like a fairly technical change, but as she has just told us from the Dispatch Box, it establishes for the first time, after five rounds of ping-pong, a clear hierarchy in the legislation that sets out that the new mayors, in their spatial development strategies, will need to prioritise brownfield land for development. Many Members across the House expressed concerns when we debated local government reorganisation just a few weeks ago about the impact of housing targets being displaced. That will be more effectively managed under the amendments that have been agreed across the House tonight. That is a distinct step forward from all our perspectives.

Finally, I will briefly touch on local authority governance. We recognise that there is a difference of opinion. It is the Opposition’s view that local authorities should be able to set up their structure of governance in a way that reflects their local circumstances. Although our strong view is that the leader and cabinet model is the most efficient and effective way to do that, people taking decisions with which we may disagree is the essence of local democracy. The Government’s agreement to pause the use of that requirement means that there will be a period in which local authorities can reflect on their governance arrangements and consult if they wish to do so, and the normal cycle of local elections can take place—of course, there will also be a parliamentary election.

I think we all know that the matter of local government reorganisation never entirely stops; it merely starts again at a different point in each parliamentary cycle, so there will be further opportunities to reflect on it, but in the context of the Bill, about which we still have significant concerns, those agreements reflect progress in a direction that makes us much more comfortable. For those reasons, we do not propose to divide the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, I tabled a written question to the Foreign Secretary, asking whether Jonathan Powell was subject to scrutiny vetting before or after he was appointed as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on the Chagos negotiations. I have not yet received a response. Given that Morgan McSweeney appeared to tell the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning that the vetting process began only after Powell was later appointed as National Security Adviser, how can I secure an official answer from the Foreign Office to this basic question before Parliament prorogues?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I know the hon. Member is diligent in getting answers on behalf of his constituents and will no doubt explore every avenue to get that answer. I say to Members on the Treasury Bench that it is only appropriate that Back-Bench MPs are able to get responses in due time on behalf of their constituents—no doubt that they have heard that. The hon. Member has got his words on the record.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.

Clause 2

Areas of competence

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

I beg to move,

That this House does not insist on its disagreement to Lords Amendment 2 but proposes Amendment (a) to the Lords Amendment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 89B and 89C.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 36, 90 and 155, insists on its amendments 155A to 155F to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement with Amendment 155, and proposes further Amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill by that disagreement.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 37 and 91, does not insist on its amendment 37A in lieu, and proposes Amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill in lieu of those amendments.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 94B and 94C.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123 but proposes Amendments (a) to (h) to the Bill in lieu of those amendments.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak once again on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I am pleased that we have worked constructively throughout the Bill’s passage to ensure that the Bill is as strong as possible. We have engaged in good faith with Members from across the House and incorporated their feedback. With that, I turn to the amendments that remain in scope for ping-pong.

Lords amendment 2 seeks to add “rural affairs” as a distinct area of competence in clause 2 of the Bill. As I have said before, there is no difference in policy intent here; the Government’s position remains that those matters are captured in the existing areas of competence. Nevertheless, we recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed by noble Lords in the other place. As we extend devolution beyond the predominately urban centres of England, it is right that strategic authorities look to use the powers and funding at their disposal to support communities across a wide range of geographies, whether urban, rural or coastal. The Government are therefore prepared to accept the addition of “rural affairs” and “coastal communities” to the list of subjects included in the areas of competence.

Hon. Members will know that the Government’s objective is for every part of England to benefit from devolution, and that we want this to be fundamentally a bottom-up process. For the benefit of the House, I will repeat the Government’s commitment not to commence the ministerial powers of direction to establish non-mayoral strategic authorities or expand existing strategic authorities without local consent for a period of two years following Royal Assent. This is the approach that we have taken in conversation and engagement with local authorities in order to form foundation strategic authorities, and this is the approach that we continue to take. At the same time, we have listened carefully to concerns raised by some in this House and in the other place about the backstop powers set out in schedule 1. We therefore propose removing the power for the Secretary of State to establish a mayor in an area without local consent.

On brownfield land, the Government fully agree on the importance of prioritising the development of brownfield land. As previous stated, planning policies and decisions are, and should be made, under the national planning policy framework. It remains the right place to set clear expectations on how and where developments should come forward. I have previously set out that imposing a legal requirement in the Bill would risk undermining effective plan-making and local flexibility in supporting sustainable development. The Government consider the amendment passed by the other place to be impractical, as it would undermine effective plan-making, limit consideration of local circumstances, and create inconsistency between the requirements for spatial development strategies prepared by mayors and strategic authorities, and those prepared by upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities. I therefore invite hon. Members to reject the amendment in lieu on brownfield land.

Let me turn to the issue of local authority governance arrangements. We remain firmly of the view that executive models of governance—in particular, the leader and cabinet model—provide the clearest and most transparent decision-making in local government. We continue to believe that our approach strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent model of governance across England’s local authorities and respecting local democratic mandates and decisions where a committee-run council has adopted its governance model more recently. We have got the balance right; we have listened and adapted, and we do not intend to go further. I invite hon. Members to reject the Lords amendment.

I recognise the strength of feeling about the role of town and parish councils in neighbourhood governance. The Government have considered Lords amendments 37 and 91 carefully, and we cannot accept an amendment that would undermine the principles of autonomy and localism. The creation of new parish councils is for local authorities to decide on, based on their community’s needs. Central Government should not intervene and direct that any particular model of neighbourhood governance is right for a place.

However, we have proposed a further amendment, building on our previous commitments. The new change requires local authorities to engage with town and parish councils where appropriate regarding parish representation under neighbourhood governance arrangements. That makes it clear that parish councils, where they exist, have an important role to play in neighbourhood governance. Again, we absolutely recognise the role of town and parish councils—I have made that point consistently throughout the passage of the Bill. We believe that our amendment strikes the right balance, alongside our commitments to reviewing and updating the guidance on community governance reviews, and to publishing a neighbourhood governance framework.

While I thank my noble colleagues for their insightful comments on the “agent of change” principle, I continue to hold that the most effective way to ensure the proper consideration of that principle is by strengthening existing mechanisms. National planning policy is not wishy-washy, as some have suggested. The framework carries significant weight in the planning system, and we are already in the most ambitious period of planning reform for a decade. I recognise the concerns that have been raised with me throughout this debate, and it is clear that the principle is not being effectively implemented. We already propose updating policy to address these issues, and I have committed to reviewing the guidance, in order to help disseminate best practice. Again, there is no fundamental difference in the policy intent; we are talking about the mechanism for taking it forward. We believe that the changes that we have in train will ensure that important businesses are protected from the effects of new development. With that, I urge the House to reject the Lords amendments.

The Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result of the scrutiny in ping-pong so far, and we are incredibly grateful. We are pleased to be able to offer concessions on rural affairs, coastal communities, the power to direct a mayor, and town and parish councils. However, the Government are not prepared to accept any of the other Lords amendments that we have discussed today—not because there is fundamentally a difference in policy, but because we are thinking about the most effective mechanism for ensuring that these policies bite. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position and accept the Government’s concessions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Despite the Minister’s centralising zeal, I detect a slight weariness on her part as we once again go toe to toe on Lords amendments. It remains the position of the Opposition that the Government are bringing forward in this Bill overall a set of centralising measures that are fundamentally about extending control from Whitehall into our town halls. Those measures come from a Government who have a record of imposing additional cost and responsibilities on our local authorities, as we hear continually from local government leaders.

It is welcome to hear from the Minister that there has been additional recognition from the Government of the differences that exist in our rural and coastal communities—I do have some coastline in my constituency, but I do not think Ruislip lido was what we had in mind when making the argument. It is clear that the needs of our rural and coastal communities, and the potential that they offer, are often different from what we see in urban and suburban areas, so we will not be pushing for a further vote on the matter of extending the recognition of rural affairs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and congratulate him on his efforts yesterday. I am sure we are both struggling to bob in the Chamber this afternoon.

I agree with the shadow Minister about the cabinet model for local councils. I am sure he agrees that one of the advantages of that model is that there are fewer meetings, which makes being a councillor more accessible for those who have jobs and childcare commitments and means that we do not just rely on councillors who are perhaps retired. On his point about the Government’s approach to local authorities, does he agree that one good thing that this Government have done is ensure multi-year funding for local councils? When I was a councillor in Harlow—I got my mention of Harlow in—it was a real challenge for the opposition to do its shadow budgets and for the administration to do its budgets.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It would be interesting to know the timings of the shadow Minister’s marathon.

[David Simmonds]

Suffice it to say that I was significantly slower than the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), whose outstanding efforts will, I am sure, leave him a little bit sore when bobbing today.

The hon. Member will know the benefits of an effective leader and cabinet model, because he has a good Conservative local authority led by Councillor Dan Swords, and the work of Councillor Dan Swords and his team has driven forward the improvements Harlow has been able to enjoy over many years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

In my comments, I will address the agent of change principle. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music, and this has long been on our agenda. The shadow Minister got the gist of this right when saying that it is about existing or long-standing venues—music venues and nightclubs, in particular—having to bat back legal challenges from residents of any new build residential property, but primarily apartments. We have had examples of cases, such as Alphabet and the Moth club, where there have been legal costs of £50,000 or more from having to take on new developments that are challenging their ongoing operations.

I encountered a case of this kind in my constituency, which we had to fight in the planning committee. An organisation called Music and Arts Production provides music and arts education in its building for young people who have been excluded from school and who would otherwise become NEET—not in education, employment or training—but who are thus kept within the education system. One of its main sources of funding is Cosmic Slop, an event that raises a significant amount on Saturday nights.

There was to be heavy residential development in the area in the form of a new block of flats in Mabgate, opposite the MAP building. The problem was that there would be no sound protection or mitigation; in its local plan, Leeds had not mapped music venues or nightclubs. I received thousands of emails about the planning application from as far away as New York. We had to have significant discussions with the planning department and councillors to ensure that the necessary stipulations were made for noise reduction, and to ensure that the new residents could not, in effect, close down the club night, because if that happened MAP would have to close as well, and all those young people would become NEET.

I sympathise with the Ministers dealing with this matter, because throughout the process the national planning policy framework, on a non-statutory basis, has forced local authorities to take such action. I think we should consider ways of addressing this issue through secondary legislation and the local planning process, because at present neither the Bill nor the NPPF protects venues adequately. I know that, like mine, the Minister’s constituency contains many music venues and nightclubs, and she obviously cares deeply about such venues. I hope she will reassure me that the Government will look at the agent of change principle and ensure that, both locally and nationally, the relevant protections are available so that further pressures are not put on those venues. Nightclubs in particular are already suffering as a result of the business rates increases and other recent cost pressures, and the additional costs of having to fight developers will eventually push them out of existence.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision not to insist on their disagreement with Lords amendment 2, which proposes the inclusion of rural affairs in the list of competences for strategic authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I encourage Members to ensure that their contributions are linked to the amendments that are in front of us.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government amendment to include a competence covering coastal communities, in addition to the existing Lords amendments on rural areas. As many Members have already mentioned, coastal communities have lagged behind the rest of the country when it comes to economic growth since the great financial crash. Our constituents have more physical and mental health needs, lower life expectancy and higher rates of major diseases, and they are generally older. On average, they have lower educational attainment and higher rates of school absences, and once they enter the workforce, they are paid less. Our coastal towns are also more likely than non-coastal towns to suffer from high levels of deprivation. Coastal towns face unique economic pressures, including seasonal economies, struggling industries such as fishing and hospitality, and acute housing crises caused by the spread of short-term holiday lets and a lack of social housing.

Connectivity is also a major issue for our constituents. Along with a lack of quality public transport and less broadband availability, our constituents are at the forefront of the impact of the climate crisis and the sewage scandal. Renewing our coastal towns and their local economies will be crucial to ensuring that all parts of the country share in the national renewal that the Government are aiming to bring. That is why this amendment is so important. I hope that the Government will be clear in their expectations of what metro mayors with responsibility for coastal communities should do. There needs to be a strong economic focus, with an understanding of how public services and infrastructure underpin the ability for a community to prosper. Can the Minister confirm that one of the commissioners will have to have responsibility for coastal communities, if a metro mayoral area has a coast?

Furthermore, I hope that the Minister will discuss with colleagues on the Treasury Bench how an economic strategy for the coast might be developed through the designation of a coastal economic area. That would complement the new competences outlined in this Bill to ensure not only that our national strategic priorities for growth reach the communities that could benefit from that investment, but that we can contribute to the economic health of the nation.

Will my hon. Friend consider some of the perhaps unintended consequences of the local government reorganisation planned for the coming years? I am very much in favour of unitarisation, not only for efficiency, but for the ability for places like mine to come together to develop a strategic vision for the wider economy and society of east Kent. However, research I have commissioned suggests that there may be unintended consequences for coastal towns from the local government reorganisation as planned. There are 33 coastal towns and cities with a council’s main office, town hall or headquarters within their boundaries. Some 24 of those are going through the local government reorganisation process, and 22 have a proposal or multiple proposals that could result in their being dissolved in their current structure and merged with other councils into a larger unitary that covers a bigger area. If that happens, the new unitary will need to decide where they have their headquarters.

Town halls in coastal towns or cities are at a particularly high risk of relocation because of their often peripheral location, their relative lack of proximity to the new, larger constituent population, their weaker transport links and other issues such as flood risk. Those relocations would have a detrimental impact on local economies, at a time when many of those 22 coastal towns and cities are already struggling. They would also lead to the those places being more cut off from public leadership, increasing that left-behind feeling. I remind the House that some of those high-risk areas include Clacton-on-Sea, Sittingbourne, Margate, Blackpool, Cromer, Grimsby, Southend-on-Sea and Eastbourne. It ends up being a list of exactly the kind of places that we should be helping, so mitigations should be put in place for precisely that.

I will also refer to the parish and town council amendments as outlined. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) said that there was a commitment to

“hardwire community engagement and neighbourhood working”—[Official Report, 2 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 250.]

into the new governance proposals. It is a shame, however, that parish and town councils are designated only to be important local partners, rather than there being a legal requirement for them to be consulted. I say that because the town councils in Broadstairs and Ramsgate are highly valued and complementary to the existing local authority structures of Kent county council and Thanet district council. We notice the difference between what we see happen in Ramsgate and Broadstairs, which have town councils, and in Margate, which does not.

The reality is that Margate is about to secure its own town council thanks to fantastic, strong community campaigning by some of my good friends and allies in Thanet Labour party, and that will help to correct a democratic deficit that would otherwise occur. Indeed, Margate has always been short of democratic governance, and it will be needed all the more because of unitarisation. Can my hon. Friend the Minister reassure me and colleagues that town and parish councils really will be fully incorporated into the new settlement, and that, as outlined in the new Government amendments, existing town and parish councils will have a role to play? Can she also reassure us that those without existing town and parish councils will have the opportunity for strong neighbourhood governance?

In summary, we need to ensure: that the commissioners who will be part of the metro mayoral settlement have an economic focus if they are responsible for coastal communities; that every metro mayor who has the power to appoint a commissioner and has responsibility for the coast ensures that one commissioner has that focus; that local government reorganisation factors in appropriate mitigations for when there are risks of reduction of local government presence in coastal towns; and, finally, that parish and town councils continue to be a vital part of the local government settlement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that half of Cornish MPs are present tonight, at this late stage and in a relatively sparsely populated Chamber, and that the others would be here if they were able to be, is testament to the fact that although it feels as though we are part of the way towards Cornish devolution, there is still deep concern, as this process draws towards a conclusion, that we are not considerably further forward in that process?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I am aware that Members wish to make stellar contributions on behalf of their constituencies, but I do not believe that we are discussing Cornish devolution right now. Let us keep the debate in scope of the amendments in front of us.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are simply giving the example of Cornish devolution as one of the potential products should the Government not reject the opportunity for local authorities to be properly consulted, which is what is on the amendment paper this evening. That is the most important thing this evening: to ensure that local authorities are consulted. We are seeking to make this an effective vehicle for achieving what is very much desired throughout Cornwall, both by the local authority and by local Members. I accept your point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but fundamentally, be it Cornwall or any other local authority that is seeking to ensure that its local and wider communities are properly consulted, it is not a question of our seeking a process of isolation, as I think the Government recognise.

The point that we make perpetually in relation to Cornwall—and the Isles of Scilly, which we hope will be co-operating with Cornwall as a combined authority—is that it is not about cutting ourselves off, but about cutting ourselves into the celebration of diversity across the United Kingdom. I hope that, in that spirit, Ministers will respond constructively and, in spite of the passing of the Bill, we will have a vehicle to achieve the desired ends as far as Cornwall is concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon]

Before I start, I would like to ask for a little leeway, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will speak to two amendments, but they have a direct impact on my experience of devolution, which is in Cornwall. Therefore, I just ask for a little bit of leeway, but in relation to the amendments themselves.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

So long as you are referencing the amendment to which you are speaking, then of course—the Floor is yours.

[Perran Moon]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I welcome amendment (a), which would include coastal communities, as the changes are very encouraging, but I would also like to speak to the Lords amendment on local authority consent. I am deeply disappointed that the Secretary of State’s right to impose on a local authority without local assent has been delayed for only two years. The reason why, and this is where I have to reference our experience in Cornwall, is that for centuries—since the Stannary Parliament ceased to meet in 1753—Cornwall has longed for greater powers to control its own affairs. The amendment was an opportunity to work with Government to provide that level of devolution. It should also be noted for constitutionalists that the Stannary Parliament was never actually revoked.

The hunger for greater devolution runs deep in Cornwall, and in the 21st century it has been enhanced by the Council of Europe’s framework convention of national minority status, which recognises the Cornish as a national minority. I fear that the Government’s refusal to accept some of the amendments that were tabled, including this one, runs in contravention to article 16 of that framework convention. The national minority status process began under the previous Labour Government. I am also very grateful for the elevation of the Cornish language to the status of all other British Celtic languages.

With this hunger for devolution and commitments from the party, expectations were high. However, as we approach the end of the Bill’s passage, I am disappointed by the progress made by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It is not as though the Ministry did not know what devolution we were looking for. I am deeply grateful to the Minister and to two Secretaries of State for so frequently meeting Cornish Members from both parties to elaborate on what constitutes a devolution deal. I am very grateful that the Treasury has delivered the Kernow industrial growth fund. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is moving ahead with support for the language, as I mentioned, and the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education are investing in Cornwall. However, it feels a bit like MHCLG is not moving at the same pace as the others. This was never more starkly exposed than on the day it was announced that Cornwall was losing its shared prosperity funding, and new shared prosperity funding was announced in northern English mayoralties.

I am grateful that in November 2025 the Secretary of State was mindful to offer Cornwall single strategic authority status, as the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) mentioned. Cornwall will never willingly become part of a mayoral combined authority, because to do so would compromise national minority status, as I have mentioned. However, when she gets to her feet, could the Minister please confirm when those outstanding areas, including transport, economic development, strategic place partnership for housing and British-Irish Council attendance, will be dealt with? Until then, there will remain distrust and scepticism of the Government’s intentions for devolution in Cornwall and its place within these British Isles.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell]

I completely agree. I was with councillors from Brent and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) earlier today, and they have similarly tried to use creative methods to restrict these places opening, but they have really struggled, so they really welcome these impact assessments.

In the interests of time, let me say that it is my sincere hope that these gambling impact assessments will start to tilt the balance back to communities and away from these companies. These formal assessments must help communities like Earl’s Court, where too many gambling venues already exist and the harms are already clear to see. We need these preventive powers, not just reactive regulations and law enforcement to clean up the problem after the fact, so I strongly support Government amendment 80 and look forward to the day when it comes into force.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We now have a three-minute speaking limit.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I am pleased that the Government support the principle of banning pavement parking and giving local authorities new powers, assuming that they come with new burdens funding. However, Lords amendment 40, which will give powers without a national framework, risks confusion, with inconsistent enforcement, frustrated residents and unfair pressure on frontline staff.

We need a ban across the country, with embedded changes to the highway code and a public information campaign. Shifting the responsibility to councils that decide to go ahead of the curve means that drivers could be caught out, particularly in areas of high tourism like mine in Dorset, where many drivers come from elsewhere. We need the law to be clear about exemptions for postal workers, emergency vehicles and where roads are too narrow for parking. Where such issues exist, we need the time to put down yellow lines and parking restrictions to prevent one problem from being replaced by another.

I recognise that as Lords amendment 40 is a Government amendment, there will be no vote on it, but I urge the Government to consider the potential pitfalls of the amendment and whether it answers the question that people have been asking for so many years. I think the answer is that it does not, and I urge the Government to bring forward a proper road safety Bill in the King’s Speech to properly ban pavement parking.

Let me turn to community asset transfer. I recently worked with Corfe Mullen town council to prepare an application for a transfer but it was no longer needed, thanks to the community raising nearly £600,000. I am now working with Holt football club to help it to protect its club from sale; the club was started 60 years ago by Terry Bradford with a lawnmower and a hosepipe for a shower, I am told. Since then, local residents and businesses from Gaunt’s Common and Holt have invested for all those decades to build a fabulous clubhouse and develop talent that has represented their country.

However, these projects fail because communities cannot compete with private buyers looking to make a profit and sellers knowing that they can squeeze every penny from local people by setting a price beyond their ability to fundraise. I welcome the Government’s commitment in the Bill to extend both the time that communities have to delay a sale and the independent valuation, but I seek clarity on whether the change will take effect on Royal Assent and be retrospective for applications already in train. I also strongly support the Lords amendments to extend the time on the register so that Holt football club, which has previously been threatened with eviction, can protect itself into the next generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I will briefly speak to Lords amendment 98. When it comes to regions such as Cornwall and my constituency of North Cornwall, this Bill neither respects nor gives due consideration to our unique national minority status. In a letter sent to the leader of Cornwall council in November last year, the Secretary of State said that he recognised Cornwall’s “distinct local identity” and said that the Government were

“minded, on an exceptional basis, to work”

with the leader to explore a bespoke deal for Cornwall.

Five months later, the Bill has progressed through both Houses and still we have nothing in writing about that bespoke Cornwall-only deal, or even provisions to allow for one. Instead, we see efforts by this Government to undermine Lords amendment 98. The Secretary of State plans to force his MPs to vote against that vital amendment, which would prevent the Bill from giving overreaching powers to Ministers, through which they could essentially force local authorities to combine, against the will of local people.

On 24 March, on Report in the other place, the Government Whip responded that discussions are “positive and ongoing” and urged my Lib Dem colleague in the other place, Lord Teverson, to withdraw his amendments that were specifically designed to provide appropriate legal protections for Cornwall. The Minister in the other place said:

“While the United Kingdom is a proud signatory to the charter and the framework convention, accepting these amendments risks creating uncertainty over the status and interpretation of those treaties in domestic law.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 March 2026; Vol. 854, c. 1413.]

Instead, the Government seem to have chosen to completely ignore the European framework convention and charter for languages, which opens up the Bill to potential legal challenges.

Our national minority status in Cornwall has been completely ignored, and now risks being ignored by future Governments as well. This essentially means that the current or any future Secretary of State could force Cornwall to combine with other authorities, and disregard its national minority status. Let me be clear: Cornwall does not want that, and my constituents regularly urge me to make this point. We do not want to be dragged kicking and screaming into a combined authority with Plymouth or any other wider south-west authority.

Without Lords amendment 98, we risk having a diktat from the Westminster Government that tells us what to do. That is not devolution. I urge Members from across the House to vote against the Government’s attempt to disregard this vital amendment, and I respectfully ask the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and set out what protections for Cornwall’s national minority status the Government will bring forward, and when.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. I invite the Minister to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With the leave of the House, we will consider the motions to disagree with Lords amendments 99 to 116 collectively.

Lords amendments 99 to 116 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 120 and 121 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 123 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 155 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendments 1, 3, 5 to 12, 14 to 25, 27 to 35, 38 to 40, 42 to 84, 88, 92 and 93, 95 and 96, 117 to 119, 122, 124 to 154, and 156 to 170 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 39.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with certain of their amendments.

That Miatta Fahnbulleh, Deirdre Costigan, Laura Kyrke-Smith, Sam Carling, Andrew Cooper, Sir James Cleverly and Zöe Franklin be members of the Committee;

That Miatta Fahnbulleh be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Points of Order

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I mentioned earlier, the Scottish Parliament goes into recess today ahead of the election, yet the Minister has talked about seeking a legislative consent motion. This is an important issue, and I respect the work that has been done, but can I seek your guidance on how these measures can be brought forward in a timelier manner so that we can respect the democratic process of other parliamentary institutions within these islands?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. This is not a matter for the Chair, but those on the Treasury Bench will no doubt have heard exactly what he had to say and will, I hope, ensure that his comments are addressed and taken on board—

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I can see the Secretary of State looking at me and nodding. Let’s take that as a positive.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? We have just had a statement from the Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government on donations. Can you tell me whether the Secretary of State or the Department have given any indication that they propose to come to the House to give a statement and an opportunity for questions on local government reorganisation? I know that Mr Speaker was particularly concerned that a good deal of information has been placed in the media over the last 24 hours about decisions that have been made, and as yet no Members of this House have had the opportunity to scrutinise the Government on those matters.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member has put his point appropriately on the record. I have not been given any notice of such statements, but the Front Bench has no doubt heard his concerns and will respond accordingly.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This House passed the Humble Address so that there is full transparency on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States. That includes the due diligence undertaken by the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team. Yet, in an answer to a written question, Cabinet Office Ministers have now admitted that the people advising on what is to be redacted or deemed in scope are the very same propriety and ethics team that undertook the due diligence. Is that not a massive conflict of interest? What advice can you provide to Ministers on mitigating those conflicts of interest in responding to the House, given that the advice on such matters would normally be provided by the very same propriety and ethics team?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member will know that I am not responsible for the inner workings of the Cabinet Office—that is a matter for the Government. I would, however, say that I know the House awaits with interest further disclosure of material under the Humble Address. I gently encourage Members to wait and see what is released, and should they require further advice at that time, the Clerks will be available.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 9 February, I submitted a named day written question to the Cabinet Office asking if any taxpayer-funded Government payment would be made to Morgan McSweeney or Tim Allan, both of whom had just resigned in the wake of the Mandelson scandal. It was due for answer on 12 February, but the question was ignored.

I tried again to solicit an answer as to whether Morgan McSweeney or Tim Allan would, or will, receive a payout by asking a further written parliamentary question on 17 March, asking specifically when an answer to the original question would be provided. This written parliamentary question was due for answer on Monday. Again, the deadline came and went, and that question was ignored. Ignoring scrutiny at Prime Minister’s questions is routine for this Prime Minister, but it appears that the broader Government are also showing total contempt for their responsibilities to be open and transparent with Members of this House. Can I please seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what recourse is available to Members whose written parliamentary questions are stonewalled by the Government?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is of the utmost importance that Ministers take their responsibilities to this House seriously. I would always expect timely answers to written parliamentary questions. They should be within scope and within the deadline, obviously. The Treasury Front Bench will have heard his concerns. The hon. Member may also wish to raise this issue with the Procedure Committee, which is running an inquiry into written parliamentary questions.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy. I seek your advice. You and the rest of the House will be aware of the deployment of HMS Dragon to the eastern Mediterranean to deal with the conflict in Iran. Most people might not know, though, that HMS Dragon was removed from the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 commitment to be retasked to go to the eastern Mediterranean. I have asked several questions of the Defence team. Most recently, on 9 March, I asked the Defence Secretary whether he could guarantee that we would be able to fulfil that NATO commitment and whether a British ship would deploy on those Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 commitments. He assured me that we will “fulfil our NATO commitments”. However, today it has been reported that the German frigate Sachsen will replace HMS Dragon on that NATO Maritime Group 1 tasking. I seek your advice on whether we can establish that the Defence Secretary comes back to the House to inform us exactly when that decision was taken and whether he inadvertently misled the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The contents of Members’ speeches, including ministerial answers, are a matter for them and not for the Chair. However, he has put his point on the record, and I am sure that the Defence Secretary will no doubt have heard this point of order and will be quick to correct the record if necessary.

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

I would like to make a statement on foreign influence and interference.

The responsibility of protecting our democracy is a duty that every single Member of this House shares. As a Government, we are clear-eyed about the evolving threats we must contend with from those who wish to disrupt our democracy for their own gain and their own twisted purposes. We already have a strong toolkit to detect, disrupt and deter interference, and we are strengthening it through our Representation of the People Bill and counter political interference and espionage action plan. But as threats evolve, so too must our protections. For this reason, I announced in December an independent review led by the former permanent secretary, Philip Rycroft, into foreign financial interference in UK politics. I would like to place on the record my thanks to Mr Rycroft for his thorough, diligent and swift work in rigorously assessing our political finance framework and identifying where further safeguards are needed. The full report from his review has today been laid before the House, and the findings are stark. Mr Rycroft concludes that this country faces a persistent problem of foreign interests seeking to exert influence on, and to interfere in, our politics, and that the threat has become arguably more acute. While he welcomes the measures in our Bill, the report is clear that we need to go further, and I agree.

We welcome Mr Rycroft’s assessment and his wide-ranging recommendations, which cover the regulation of corporate and overseas donations, the need to close loopholes used by some non-party campaign groups, the approach to combating online threats, the importance of ensuring that enforcement agencies have the information and powers they need, and the organisation of Whitehall to ensure that we are best placed to tackle these threats.

In advance of the Commons Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill, we will provide a comprehensive, line-by-line response to all the report’s recommendations. I am clear that, wherever necessary, we will amend the Bill to ensure that our defences against foreign interference are robust. Given the gravity of the threats we face and their level of seriousness, I reassure the House that we will take immediate action on the most serious loopholes set out in the report that allow illicit foreign money into our democracy.

British citizens living overseas have the right to participate in UK parliamentary elections, and that gives them the right to donate to parties or candidates they support. However, the report raises two fundamental concerns about such donations from overseas. First, the report is clear:

“Inevitably, tracing the source of funds offered by individuals living abroad is more complex than for domestic donations.”

Secondly, it raises concerns about the “democratic fairness” of allowing people

“who have chosen to live abroad in order to have their wealth taxed abroad”

none the less to

“have the opportunity to make potentially game-changing donations into British politics.”

I will therefore take immediate steps to implement the report’s recommendation on donations from overseas electors. We will introduce an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to place an annual cap on the total political donations that an overseas elector can make. The cap will be set at £100,000 a year. In the light of the gravity of the issues raised in the report, I am not prepared to allow any window of opportunity in which malign actors based overseas can funnel dark money into our politics. The cap will therefore apply retrospectively, so it will include all donations from overseas electors received from today and all regulated transactions entered into from today.

Once the provisions are in force, any donations by an overseas elector to any political party or regulated entity that exceed the cap for that overseas elector will be an unlawful donation. Subject to parliamentary approval of the amendment that I will table, the recipient of any unlawful donation will have 30 days to return that donation once the legislation comes into force, after which enforcement action can be taken and criminal penalties will apply.

The cap will apply to relevant donations from today in all elections in the UK, including for parties at the upcoming English local elections, Scottish Parliament elections and Senedd elections. In Scotland and Wales, donations to candidates rather than parties are devolved matters, but my intention is to seek a legislative consent motion for our amendments to ensure that there are no gaps in our safeguards. I will speak to my counterparts in the Scottish and Welsh Governments to emphasise my commitment to work together to protect our electoral system right across the United Kingdom.

The second recommendation on which I will take immediate action relates to donations made in cryptocurrencies. Following extensive consultation, Mr Rycroft sets out clearly the deep reservations that many people have about such donations, and his conclusions are clear that

“there is a risk that cryptoassets are used as the vehicle to channel foreign money into the political system in the UK…we should pause the use of cryptoassets for political donations for the time being.”

I accept Mr Rycroft’s assessment that the anonymity inherent in cryptocurrency transactions could make it easier to mask the origin of donations and to evade robust checks on the true source of funds. The clear route that that creates for illicit channelling of money into our politics is unacceptable and undermines public confidence in our electoral system.

In the light of that, I can confirm that the Government will take immediate steps to implement the recommendation made in the report, and we will introduce an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to place a moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency. I want to be crystal clear: as the report recommends, I mean crypto in any amount, including donations of a value that would ordinarily fall below the threshold for control on donations. There are specific risks posed by cryptocurrency donations, such as the risk of rapid multiple small donations being made just below our current thresholds.

The moratorium will remain in place until the Electoral Commission and this Parliament are satisfied that there is sufficient regulation in place to ensure full confidence and transparency in donations that are made in that way. Subject to parliamentary approval, the moratorium will be applied retrospectively to any crypto donations received from today by any political parties and regulated entities. Once the provisions are in force, if a political party or regulated entity has received a donation in the interim, they will have 30 days to return it, after which enforcement action can be taken and criminal penalties will apply. That will again apply to all elections in the United Kingdom. As I have set out, we will work with devolved Governments to secure legislative consent where that is required.

I would like again to express my thanks to Philip Rycroft for his comprehensive, thoughtful and well-reasoned report. It is, and always will be, an absolute priority for this Government to protect our democratic and electoral processes. The swift and decisive action being taken by this Government sends a clear message: we will do everything necessary to protect the UK’s democracy. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Those Members who have come into the Chamber extremely late will not be called to participate in the statement. Members have to be here for the beginning of a statement, not for the last minute of it.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her questions and for her support for this work. The intention is to bring the amendments forward on Report. In advance of those amendments being laid, we will provide a detailed response to each of the 17 recommendations, including the one to which she has just referred.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support and her active interest in making sure that the legislation that follows is as robust as possible. I would be more than happy to make sure that she has a meeting with me or the relevant Minister to discuss her amendments. The report and its recommendations cover some of her concerns, and it is our intention to amend the legislation to deal with those concerns.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As a former elections policy Minister and member of the defending democracy taskforce, may I thank the Secretary of State for launching this inquiry? I also thank Philip Rycroft for his work; it was a pleasure to give evidence to him during that process.

I welcome the spirit in which the Secretary of State has brought forward with urgency the changes that are so demonstrably required. May I ask him two direct questions? If amendments to reflect the Rycroft report are not to be tabled at Committee stage but on Report, will he ensure through the usual channels that the length of time devoted to Report stage reflects the fact that the House will be debating for the first time amendments to the legislation, which were not included on Second Reading? That speaks to the process point made by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly).

If these important new rules are to be policed effectively and properly, there will clearly be additional demands on the Electoral Commission both in terms of power and resource. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of those needs and how will they be delivered in speedy time to mirror the urgency that is required?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I appreciate that colleagues want to be forensic in their questioning, but shorter questions will be very much appreciated. I call Dr Andrew Murrison.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Mr Rycroft’s wide-ranging review makes the non-inclusion of China—or, failing that, its constituent entities—in the foreign influence registration scheme look increasingly bizarre. Will the Government look at this again as a matter of urgency? If it is the case that the FIRS is inadequate to include the state entity or its constituent parts in the meaning of the scheme, will he look to review it and perhaps replace it with something that will achieve the same end?

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

I am going to mention the elephant in the room. Earlier this month, the husband of a sitting Labour MP—the hon. Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid)—was arrested on suspicion of spying for China. The hon. Member was subsequently suspended from the Labour party. It has been reported that she received a donation from her husband’s firm, which presumably would be covered by the Government’s plans. I do not expect any comment on that live investigation, but in the light of that and the historic case of Christine Lee, Labour MPs and the Chinese Communist party, will the Secretary of State confirm that the measures he has announced will apply equally to members of his own party who find themselves compromised by the Chinese Communist party?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) will know that when we plan to mention colleagues in the Chamber, we give them notice.

[Suella Braverman]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

She is saying that she has done so. We obviously do not mention live cases either.

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. and learned Member, as a former Home Secretary, will of course know that I cannot comment on ongoing investigations. The provisions of the legislation that we will bring forward—as with all legislation—will apply without fear and favour to members of all parties, as indeed does the bribery legislation that applied to Nathan Gill, a traitor who was the leader of Reform in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his deep interest in this entire matter. Our intention is to ensure that the safeguards we put in place are robust enough to ensure that no dirty or dark money can enter British politics in any way or from any source. I am always more than happy to continue to engage with him about any specific concerns he may have.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am completely disappointed with myself for not wishing the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a happy birthday today. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is why his question was allowed to be a little bit longer than usual, but hopefully it will not be next time.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I welcome this statement. The public must have confidence that political decisions are made in their interests, not those of wealthy donors. Nowhere is that more important than in relation to the housing crisis, where there are also significant concerns that vested interests are seeking to exert significant influence on policy making. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss my proposed amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to ban developers from donating to politics and restore trust in our planning system?

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

The fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017 was a catastrophe that exposed systematic failures in regulation, in oversight and in the value placed on the lives of people in social housing. Seventy-two people died and hundreds more lost their homes, community and sense of safety. Families are still living with that loss every single day. Tragically, nothing we can do in this place can bring back those 54 adults and 18 children. As the Secretary of State noted in his speech, there is still so much to do to find truth and justice, and to ensure that it never happens again. We owe it to the families, the bereaved, the survivors and those who fought so hard for justice to ensure that what happened on that dreadful night is never, ever forgotten, and that those responsible are held to account.

This Bill is about the memorial and the foundation that will properly fund the community-led work on this memorial. Its narrowness ensures that it is the community who will choose the best way to do this. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for his words, his work and his leadership for truth and justice. I associate myself with his statement that we cannot stop until we have accountability, justice and action for change.

I represent Portsmouth North, a constituency in a working-class city that knows about close-knit communities, resilience in the face of loss and the importance of remembrance. When I was a teacher, before I came to this House, I spent years helping young people to understand not just what happened in the past, but why it matters that we remember. The archive, exhibition and memorial site will serve that purpose for generations to come. We must be able to look at what happened at Grenfell and understand why the safety of every person in every home in every tower block matters. That is a responsibility that falls on all of us.

I pay tribute to the survivors, the bereaved families and the community groups who have campaigned with such dignity, determination and immense courage. They asked only to be safe in their homes, and they were let down horrifically by a chain of failures across government, regulators and industry.

We should be clear about one of the lessons—and, indeed, the title—that comes out of the work of journalist Peter Apps. In his brilliant book, Apps noted how, for years before the fire, experts, campaigners and residents raised warnings about dangerous materials and weak fire safety rules in high-rise buildings. Yet in the atmosphere of deregulation, with the political drive to cut red tape, these warnings, and indeed these people, were repeatedly delayed, dismissed and ignored. Apps shockingly recounts how, when pressure was put on officials to strengthen fire safety guidance, one response was chilling in its bluntness: “Show me the bodies”. The unimaginable tragedy of Grenfell is that the bodies did come.

Seventy-two lives were lost in a disaster that was not inevitable, but the result of choices made over many years to weaken oversight and treat safety regulations as a burden rather than a protection. Cutting red tape may have an attractive ring as a political soundbite, but red tape can also be the crucial regulation that keeps us safe in our homes, our cars, our workplaces and our public realm. With that tragic lesson at the front of our minds, it is right that our attention turns to a memorial. The least we can do is to stand with the Grenfell survivors and campaigners, support their vision and together pass this legislation without delay, so that we remember them not only today and in debates in this place, but into the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind hon. Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Madam Deputy Speaker—please use our names. Madam Chair or Madam Chairman are also acceptable.

Clause 1

Expenditure relating to commemorating the victims of the fire at Grenfell Tower

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.