Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I can certainly commit to look into it and to respond to the hon. Member in writing.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Businesses in Devon have told me of their concern about this proposed visitor levy, including Littlecourt Cottages in Sidmouth. They point out that the tourist footfall might decrease, not just for the cottages, but for the restaurants, the attractions and the shops in the local area. This tax has been dreamed up on the basis of what it will do for cities that see a higher proportion of wealthy overseas visitors, has it not?

[Jim McMahon]

Of course it has not. First, devolution will be rolled out across the whole country, and significant rural areas are already covered by mayoral strategic authorities. That roll-out will include foundation strategic authorities, which covers places such as Cornwall. As part of the next stage of devolution, we are seeing a grow-out across the south of England and the east of England that will see more coverage. Fundamentally, it is for local leaders and local mayors to get together and work out what is right for their area.

Local Government Reorganisation

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I agree with my hon. Friend. In our past lives, we worked in local government and on local government policy for some time. We have to take time to get this policy right, and he is right to make the distinction between local government reform and devolution, but the two can intertwine to help us on our way. This review does not impact on the timetable for devolution. Unitary local government can help with smoothing the functions of strategic authorities, but that is not a prerequisite.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Devon is one of 14 areas where local government reorganisation is being reviewed and paused, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for having listened to Liberal Democrats in Devon and perhaps also to her legal advisers. When the rapid review takes place, will the Secretary of State please consider the greater costs associated with delivering in the countryside, such as rural Devon?

[Angela Rayner]

One of the challenges that rural areas face is transport. One of the reasons that the Prime Minister has been so eager to make sure that devolution happens is that those who are closest to what is going on in their local area know what challenges are being faced and how we can unlock some of the potential, and Devon can take the positives from that. We want to work with Devon to make sure that people in Devon get the right local devolution and local government reform for them. That is why I paused the decision.

Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. Like her, I am passionate about local government. I find myself in Cornwall corner here today, but I am proud to be a Member from Norfolk. I stood for Norfolk county council way back in 2009 and lost in a bad year for my party. I stood again in 2013 and lost by a single vote, though I was delighted to be elected in a by-election six weeks later. I served on the county council for 13 years and only resigned when I was elected as an MP. It gave me a real understanding of the complexity and difficulty involved in delivering services across a wide geographical area such as Norfolk.

The London borough of Islington is the smallest upper-tier authority in the country, with statistics not dissimilar to other urban upper-tier councils. It has a population of about 223,000 people, covers less than 6 square miles and has a population density of 15,000 people per square kilometre. By contrast, Norfolk, where my constituency is located, is home to 940,000 people—nearly four times as many—but covers more than 2,000 square miles and has a population density of 175 people per square kilometre.

On top of that, the median age in Islington is 33, while in Norfolk it is 10 years higher. That is because—I am slightly in danger here—Norfolk is of course the most beautiful county in the country and many people rightly choose to retire there. However, that puts an additional strain on public services, and it means that the proportion of the population who are of working age and contributing tax is lower. When that is combined with years of underfunding by the previous Conservative Government, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire mentioned, rural residents inevitably pay more for services out of lower than average wages. As is the case for several rural upper-tier authorities, Norfolk faces higher costs to provide services across its dispersed population.

This disparity causes many challenges and weakens our potential for economic growth, and that is the key point I want to get across to the Minister. Rural upper-tier authorities often do not have the funds available to invest in the services that would drive economic growth. There is limited investment available, for example, for rural infrastructure, transport, housing, skills and broadband.

If the Government want to see rural communities contribute more to national economic growth in every postcode, as I believe they do, they need to recognise that funding local councils would be a good place to start. I therefore ask the Minister to consider three particular measures. First, future local government settlements need to include much stronger and more transparent rural sparsity components, taking account of not just population but road mileage, travel times, population age and the number of communities a council has to serve.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and he is absolutely right about road mileage. Devon has to maintain over 8,000 miles of road, which is the most of any upper-tier authority in the country. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that partitioning Exeter off from the rest of Devon—from the rural Devon hinterland—will strip away the tax base from Devon county council, meaning it will be unable to provide alternative services that would otherwise power growth?

[Terry Jermy]

I understand the Devon road network, which is similar to Norfolk’s—Norfolk and Devon’s councils were paired—and there are obvious challenges with it. I am sure the Minister heard the hon. Gentleman’s point about local government reorganisation, but I will not comment on it. I can barely understand Norfolk’s proposals, let alone Devon’s.

As I was saying, road mileage, travel times, population age and the number of communities that a council serves are all crucial. There are 72 villages and three market towns in my constituency; they are all different, with unique challenges but also unique opportunities.

Secondly, the Government need to do more around the special educational needs and disabilities crisis. I appreciate that SEND is somewhat outside the Minister’s brief, but it is a crucial issue for councils like Norfolk’s that are trying to meet the growing cost of SEND while delivering other services.

Thirdly—this is more Norfolk-specific—there needs to be sufficient funding for the reorganisation of Norfolk’s local government structures. The objective should be to ensure that the money spent on creating new authorities does not come at the expense of the services that existing authorities currently provide. I am a huge supporter of devolution and local government reorganisation in Norfolk, but it is expensive and time-consuming and, frankly, councils already have enough to worry about at the moment.

Local Government Finance

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The final settlement for local government finance does not bring good news for Devon. Research by the Rural Services Network has shown that urban councils will have significantly more Government-funded spending power per head than rural councils.

By 2028-29, urban councils will have seen a 20% increase in Government-funded spending power, compared with an increase of just 2% for rural councils, yet on average, wages in the rural economy are lower than the national average wage. The settlement will place a significantly greater expectation on council tax payers in rural areas to cough up. Let us consider what effects that might have on residents of mid and east Devon by noting what things are already like for people living in one village in east Devon.

Dalwood is a village with a population of about 460. It is half a mile from the main road—an A road—and one of the two access routes to the village has been under water since November. I heard from one resident that the state of the road is so poor that she was charged £1,000 for car repairs as a result of negotiating the pitted, crumbling access road. She makes the point that east Devon residents pay some of the highest rates of council tax in the country. In a league of the highest rates in the country for a band D property, east Devon is rated 305 out of 350, where residents in the 350th local authority are paying the most.

The Government announced last month that they will be making available £7.3 billion for road maintenance over the next four years. When people in Devon hear numbers like that, they wonder whether officials and contractors are going to the cash machine, drawing out the money, mixing it with paste, using it to make papier-mâché and filling the potholes that way. The reality is that the money is not finding its way to Devon.

Devon has the largest road network in the country, at 13,000 km. Last March, the repair backlog for the roads in Devon alone would have required an extra £384 million. The reality is that Devon was able to spend little more than £60 million on road maintenance last year. To take another example, one resident of Sidmouth wrote to me recently to say:

“I for one have paid out for damages to my vehicles in five and a half years the sum of £5,100.”

They continued:

“Here we are living in the UK, an advanced country, with the lanes, A roads and B roads in an appalling state of repair”.

That is the context of the local government settlement as it relates to Devon.

The local government settlement has removed the remoteness uplift from the area cost adjustment. The settlement does this in all the relative needs formulas, with the one exception of adult social care. I am glad that the Government have acknowledged that adult social care costs more when it is delivered in a rural area, but they have shown themselves to be blind to the needs of rural communities by removing the remoteness uplift from other areas of local government, including road maintenance.

Councils in rural areas do not enjoy the same economies of scale as urban areas. The countryside requires more bases from which services can be delivered. It has fewer contractors and less competition. I urge the Government to think again about the remoteness uplift.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Mr Twigg.

We all recognise the need for genuinely affordable housing, but progress cannot be measured in house numbers alone if it leaves communities worse off. Wing Commander Ian Derbyshire from Payhembury recently contacted me after his wife, who is in her mid-70s, received a letter from her GP surgery in Cullompton to inform her that she had been removed from registration. She had been registered as a patient at Payhembury for over 20 years. Wing Commander Ian and Mrs Derbyshire had written twice to the Cullompton practice to find an explanation for why they had been removed from the surgery’s list, and they were advised to register with a practice that would perhaps be more distant from them. The reason they had to move was simply that new housing had been built between them and the GP surgery to which they were registered.

This is not a unique case. Another resident of Payhembury, aged 89, received an identical letter. It was only after my office made contact with the GP practice that the surgery explained the reason for these residents being reallocated. Mrs Derbyshire has significant memory problems. She finds comfort and reassurance in familiarity, and the prospect of moving GP surgeries, having to retell her medical history, navigating new systems and building trust from scratch fills her with dread. Indeed, this is where joined-up government has to come in, because the NHS knows it is good practice in primary care for patients to see the same doctor over time.

Wing Commander Derbyshire served as an RAF officer for decades. He and his wife moved around the world for 34 years, repeatedly being uprooted by service to our country. Now in later life, when they look for some stability, they are being displaced once more, not by a posting or indeed war, but by a lack of anticipation.

When houses are approved, built and occupied, GP provision lags behind. When surgeries reach breaking point, their current patients pay the price. That cannot be right, particularly in places that have been identified for significant additional housing, as in Cullompton, where we anticipate that over 5,000 new homes will be built as part of Culm garden village in the decades to come.

Under the current planning system, house builders are not automatically required to meet the capital costs associated with additional GP capacity. Local authorities can negotiate section 106 planning obligations with developers to secure financial contributions, but that is not built in. Indeed, these obligations are not obligations; they are discretionary and must meet strict legal tests of relevance, necessity and proportionality. In practice, that means housing growth outpaces the delivery of new or expanded GP facilities in places such as Cullompton.

We must not allow new housing to undermine the provision of healthcare, nor can we allow it to undermine the natural spaces that play a role in keeping people healthy and easing pressure on the health service. A report in The Guardian in October put the UK down as the fifth worst country in Europe for access to green space, because of the loss of it due to development. New housing must not come at the expense of nature or of protected landscapes, and any attempt by the Government to dilute these safeguards will be met with firm and determined opposition. We can and must build new homes for this country, but not by forcing the elderly from their GPs, by eroding our green spaces or by displacing the very communities those homes are meant to serve.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Richard Foord Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of rural areas. As we see mayors in more rural areas, it will be incumbent on them to respond to the priorities and needs of their local people. That is the beauty of the democracy we are putting in place—it is the beauty of the fact that mayors will be democratically elected. In areas where mayors cover rural areas, we are seeing that those mayors are absolutely clear about the challenges in the rural economy and are working to ensure that their economic and investment plans address those challenges. That is what I expect, because at the end of this process is a democratic lock, and if a mayor does not respond to the challenges in their local area, local people can vote them out.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

During the debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Minister for Housing and Planning said that the Government would use the devolution Bill to strengthen the status of assets of community value. Will the Minister confirm that this Bill will indeed strengthen that status, so that we do not see such assets being demolished in pursuit of new housing?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We will be moving on to talk about community right to buy and assets of community value. We are clear that communities should be able to identify assets of community value and ensure that they are protected. We are looking to give communities greater power to take on those assets. We are clear that every community will have those assets that they value. This Bill will ensure that we give them the power and the tools to protect those assets.

I will move on to another key amendment that we are making on Report. I am sure that Members across the House would agree that London’s pubs and restaurants are the beating heart of our cultural life. They contribute to our capital’s world-class status and the growth of our economy, yet for too long hospitality businesses have been held back by a licensing regime that lacks proportionality, consistency and transparency. That is why we are bringing forward amendments to pilot a new licensing regime in London. It will give hospitality businesses greater confidence and create the conditions for London’s night-time economy to thrive.

The amendments will give the Mayor of London the power to publish a strategic licensing policy for hospitality venues within London’s night-time economy, which licensing authorities in Greater London will have a duty to “have regard to” when carrying out their licensing function. The Mayor of London will also be made a statutory consultee on licensing authority policies, and the Greater London Authority will become a responsible authority in the licensing process.

The amendments will also introduce a call-in power for the Mayor of London for borough licensing applications of strategic importance.

Property Service Charges

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing this debate in the House. Earlier this year, I wrote to hundreds of residents across the Weald of Kent to get a better understanding of how property management companies operate across our home. What I discovered was very worrying and, as many Members here will recognise, it is an all too common story. To date, I have heard from nearly 100 people across 11 estates all complaining about their property management company FirstPort. The pattern is as depressing as it is predictable: steep and unexplained increases in service charges, slow and inadequate responses to maintenance issues, and a serious lack of accountability and transparency.

Let me share a few examples. Constituents in Yalding and Headcorn have told me that they face a 70% and a 40% rise in their management fees respectively. Those are not minor uplifts, and nobody can tell them clearly what they are paying for. I understand that costs are rising not least for things like insurance, but at the very least, hikes like that should be clearly explained. Constituents in Marden and Kingsnorth have documented cases where no maintenance at all was carried out for months, despite repeated chasing—grass not cut, lights not fixed and rubbish not cleared—and yet the bills keep coming.

Finally, constituents in Tenterden and Coxheath have told me that it is beginning to affect the value of their homes, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Some have said that their properties are becoming unsellable because buyers will not take on the liability of these charges and this management. In one case, two sisters are trying to sell their late father’s flat. He bought it for £150,000 and they now cannot even sell it at £60,000. At auction, the price has fallen below £20,000. They told me that local estate agents refuse to list it because of the fees associated with managing the property.

Much of this is part of a wider pattern. Many residents on these estates pay twice for what most people would regard as the same basic services. They pay full council tax to their local authority, as everyone does, but on a growing number of estates, the council has not taken over the roads, street lighting or green spaces and therefore does not maintain them.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

To that point about councils not having yet adopted such things as the roads or pavements, I have the example of Pebble Beach in Seaton where I represent, where residents have been charged fees and even threatened with legal action before the estate has been handed from the developer to the property management company. Has she come across that, too?

[Katie Lam]

I am afraid so, and fairly regularly in fact. The legal action that the hon. Member mentions is important to reflect on because it can in some cases be deeply distressing and seem very aggressive for people just trying to get what they have already paid for, which in some cases does not even exist yet.

Residents are required to pay a second set of charges on top of the council tax to a private management company, such as FirstPort. They pay council tax for street lighting and then they pay a private company for street lighting. They pay council tax for maintaining the verges, and then they pay again for someone to cut the grass—except of course in many cases the grass is not cut. In these situations, the homeowner has almost no practical leverage. The council says, “It is private land”; the management company says, “You are contractually obliged to pay us anyway”; and the person who lives there, who cannot simply switch provider and who must disclose the charges when they come to sell, is left with little ability to challenge poor value. People are paying more and getting less. There is a continuing lack of transparency, with residents routinely denied a proper breakdown of charges, not given meaningful answers and, in some cases, not even given the dignity of a reply.

FirstPort is one of many property management companies that have been allowed, in some respects, to conduct themselves with impunity, largely because local residents have almost no consumer power or transparency. I have met representatives of FirstPort, and they assure me that the company is changing and improving. I very much hope that this is true. But, in case that does not happen, the last Government took important steps to address this through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.

The purpose of the Act is to give residents clear information about what they are being charged and why; to widen access to redress when something goes wrong, which is crucial; and to ensure that disputes with management companies can be resolved fairly. But residents will not see those benefits until all the secondary legislation is brought into force, guidance is published and management companies are given a clear expectation that they will need to comply.

I caution the Government against assuming that the answer might be to layer on fresh regulation or to draft a new Bill. I encourage the Government to accelerate the implementation of those elements of the Act. My constituents do not want to wait, say, another year to see itemised, comprehensible service charge bills and prompt access to redress. They accept that the streetlights must be maintained, the gutters cleared and insurance bought—they know all of that costs money—but what they will not accept, and nor should they, is paying more for less with no answers and no accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

I often hear the same story across Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme about bills that jump without warning, charges that people cannot control, invoices that are hard to decipher and work that arrives late or not at all. If we pay for services, we should know what we are paying for, the standard we can expect, and how to put things right when they go wrong.

There has been some progress on what has been coined “fleecehold”, and on the rights of homeowners. I welcome steps to protect leaseholders from unjustified service charges and to raise standards in managing the agent sector, but many people still feel powerless when a bill lands. Change must bite on the ground.

We have heard that many households pay estate rent charges on top of council tax, and in the worst cases there are excessive or unexplained fees, charges for services that would normally be provided by local authorities, arbitrary administration costs and fees imposed during a sale. Too many discover too late that roads, verges and play areas are not adopted. No family should be ambushed by a large one-off bill for works that they could not foresee. Clear pre-sell disclosure and sensible reserve planning are essential.

There are good actors. Resident-led management companies, responsible freeholders and professional agents already publish clear breakdowns and engage on works early. They should feel backed by a system that raises the floor and rewards good practice. I therefore ask the Minister today for four things. First, will the Government promptly bring forward secondary legislation? We need to define what insurance fees are permitted, end hidden commissions and require standardised, transparent statements, so residents can see where every single pound goes. Secondly, will they set professional standards for managing agents? We need mandatory qualifications and a robust code of practice that will lift the quality bar and give residents confidence that estates are run properly. Thirdly, will they fix the major works regime? We need clear pre-sale information to be provided, early engagement on big projects to be required, sensible reserves to be planned, and safeguards put in place, so that households are not hit by avoidable spikes. Fourthly, will the Government make redress fast and affordable? We need to resource the first-tier tribunal, and publish simple guidance, so that residents can challenge unreasonable costs without needing deep pockets. I am sure that a small number of timely rulings will reset behaviour across entire developments.

My constituents in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme are not asking for special treatment. They are just asking for fairness—bills that are clear, charges that are reasonable, and services delivered as promised. I have set up a number of street surgeries in the areas from which I get the most comments on this matter. That way, I can hear constituents’ voices and directly feed back what they have said to the Minister and the Department as we move forward with the legislation. With prompt secondary legislation, tight definitions on insurance, professional standards for agents and an accessible tribunal system, we can turn a confusing and stressful system into one that treats residents with respect and provides peace of mind.

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Member talks about secondary legislation when suggesting what should happen next. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act provides protections for leaseholders on private managed estates; it enables them to go to a tribunal to challenge management charges. Does he think that that ought to exist for freeholders as well?

[Lee Pitcher]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and it is certainly one that the Minister should listen to and take into account. I was concluding when he intervened, so I will finish with this: our home should be a place where we get to dream, not where we have nightmares.

Post-industrial Towns

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jo White]

I totally agree. It has been too easy to invest in our metropolitan and city areas, so areas such as ours have missed out time and again. The fact that my hon. Friend’s constituency is in the far corner of England has made it far too difficult for previous Governments and industries to think about her communities and what they need in order to be strong again. I am so delighted that we have a Labour Government who are focused on the same priorities that we all share.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

While the hon. Lady is talking about the south-west of England, I would hate for her to forget Axminster, which still has a flourishing carpet maker, but it does not have quite the same level of employment that it did in its heyday. Does she agree that Government can help by investing in superfast broadband, given that Axminster is in the 10% of places in the country with the least superfast broadband?

[Jo White]

The development and growth of our infrastructure must include superfast broadband, so that we can all benefit from it. Too many areas are missing out, particularly remote, rural areas.

We need a strong economy that includes superfast broadband, AI and energy provision to ensure that we are supercharged for the future. The announcement made by the Government yesterday that British railways will use British steel is a welcome example. That commitment must be replicated in every infrastructure project across the country, in our nuclear ambitions, roadbuilding, munitions, prisons and hospital-building projects. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the industrial strategy gives priority to British companies while addressing our ambitious infrastructure commitments?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Richard Foord Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman knows he is talking absolute rubbish because those are not the words I said at all. What I said was that the occupiers’ loss payments “are made to recognise inconvenience”. He may have misheard me. I did not say that farmers were an inconvenience or anything of the kind, and Hansard will reflect that. As the proposed payments would clobber the taxpayer by making them pay double the land’s value, we cannot support the new clause.

On the contrary, we say that people are fed up with money going to private developers, leaving local people with little to show for the sacrifices that they are making for new construction projects. There are further areas where the maximum commercial value of land should not have to be paid by public and community bodies. Under amendments 88 and 89, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), hope value would not have to be paid in CPO cases where land is being acquired for sport or recreation. Her new clause 107, relating to disposals of land by public bodies, would ensure that top dollar did not have to be paid where the Secretary of State certified that the disposal was for “public good”; in those cases, a discounted price could be paid.

As we have heard, another Liberal Democrat amendment, new clause 22 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), would provide a “compelling case” justification for compulsorily purchasing land for new footpaths and cycle paths. Knowing the location of Haddenham and Thame parkway station as I do, I congratulate him on this key proposal, which would really help his constituents.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Local authorities could really do with compulsory purchase powers for cycling and walking paths. The Devon local cycling and walking infrastructure plan that came out last December said that

“certain private sector development…may come forward sooner, or later, than anticipated”.

Local authorities do not have any control over when they can put in walking and cycling paths. Would my hon. Friend’s amendment correct that?

[Gideon Amos]

The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame would definitely provide a much stronger justification for a CPO that enabled footpaths and cycle paths to be made. As he said, it would create a more level playing field with the compulsory purchase powers already in use for highways. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). New clause 22 is a very logical amendment, and there is no logical reason why Ministers should reject it, although that has not stopped them so far; I hope that they break the habit of a lifetime.

We are clear in our amendments that communities should lead, and should be in the driving seat, when it comes to development and land. When people see the infrastructure for which they have been calling, it drives more community consent for the homes we need and the communities that we want to build. We need infrastructure for nature as well. Good places to live have gardens, open spaces, parks and meadows, so our new clause 114 would charge development corporations with ensuring those things.

I remind the shadow Minister that development corporations discharged planning powers under Conservative Governments, just as under Labour and coalition Governments. It is not always local authorities that deliver development. It is therefore right to ensure that development corporations discharge their duties as effectively as possible. If and when they build new towns and major developments, as the Government want them to, they must ensure open spaces for nature—spaces that work for people and our environment. Amendment 151 would require them to report regularly on their environmental and climate duties.

The first garden cities were supported by a Liberal Government and built without felling a single tree, as the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) confirmed yesterday. Their successes were emulated, and they are still emulated in the best developments, right up until today. The vision was a radical one of bringing people and the environment, town and country, and nature and humanity closer together. Those pioneers ensured healthier places to live in, an objective that our new clause 6, promoted by the Town and Country Planning Association, would insert in the planning objectives. Today, however, we face the much greater challenge of saving nature, as well as community cohesion and consent, before it is too late.

These amendments may not pass, but make no mistake: there are no greater threats to our way of life than the breakdown of trust, which risks destroying communities, and the breakdown of our environment, which is destroying nature. Those are the challenges that our amendments would tackle head-on, and I humbly urge Members to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord]

That sounds similar to the Otter Trail in my patch, which would link Feniton to King’s School at Ottery St Mary. Does my hon. Friend agree that these new active travel paths will enable young people to get to school safely?

[Manuela Perteghella]

Yes, absolutely. We need to ensure that our new generation of young people are fit and healthy and able to cycle. That would also reduce carbon emissions in our towns. We need high-quality cycling infrastructure to ensure that all this happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord]

I, too, will keep my remarks brief, but I wish to put it on the record that Devon, which is rightly celebrated across Britain for its rugged coastline, its rolling farmland, its spectacular moorlands and its ancient woodlands, is subject to the diggers of developers who are encouraged by this Government. Although we all need houses and we all need the protection that they afford, this Bill, if enacted, will only damage nature. Nature in Devon is part of who we are and we face a nature crossroads. The Devon Local Nature Partnership tells us that the loss and decline of Devon’s wildlife has accelerated rapidly over the past 50 years. The wooded valleys of the Blackdown hills and the wildflower meadows of East Devon are priceless, but once they are gone, they cannot be brought back.

Yesterday in the Tea Room, we were talking about the darkening clouds of the international system and how this Government are having to deal with such grave matters of state. Somebody then pointed out that, never mind grappling with wars and conflict, we cannot even create a system where a £44 swift brick is put in a new house to encourage nature in our rural areas.

Healthy natural systems underpin our economy and our communities, but unless we restore nature, we will have nothing left. Building homes does not need to come at the cost of nature. We must build in the right places with nature embedded at the heart of planning.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Pubs and Community Funding

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Absolutely, those things apply to clubs and to any premises where we might listen to live music —they apply to so many places. I will focus on pubs, but I hope that we will have many other debates on all those other things.

The Garibaldi has stood on Mill Street for 150 years. It has survived two world wars, multiple recessions and two global pandemics. It has seen Redhill transform around it into the modern, bustling town it is today, but it is now at risk if the funds cannot be raised to buy the building. Rather ironically, the pub is so much more than bricks and mortar, but it needs to buy the bricks and mortar if it is to survive. In previous years, the community ownership fund has provided a great opportunity for community groups to acquire community buildings. It has awarded more than £135 million to 409 projects across the UK, including several community pubs. Sadly, however, the fund is no longer available.

The new Government have announced their intention to introduce a new right to buy for important community assets. This will no doubt bring many benefits and help to preserve valued community buildings and spaces. It will empower communities to save much-loved pubs and community halls, rather than just having to accept their loss. However, in order for groups to utilise this to the full, I ask the Minister whether they have any plans to introduce a fund to support the purchase of valuable community assets by the community.

The Garibaldi is doing a sterling job of trying to raise the money itself, as I am sure many other groups around the country are doing, but it would be useful to know if there is any likelihood of new funding on the horizon that it could apply for to supplement its efforts. The Garibaldi is such an important part of Redhill—we cannot imagine Redhill without it—so I would be most grateful for any advice and support from the Minister on how we can secure it for future generations.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that some sort of community ownership fund is required. Does she agree that the companies that own the pubs that the community is seeking to buy need to look after the properties? In Chardstock, the George Inn Continuity Group is trying to buy the pub, but the Wellington Pub Company is allowing water in through the roof, which is completely unacceptable. Does she agree that the pub companies that own the pubs need to look after them?

[Rebecca Paul]

Obviously I do not know the details of that specific case, but I agree that we all have a collective responsibility to look after these important community assets. Before I bring my comments to a close, I would like to pay tribute to some other fantastic pubs in my constituency. I have quite a lot of them.