Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

You are not in your usual place, Chris Vince, but I can still see you.

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

I was going to start by making a joke about always being picked last, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you have ruined it by picking me early on—thank you for that. I will try it anyway.

I am used to getting picked last in this place, but I was picked first when the new Prime Minister visited Harlow and my local pub. There, he had the opportunity to talk to Mr McMullen, the head of McMullen’s breweries, who said that this Government are doing more to support the pub trade than the previous one did. To change the subject, though, may I ask the Minister about how this tourist levy has been put in place in other G7 countries—where it has been very successful—and what he has learned from other countries?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We have two further urgent questions, a statement and lots of business, so let us try to keep questions and answers short.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

If the New Forest and the Waterside were forced into a unitary authority dominated by Southampton and Eastleigh, what chance would there be of local authorities looking after the interests of rural areas?

Building Homes and Renewing Communities

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

The Prime Minister has this week set out our plan to bring back hope, after a decade of decline. Today I want to update the House on the first steps that my Department is taking to rise to these new challenges.

We know that the sense of decline that people feel runs deep. The causes are not straightforward, and it did not happen overnight, but the most visible sign of it—a constant reminder of political and economic failure—is the state of our high streets: shuttered-up shops reminding us of what once was, and organised crime too often out there, visible, in the open. Decades of deregulation and austerity for local government and the recent cost of living crisis all share the blame. Every part of Government has a role to play in getting our high streets booming again, so in response we are rebuilding the local state, giving councils new powers over their high streets and putting them back in control of their town and city centres.

Local leaders know their high streets best and are best placed to bring them back to life, so in the months ahead we will support councils to block new bookies, vape shops and so-called casinos, and we will double the length of closure orders from six to 12 months, so that police have longer to investigate dodgy shops. We will improve high street shopfronts by setting clearer expectations for their design and appearance. That is alongside our Pride in Place programme, which is giving local communities £6 billion to improve their areas.

Everyone who has walked down their high street will have spotted another glaring signal of state failure: people sleeping rough. In 2026, in the world’s fifth richest economy, everyone should have a roof over their head. That is who we are as a country. This is a kind, caring nation where people take pride in looking out for each other, and that is why we will end rough sleeping in our country. When I visited Changing Lives in Newcastle over the summer, I met the incredible Sabrina Cohen-Hatton. Today Sabrina is chief fire officer for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, but as a teenager she experienced homelessness. Sabrina is an absolute inspiration and shows that if people are given the right support that they need, they can transform their lives.

By Christmas this year, everyone sleeping rough will be offered a route off the streets. We have set aside £442 million for a new rough sleeping programme to meet that milestone, while investing in accommodation and support to end it for good. That takes our total investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services to more than £4 billion over the next three years. We know that the reasons people sleep rough are complex. For example, eight out of 10 rough sleepers have a mental health vulnerability. Our plans are more than just accommodation; it is a whole-system approach that will also include access to health, substance or employment support. Women who are homeless are not always visibly sleeping rough, so we are specifically asking services to meet women where they are, to ensure that they get the support they need.

Rough sleeping is just the worst symptom of an underlying crisis that we are determined to tackle. For too long, Britain has not built the homes that we need. We are getting Britain building, with council housing at the centre of our plans. The failure to build council homes to replace those that were sold off is one of the major causes of the housing crisis that we inherited at the last election. Last month I met families in Kidbrooke who told me that when they moved into their new social homes, it took so much stress away. One resident told me that they had come from a place with mould on the walls and mice on the floor, and that finding out that they were moving into a new home was like winning the lottery.

Last week I announced the first wave of our allocations for the social and affordable homes programme. That is more than 70,000 homes, nearly two-thirds of which will be for social rent. We also announced new support for councils to rebuild their capacity, including a further £46 million over three years, and an expansion of the Pathways to Planning programme. This follows our new national planning policy framework, which will unlock thousands of homes around train stations, and our announcement of new housing and planning powers for mayors, who can now call in planning applications for strategic sites, and grant up-front permission to build for the benefit of local people. We are also giving them greater say over how national housing funding is spent in their areas, with Homes England investment now focused on their priorities.

Solving the housing crisis is not just a moral cause, it is an economic necessity. Every shovel in the ground means new investment, new jobs and growth in every postcode. We must also put power in every postcode. The legacies of political choices in the 1980s and the decades since, the centralisation of political power, privatisation of economic wealth, and de-industrialisation all contributed to the loss of control that so many people feel today. The future of our country relies on us building a new economic and political settlement that serves those we represent.

That starts with the largest ever transfer of power and funding out to every region of England. For the first time, mayors will receive a share of income tax revenues, meaning that they can invest in what matters most locally. They will also be given new powers to bring rail and bus services under local control, run 16-to-19 funding and employment support, and back local industries and businesses to create new jobs. Where power is devolved, resources will be devolved too. That will end the begging-bowl culture of the past and pave the way for a new era of devolution. In the months ahead we will make sure that every area benefits, by supporting areas without a mayor to establish new strategic authorities.

Finally, I want to take a moment to thank all of those involved in the response to the wildfires this summer, including the firefighters, who showed immense bravery battling the flames. I saw the horrendous damage in Stourbridge at first hand, and the level of emotional turmoil was devastating. I will never forget meeting a woman on Quarry Park Road whose neighbour was widowed less than a year ago; she had lost her home and all her possessions too. During the fires we made emergency funding available, and this autumn the Prime Minister will chair a wildfire summit to discuss what more we can do to improve our resilience. The wildfires and extreme heat show the threat that we face from the climate crisis. We must treat this as an emergency in itself.

The steps we are taking are only the start. In the months ahead, we will take through the Representation of the People Bill, giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote and protecting our elections from foreign interference; we will speed up building safety remediation and end the feudal leasehold system; and we will work with local leaders as we fix the foundations of local government. The Prime Minister has promised a new political and economic model and, together, we are shaping it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend has been a great champion for Grimsby for a very long time—I think we both originally came here together in 2015—and I congratulate her on her work. She is absolutely right to praise the housing associations coming together to build the homes that people desperately need. I will look at that letter, which she is absolutely right to highlight. I will bring forward proposals on how we are working with councils to deal with the empty homes situation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her appointment. I look forward to our exchanges, and to working with her and her team.

There are millions fewer council houses than there used to be, yet the need for social housing has only increased, not least given the scourge of poor-quality temporary accommodation for too many children. The Shared Health Foundation has found that in the last six years, temporary accommodation has been noted by the coroner as a contributory factor in the deaths of 104 children.

In Taunton and Wellington and elsewhere, all that people see are unprecedented plans for private housing that many will not be able to afford. Councils have been instructed by Whitehall to consent to homes for 180,000 people in Somerset over the next 15 years—a 25% increase in the pace of growth, never seen in the county’s history. What we need instead is a truly ambitious programme of council and social housing—not the Government’s reannouncement that 60% of its 300,000 programme will be social housing and not the 18,000 per year, but the Lib Dem policy of 150,000 social homes a year.

I recognise that the statement confirms around 46,000 social homes over 10 years, with further tranches to come, but will the Housing Secretary and the new Prime Minister, who has said a lot about social housing, raise the target from 18,000 a year or not? Will the Government raise their £3.9 billion funding to our proposed £6 billion? If they will not do that, will they write off some of the councils’ housing revenue account debt so that councils such as Somerset can build the 600 council houses that they would build if they could?

Representation of the People Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

This Bill gives back what was taken away by the Elections Act. In my last few seconds let me say briefly that council officers run so many elections, and they do a fantastic job, but too often they are not given the financial support they need to do the work—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

As has already been mentioned, it is common knowledge that too many voters think that money talks louder than their ballot paper and that those with the deepest pockets have far too easy access to power. In short, the British public increasingly do not trust their elected politicians or their democratic institutions. If we truly are serious about rebuilding that trust, we must tackle this problem head on. That is why the Representation of the People Bill really matters.

As the Minister rightly noted—I welcome her to her place—this landmark piece of legislation introduces some of the most ambitious changes to Britain’s democracy for a generation, including tougher rules to keep dirty money out of politics and to safeguard our democracy from interference and harm. Each of these measures is essential. They will help to rebuild trust in our politics, and each sends an unambiguous message that this Labour Government take the health of our democracy far more seriously than their predecessors.

Many of the safeguards needed against corruption, undue influence, dirty money and foreign interference are already built into the Bill, and I welcome the changes that have been made already, but as we explored in some considerable detail in Committee, effectively defending our democracy requires addressing a number of remaining gaps. It is clear that closing these loopholes is fundamental, and building on those constructive conversations, I tabled new clause 61, which seeks to close one such loophole.

Under existing rules, there is a complete absence of scrutiny of the funds that new parties hold upon registration. While new parties are required to submit a declaration of assets and liabilities when they register, there are no checks on the permissibility of these funds. Members will recall that when the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) launched a new political party, Restore Britain, no such checks were in place. Prior to the launch, Restore Britain was a political movement that may, or may not, have received substantial contributions from questionable sources before it was formally registered as a political party. As things stand, that is entirely legitimate. Parties do not need to demonstrate that funds or assets accumulated before registration originate from permissible donors. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent brand new political parties from sidestepping controls on donations by simply accepting as many donations and gifts as they please before registering.

We should not wait until formal registration before asking questions about the true origin of major political donations. My amendment would mean that any new party would have to subject any funds it holds of over £250,000 to post-registration permissibility checks. Having already raised such proposals in Committee, I know that Ministers are keen to ensure that no loopholes of that kind remain in the Bill. I hope the Minister will consider introducing some level of vetting for any significant funds that parties hold on registration. That will help us to crack down on new parties accepting major donations but not facing full and meaningful scrutiny.

As we look ahead, I hope that the Minister will hear not only enthusiastic support for the Bill, but the strength of feeling across the House that it must be ambitious enough to tackle the scale of the threat we currently face. We must rebuild trust in our democratic institutions and protect our democracy from corrupting influences, deep-pocketed individuals and unwanted foreign interference. This landmark Bill, with the right changes, is our opportunity to do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am reluctant even to mention this, because all the Members here are so highly experienced, but when mentioning another Member in the Chamber, the etiquette is to give them prior warning, so that they have an opportunity to offer a rebuttal in real time.

I am looking for Luke Akehurst, but he is not here, so he has missed his turn.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, because at the end of the day, nothing matters more than protecting our democracy. It is the bedrock of our society, and we have got to defend it at all costs. In that spirit, I am delighted to welcome the new Minister to her place. I know she will do a fantastic job.

We need to show that intimidation has no part to play in our public life. This Bill makes provision to ensure that we give protection not only to candidates, campaigners and elected office holders, but to electoral staff. I am sure that many of us in this place can point to times when we have been intimidated while out campaigning. Civil and robust debate is important, but it is very different from intimidatory behaviour. We require changes to keep pace with the changing world we live in and the increasingly digital life that we experience, so I note new clauses 41 to 47, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), to prevent online harms. Online harassment or worse is growing exponentially year on year. AI-generated images, deepfakes, disinformation and misinformation being circulated on social media and other forms of online harassment are simply unacceptable. That must be addressed as a matter of urgency for the preservation of Members in this Chamber, particularly women, who suffer even higher levels of abuse.

The spirit of those new clauses is spot on, and I am pleased that the Government are taking these issues seriously through the Online Safety Act 2023 and through the defending democracy taskforce. I am also pleased to see the Government establishing an AI-labelling taskforce, and as the Bill passes through the other place, I hope that the Government will continue their work to further tighten up measures in this area.

For very preservation of public life itself, proposals to mitigate those risks, both online and offline, are absolutely key. We know that only too well in Southend West and Leigh, and our thoughts remain with the families of Sir David Amess, Jo Cox and Ann Widdecombe.

Cleaning up political donations is also vital. One critically important clean-up—we have heard about it today—is of cryptocurrency. I have spoken in this House many times about my interest in financial regulation, and I harbour concerns about the crypto world as it stands today. Rules around the sector need to be watertight before it can be safe to allow contributions to political parties from cryptoassets. Crypto, in my view, has a place in the future of the UK financial system, and there are many in the UK industry who are working hard for tighter, more appropriate regulation to get that moving, but for now, the anonymity in the political donations world is simply not acceptable, as it creates the risk of a significant reduction in transparency. I believe the measures in the Bill to ensure the reliability of such donations are of paramount importance to safeguarding our democracy.

To conclude, I want to confirm that, unlike others, I support bringing forward rules that update measures that give 16-year-olds the opportunity to vote. After all, 16-year-olds can join the armed forces, and they have to pay taxes if they are working. Ultimately, they are the ones who will be most exposed for the longest period to good or bad decisions made by future Governments. We must start crediting our young people with the ability to make up their minds. I have met some incredible young people through work experience in my office, and through my youth days and visits to schools. At my last youth day, 70 pupils—the clear majority, with only two against—were in favour of votes for 16-year-olds. Even the teachers, the people who know the children best, were overwhelmingly positive about the move. The Bill will take us forward into a new age in which young people can have a proper say on their future. Democracy has endured because of its ability to accommodate change, and we are now in a rapidly changing world. The changes we need to make to protect our democracy for years to come are vital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I will extend the time limit because we have gathered some time. Mark Sewards now has six minutes.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I know that many of my colleagues are keen to get in, so I will try to keep it under five minutes. I will speak specifically about amendments 31 and 34. When the Government brought forward this legislation, I was so pleased that they referenced enhanced “know your donor” checks, because before accepting donations from anyone all political parties should know who those donors are and where the money is coming from. We know that malign state actors are seeking to influence our politics. They often try through wealthy individuals who have the means to try to distort things here in the UK, so I was pleased with the Government’s announcement on donor checks.

However, I did not think that the original Bill as drafted was strong enough, and with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) I drafted some amendments that I think will greatly strengthen those checks. For example, amendment 31 states that parties must consider things like the location or jurisdiction of the donor, any links the donor has to politically exposed people, and the source of the wealth being donated from.

I was equally delighted a few months ago when the Government, in a statement from the Dispatch Box in response to the Rycroft review, said that location would be incorporated within the “know your donor” checks. However, it is now the second day back, I have had two Select Committees and some work on funeral regulation, and I have looked through the amendment paper and have not, other than in my amendment, been able to find reference to location in any of the Government’s amendments. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on that and on whether the Government are still committed to ensuring that location is something that political parties have to check before accepting a donation.

I would also like to ask the Minister about two other areas. Why did the Government not consider that it was necessary to include politically exposed people or the source of the wealth being donated from? I ask that because recommendation 5 of the Rycroft review said that “know your donor” rules should

“more closely mirror the customer due diligence provisions in the anti-money laundering regulations.”

If a young couple from Leeds South West and Morley seeks to take out a mortgage, they have to answer these questions. It is reasonable and fair that a political party accepting millions of pounds in donations should also have to answer them. If the Government have fully accepted the Rycroft review yet not incorporated those two recommendations, I suggest there might be a contradiction, which I would like the Minister to acknowledge.

It is worth saying that the things in amendment 31 are not radical; they are not new. The Electoral Commission said as far back as 2018 that such changes could prevent foreign money from being used to influence UK politics. The Committee on Standards in Public Life said in 2021 that such measures would be useful and that, again, the money laundering regulations are the model that we should follow. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on why those additional two things were not incorporated in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Third Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind the House that this business has to conclude by 8.3 pm, and that the shadow Front-Bench team may wish to speak on it.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

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

The Bill strengthens our elections and takes a stand against hostile actors at home and abroad who seek to threaten them. It extends the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds and automates voter registration. It protects candidates and officers, and introduces new, tougher rules around political donations.

The legislation reflects the commitments made in our strategy for modern and secure elections, which I published as Secretary of State in July 2025. It also now delivers much of the Rycroft review on foreign interference. It meets our manifesto commitments and sets the foundations for a new model of politics that is both stronger and fairer.

I reassure the House and hon. Members that during the Bill’s passage we have committed to returning to various issues in the other place. I look forward to a strengthened Bill returning.

I will briefly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) and the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, who have carried the Bill through the House, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), who delivered much of the policy that led to the Bill.

I also thank those hon. Members form across the House who have contributed to debates on the Bill. In particular, I thank the Opposition and those who took part in the Bill Committee. It would be remiss of me not to pay a special tribute to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). As he said in Committee, the Bill is “groundbreaking” legislation, and I most certainly agree. Finally, I thank my team in the private office, all the officials at the elections directorate in my Department, and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, who have worked so hard to produce the Bill before us today.

The Bill will leave our politics stronger and fairer, and all those who have contributed to its drafting and passage should take huge pride in having done so. The measures are the next step in the evolution of our democracy, strengthening our institutions and processes to ensure that they work for the people they serve. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I begin by welcoming back the Secretary of State to her place. I very much look forward to working opposite her.

As Conservative Members have set out so well throughout the passage of the Bill, this legislation professes to strengthen our democracy, but our democracy is not strengthened by proposals rushed through with too little time for proper scrutiny. Our democracy is not strengthened by allowing candidates to campaign in foreign languages, and to escape accountability as they build campaigns based on group-based grievances.

I was amazed to see on Report the reaction on the Government Benches to the Conservative policy that election campaign materials should be produced only in English or in native languages of the British Isles. An election is a fundamentally important part of our conversation. It should be a matter of universal agreement that that conversation should happen in a language that everybody can understand. Our democracy is also not strengthened by allowing men in particular communities to direct how the women in their families vote, or by making it difficult for our citizens overseas to cast their ballot.

As I said on Report, when we make changes to the way our democracy functions, those changes must always be designed to make sure that the British people can better hold their representatives accountable, that would-be representatives can meaningfully put their case to the British people, and that our democratic process is conducted according to the national norms and practices that have made this country such a successful democracy for so long. Given the importance of those aims, any such changes must be developed and proposed carefully and thoughtfully. The Bill fails those tests.

Conservative Members will always remain open to measures designed to genuinely strengthen the integrity of our democracy, to protect our democratic process from foreign influence and to ensure that our hard-won and dearly held liberties are extended to every citizen of this country, wherever they may be. Those duties are incumbent upon all of us as elected representatives of the people. We do not believe the Bill before us reflects them, and we will oppose it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In her opening remarks on Report of the important Representation of the People Bill, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), repeated—I am sure inadvertently—misinformation about family voting in the Gorton and Denton by-election, despite the fact that it was run within the law and saw me elected with an overwhelming majority, and that Greater Manchester police found no evidence of criminality. What steps can be taken to ensure that the record is properly corrected?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for prior notice of her point of order. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the Chair, I am not responsible for the content of speeches of Members, Secretaries of States or shadow Secretaries of State. It is up to them to be responsible for the content of their speeches. The shadow Secretary of State may wish to respond as I notice that she is in the Chamber. We do not wish to prolong the debate, but a quick response would suffice.

[Katie Lam]

It is an established fact that observers reported widespread concerns about family voting at the by-election that returned the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) to the House. It is up to every Member, and to the public, to decide what to do with that information. The hon. Lady is within her rights to dismiss it, but I do not.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I do not wish to prolong the debate but both points have been put on the record. I will leave it there.

Embodied Carbon: Buildings

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Chowns]

Absolutely. As we have discussed, we should reduce, reuse and recycle; let us make sure that every part of a building is reused in the best way possible. Demolition should be the absolute last resort, so it sounds like the hon. Gentleman’s planning authority is taking the right direction.

Last year, I attended an embodied carbon industry summit, which was held just over the road from this House. At the summit, a simple question was asked of attendees: without Government intervention, will local embodied carbon rules become more consistent or more divergent? The response was absolutely resounding: the rules will continue to diverge without Government leadership. It is clear that national regulation on embodied carbon will reduce complexity for the construction industry, not increase it. It will replace fragmentation with consistency, create a national carbon dataset, and provide certainty for industry, while delivering meaningful carbon reductions. Surely that is exactly the kind of planning reform that this Government should want to achieve.

As the Environmental Audit Committee highlighted in its 2022 report, “Building to net zero: costing carbon in construction”, regulating embodied carbon would be

“the single most significant policy the Government could introduce”

if they wish to tackle the reuse of buildings, the development of low-carbon materials and a reduction in these emissions. Why are we still waiting?

The encouraging news is that the construction sector is not waiting for Government. For more than four years, more than 250 organisations from across the built environment sector have supported a campaign called “Part Z”, named after the various other parts of the building regulations. They have been calling for national embodied carbon regulation. Those companies are not asking the Government to invent something entirely new. Indeed, the same experts who developed “Part Z” have now produced the UK net zero carbon buildings standard, a ready-made framework that provides a practical route to compliance. It builds on the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ whole-life carbon assessment methodology, one of the most developed embodied carbon methodologies in the world. These documents could form the basis of future regulatory reporting requirements and, in time, a new approved document. The Government do not need to start from scratch; the construction industry has already done much of the hard work.

Indeed, members of this Government used to be in support of such action. When a private Member’s Bill on embodied carbon was debated in 2022, Jonathan Reynolds, now the Government’s Chief Whip, and previously the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, said “We support it”—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We do not talk about colleagues by their first and second names. We mention their constituencies, and if we are mentioning them, we give them the courtesy of letting them know that we will do so. I say that for future reference, to make sure that it does not happen again.

[Dr Chowns]

I am so sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand entirely corrected. The aforementioned right hon. Gentleman said:

“We support it. I agree with his proposition that industry would welcome further regulation in this area”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 620.]

He was right then, and that statement is right now, because this is not regulation that industry fears; it is regulation that the construction sector is asking for. Industry is calling for this, because it provides a level playing field, creates local green jobs and boosts investment in lower-carbon materials. Good regulation rewards innovation, provides certainty for investment and gives British businesses the confidence to lead.

The rest of the world is moving ahead in this area. The Netherlands has regulated embodied carbon for more than a decade. The EU requires reporting from 2028 and will have limits from 2030. Türkiye is requiring reporting from 2027. Several US states mandate reporting today. Meanwhile, Britain, despite having world-leading engineers, researchers and designers, risks falling behind. This is not simply an environmental issue; this is an industrial strategy issue. It is a planning reform issue and a housing issue. It is about whether Britain intends to lead or follow.

Today, I ask the Minister for one thing above all else: national leadership. I ask for a clear pathway towards national regulation to measure and reduce embodied carbon, aligned with the direction already being taken by many of our international partners and by many in the construction industry. I ask that embodied carbon is finally recognised within national planning policy, replacing today’s fragmented patchwork with one coherent national approach. I ask the Government to consider using the UK net zero carbon buildings standard as the route to fast-tracking the compliance requirements, finally giving industry the certainty it has been requesting for years. When will the Government finally release their long-delayed circular economy growth plan, which could deal with embodied carbon at its core?

Climate change is not hanging around, as we can see around us all the time, and embodied carbon is only making things worse. We can and must change that. We have the expertise, the methodology and the support from industry. Local authorities are crying out for consistency, and the standards have already been written—the only thing missing is national leadership. I call on the Minister to provide it.

Point of Order

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to correct an inadvertent error I made earlier today. During the Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee debate on the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026, I inadvertently stated that a relevant powers and functions order would fall under the affirmative procedure, when it will actually be made under the negative procedure.

[Official Report, Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee, 8 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 10.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the Minister for giving notice of his point of order, and for seeking to correct the record so quickly, which he has now done. Hopefully that draws a line under it.

Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon]

The Chair of the Select Committee has raised some important points. I will not be drawn into discussing the specifics of individual hypothetical cases—we legislate in principle, and I will continue to do so—but I will give her further details of the arrangements in writing. She is correct in saying that we work across Government on this issue. I am joined on the Front Bench by the chair of the defending democracy taskforce—the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle)—which deals with partners across the Government, including the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Foreign Office, as well as the Electoral Commission. We work closely with our partners across the Government, and will continue to do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement.

Just over five months ago, I stood here and asked the Secretary of State to strengthen the Representation of the People Bill by ensuring that post-tax profits, not overall revenue, were used when assessing the eligibility of company donations. He rejected that plea, as did the Minister in Committee, but I am delighted that this Minister has now agreed to accept that. It was a recommendation from Philip Rycroft and from those working in the democracy sector, and it is a welcome change.

We Liberal Democrats champion a fair and free society, so we also welcome the announcement that candidates will have to declare gifts of over £2,320 in the year prior to their election. That, hopefully, will provide further useful clarity for those who may thus far have been confused about what they do and do not have to declare. We welcome steps towards cracking down on any foreign interference in our democracy, but we still have some way to go, and we urge the Minister to consider banning anyone who has served in a foreign Administration from donating to UK political parties, think-tanks or campaign groups, as well as banning donations from those convicted of political violence; that would include those funding the likes of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. People who hold British values in contempt and act as a mouthpiece for those who want to undermine our democratic institutions should have no place in our democracy.

We need a much more transparent system to ensure that the British people have faith in politicians. What the Minister has announced today will close loopholes, but too many will remain. Will she consider exploring the benefits of a cap on donations from UK donors, and year-round spending caps by political parties and candidates? That is the way in which loopholes are truly closed.

Finally, can the Minister gives us some insights into how this important work will be handled across the multiple ministerial Departments and agencies? It involves the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Cabinet Office. The Minister is very able, but she is the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy. Does she agree that a more streamlined portfolio is what our democracy deserves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Minister responds, let me say that one question is enough.

[Samantha Dixon]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder which question the hon. Member would like me to answer most pressingly. On working across Government, yes, we do take this extremely seriously, and the work will not stop just because we have successfully completed stages of the Bill. The work is ongoing, and with our partners across Government we will continually monitor interference in our political system and act against it. On that particular platform, I am sure this is being considered, but I am not going to make a commitment at the Dispatch Box.

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.