Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Sam Carling Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. A number of Members have raised the matter of remediation standards. I know that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who is sitting next to him, also raised it in a recent Westminster Hall debate that I responded to.

Many right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that the Bill will make independent auditing of fire risk appraisals of external walls mandatory. We are confident that PAS 9980 has a robust and appropriate methodology for assessing the risk of fire spreading throughout the building. The Bill will also look at the independent auditing and the statutory requirement, ensuring that additional checks on those assessments have been carried out properly. To reassure Members, Homes England will also audit all assessments that recommend mitigation and remediation and will have the power to audit other assessments.

By delivering the remediation backstop, we will ensure that no building and no resident is left behind, even if the person responsible for the building is determined to ignore the risks it presents to residents. By creating stronger avenues for redress against construction product manufacturers, we will ensure that those responsible for the cladding safety crisis pay towards the cost of fixing it.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Building Safety Minister, Baroness Blake, for bringing the Bill forward. I also thank all the Ministers who came before me for the work they did to make this Bill a reality, including the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) and my hon. Friends the Members for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali).

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

On the subject of fire safety, residents of Fletton Quays in my constituency were shocked recently to see nearly all internal fire doors fail an inspection; it turns out that they had not been inspected for many years and had been allowed to fall into disrepair, and residents are now on the hook to replace them at high cost, as well as being subjected to dangerous conditions. Does the Minister agree that that is really not on, and would she ask officials to examine whether that might be happening in other blocks of flats around the country, meaning that it might merit Government intervention?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. This Bill deliberately focuses on unsafe external cladding, because the Grenfell tower inquiry phase 1 report found that cladding on external walls. We will be looking at the area he raises as the Bill progresses, so I give him that assurance.

I now turn to a number of comments made by right hon. and hon. Members today, and apologise that I may not be able to cover all Members’ comments. I start with the shadow Minister and the comments she made on the limited workforce capacity of fire safety technicians. We will continue to review that area. There is additional funding to ensure that those fire assessors are in place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) outlined why this is such an important issue. I thank him for tireless campaigning and continued work with the survivors of Grenfell. He highlighted some of the dangers that still exist and mentioned the increasing costs that many of his constituents are facing—examples of some residents who are having to pay eye-watering bills to fix the issues. One of the matters I worked with him on in my former role as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee was the national oversight mechanism. It is not right that we are having to go through those recommendations one by one. I hope I can assure him that the Government accepted all the inquiry’s recommendations and we are making progress.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) outlined the issue with PAS 9980. I hope that he will be assured that we will continue to look at that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) detailed the real-life nature of this issue and the fact that many leaseholders continue to be left in limbo, and their mental state is being affected. Leaseholders are in limbo, waiting for remediation, sometimes having to spend a decade out of their homes. Residents continue to face this injustice, and I thank him for continuing to work with leaseholders.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) outlined the work that he has been leading around Ocean Village and Oceana Boulevard. That building was built only 20 years ago—yet, 10 years in, fire safety defects were outlined. That shows why we have to continue to work to ensure that all buildings are safe, including some that were deemed to be new builds.

The hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) detailed the tragic case of her 97-year-old constituent, who is having to rely on her children to buy her property to give her some certainty. They are now lumbered with a property that they cannot sell—simply for doing the right thing for their parent. No child should have to go through that process and face those costs. That is why we are making sure that the developers are paying for the work with the developer remediation fund.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) outlined points that a number of Members highlighted. We will continue to look at the issues around insurance and non-qualifying leaseholders. I know he has expertise and knowledge on construction product manufacture, and I will continue to engage with him as the Bill progresses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) outlined the work she has been doing with her constituents for many years and praised the decisive action taken by Salford council to act fast and think later, and then seek those costs back. It shows that our local authorities, where possible, are stepping forward to fill the gaps where developers have failed, but councils should not have to be leading on this. The developers of the buildings should be the ones paying, and we hope that the Bill will identify those owners.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) outlined the fantastic work that he has been doing with the Leeds cladding campaigners. He also highlighted the issues around the delays in building safety regulations. Under the leadership of Lord Roe and Charlie Pugsley, I hope that Members will see that we are making progress in building regulation standards.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) highlighted the tragic case of the fire at Neutron Tower, which sadly resulted in a resident losing his life. My hon. Friend knows that the investigation is still ongoing, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment, but we are continuing to work with relevant parties to ensure that the safeguarding and wellbeing of displaced residents is addressed as soon as possible. The London Fire Brigade has stated that the fire is believed to be accidental, but as this investigation is ongoing, we will continue to engage with my hon. Friend and her residents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) highlighted the PTSD faced by his constituent. That shows the real-life consequences that many of our firefighters—the first responders to that tragic fire and the many tragic fires we continue to see—have to live with. I hope that Ministers in the DWP will take into account how my hon. Friend’s constituent has to reapply every two years to that Department.

This is a real issue on which all hon. Members need to continue to engage and discuss. I hope that hon. Members will continue to engage constructively with us as the Bill progresses through the Public Bill Committee.

The passion with which hon. Members have spoken is testament to the desire we all share to bring the building safety crisis to an end and protect the residents and leaseholders who desperately need and want to see action. The Government are delivering on that. We are providing more remediation funding than ever before, remediating more buildings than ever before, prioritising higher-risk buildings and putting the safety of residents at the heart of our work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) spoke about the work of his constituent, whom the Secretary of State and I had the pleasure of meeting two weeks ago, along with cladding scandal group members. No one could have been unmoved when listening to their testimony, given the real-life issues and trauma that the ongoing delay is causing to so many. People’s lives are on hold—they cannot plan for their future, and they are in financial ruins. Tragically, some people have died waiting for the issue to be resolved.

Alongside the package of measures we have delivered to accelerate remediation and support leaseholders, the Bill will ensure that no building and no resident is left behind. I hope that hon. Members see that the Bill will bring certainty, clarity and accountability to drive forward remediation and make every building safe. That is what we owe to residents, and that what we owe to the country.

I am grateful to hon. Members from all parties who have given their support to work with us on the Bill. In that spirit, I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 8 December 2026.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Rachel Hopkins.)

Question agreed to.

Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Rachel Hopkins.)

Question agreed to.

Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees and charges under or by virtue of the Act.—(Rachel Hopkins.)

Question agreed to.

Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Sam Carling Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 General Committees

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Sir Desmond, for the second of my meetings today.

I put on record my strong support for what the Government are doing to expand Awaab’s law, both in the social sector and the private sector. As an example of its importance, a mother in my constituency recently got in touch as she is worried about her son, who is asthmatic. In their property, which is managed by a social housing association, significant damp and black mould on the windows and walls were aggravating his condition. Awaab’s law, which places a legal duty on social landlords to address damp and mould hazards that present a significant risk of harm within fixed timeframes, was a useful foundation for me to stand on when contacting the council on her behalf.

Extending those principles to the private sector will do so much for another of my constituents, who recently had his bed condemned by his letting agency for being infested with black mould. Again, the root cause was the state of the housing, which resulted in a chest infection and a hospital visit. He has had to pay for a new bed himself, which was a significant expense caused by a problem with his private rented house. I am confident that the changes the Government are making will give private tenants far more strength and backing to assert that mouldy conditions—a clear emergency health hazard—are rectified within a strict timeframe.

I want to touch on a briefing that came from Shelter earlier today. I appreciate that the Minister may not have a response to it right now as it has come through only today, but I wonder whether he would commit to writing to Shelter in response to its concerns. In short, Shelter is arguing that the amended regulations state that a

“‘significant risk of harm’ means a risk of harm to the occupier’s health or safety that a reasonable lessor with the relevant knowledge would make safe within 15 working days (but not within 24 hours).”

Shelter is

“concerned that the ‘15 day’ definition could put tenants at risk in cases where there are no quick fixes to make a home safe from a hazard ahead of further works—meaning it could fall outside the regulations”.

It gives the example that

“a reasonable landlord might not be able to make safe a significant structural collapse hazard within 15 working days...if no temporary fixes were available.”

It argues that the amended definition could potentially—I am sure in an unintended way—undermine Awaab’s law

“because, if the landlord were to argue the hazard was out of scope, tenants would lose their right to be offered suitable alternative accommodation until the hazard could be made safe.”

Shelter closes by saying:

“If Awaab’s family had been offered suitable alternative accommodation while the damp and mould was made safe, he may still be alive today.”

I wanted to bring that briefing to the Minister’s attention so that he can respond when possible.

Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

Sam Carling Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Given that Peterborough has unitary status, I agree that it makes sense for a city the size of Cambridge to have that unitary basis. However, I stress that I do not believe that should come at the expense of other regions across the county.

The Government splitting Huntingdonshire in two and using the wealthier half to try to prop up their two MPs in the north of the county is going to go down badly. The hon. Members for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) proposed option D after it was concocted by the Labour East regional office. Nobody in Huntingdonshire was asked or consulted about the proposal, but as soon as it was put forward by those two MPs, it was clear that it would be the one likely chosen by the Government.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I am troubled by the unpleasant allegations the hon. Gentleman is making. It would have been pleasant if he had come to talk to me about his concerns at any point over the last few months rather than he and a member of his staff attacking me on social media about this. It is not great.

The hon. Gentleman is raising process concerns. I am sure we all want to see a proper process. Why was it that he went on to social media and made quite a large number of claims about Labour MPs being pre-briefed of an apparent announcement that never happened—claims that therefore cannot possibly have been true, and were not?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I would bounce that back at the hon. Member and ask him why he never came to me or any of the other Huntingdonshire MPs to ask about proposing an option that would split Huntingdonshire in two. The hon. Member told the BBC last summer:

“A Mid Cambridgeshire council would allow rural areas across East Cambridgeshire, Fenland and parts of Huntingdonshire to form an authority that can deliver effectively on residents’ priorities, while a Greater Peterborough council encompassing the most high-growth areas of northern and western Cambridgeshire could better regulate and plan that growth.”

Nonsense. I am fascinated to know how an almost entirely rural Mid Cambridgeshire county council is supposed to thrive when it has no basis for economic growth. The Greater Peterborough council would encompass

“the most high-growth areas of northern and western Cambridgeshire”.

I wonder which authority the hon. Member’s constituency is within.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I concur with the hon. Gentleman. There is absolutely an opportunity here to learn from previous mistakes and make sure that they are not repeated when we drive this forward in the new year.

In early July, news began to leak out from the Local Government Association’s annual conference that Peterborough city council suddenly seemed to be aware that option D was going to get the nod. Word spread quickly among Cambridgeshire senior executives that option D was going to be selected. Who was leaking that information, and why was I left to announce it on ITV News Anglia so that people could see for themselves that the process under this Government was on the cusp of selecting the Labour-proposed option, as has happened in local authority areas across the country? Strangely enough, the response received on Friday to a freedom of information request to Peterborough city council was not able to be answered. I eagerly await the response to my own subject access request in a few days’ time.

It is simply a disgrace that the Government would treat Cambridgeshire residents with this level of contempt by leaking the outcome of a decision that appears to have been almost certainly predetermined to a privileged few, allowing those who have been given the information to achieve a head start and for favoured businesses to gain a competitive advantage, and affecting decisions on employment and education opportunities and future investment decisions.

[Sam Carling]

Might the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

No, I will carry on.

The announcement by the former Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on 16 July therefore makes little sense. He said:

“On Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex, I am not making announcements today, because further time is required to get the decisions right.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 1097.]

Could the Minister outline precisely what was meant when the former Secretary of State stated that further time was required to get the decisions right? Can he state definitively how much time is required, and can he articulate what specifically is in danger of being got wrong?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I will make a little progress.

Further to this, in his letter of 16 July, somewhat contradictorily, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), stated:

“I have decided that more time is needed to consider which option, if any, to implement at this time in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.”

We now have a new—old—Secretary of State. Can the Minister clarify whether the Secretary of State also requires more time in order to make a decision? Whether she does or does not, can the Minister clarify when the Secretary of State plans to have made her decision by? Her Department has held no further discussions with Huntingdonshire district council, so what precisely is in need of further discussion that warrants a delay of two months? Can the Minister outline why there has been a delay? Can he also clarify when Labour MPs were informed of the delay to a decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough in the first place?

I ask the Minister to clarify, on the record, whether his departmental colleague, Baroness Taylor, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, participated in a meeting with Labour MPs and councillors on Wednesday 15 July 2026, during which local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough was discussed. I ask him to choose his “yes/no” answer to that question very carefully, lest he might later be accused of misleading the House.

My position remains extant: I back a Huntingdonshire unitary authority, which is known locally as option E. It is the option that was overwhelmingly backed by councillors from all parties across Huntingdonshire district council. Disappointingly, the only people not to have backed this option are Huntingdonshire’s two other Members of Parliament. I maintain that a united front in this respect would have sent a stronger message to the Government.

I have led two debates in Parliament about local government reorganisation, both of which highlighted the potential issues that arise from getting the decision wrong. The more recent of those debates was last November and during it I provided an in-depth assessment of why option D specifically was unworkable. It is almost as if I expected the Government to stitch up the decision. I will reiterate the points that I made then for the benefit of the Minister who is here today.

Option D rips Huntingdonshire in half, creating east and west Huntingdonshire. There is a significant risk in attempting to disaggregate Huntingdonshire district council. There is a lack of precedent and an absence of lessons being learned, not to mention the destruction of local identity in Huntingdonshire, which is already stronger than local identities elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, particularly in separating Huntingdon from Godmanchester and St Ives. Disaggregating Huntingdonshire district council would also come with greater transition costs and affect service delivery.

Peterborough is a basket case. It is estimated that 11% of Peterborough’s budget is needed simply to service its own debts, with 80% needed to fulfil its statutory adult and children’s social care obligations. How on earth does it plan to run all the other existing county and district functions on a 9% budget?

Peterborough council’s debt gearing is 91%, against a national benchmark of just 50%. Under the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s local authority financial resilience index analysis, Peterborough is rated as high-risk for its overall level of reserves, its unallocated reserves, its earmarked reserves, its interest payable or net revenue expenditure, its gross external debt, its fees and charges to service expenditure ratio, its council tax requirement or net revenue expenditure, and its growth above baseline. Huntingdonshire is not deemed to be high-risk in a single one of those categories.

[Sam Carling]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

No, I am going to carry on.

The option D business case itself states:

“As Peterborough has historically required exceptional financial support and comes from the most financially challenged position, increasing the scale does not necessarily provide the desired resilience. Reserves still remain low. The cost of servicing debt continues to eat into a significant proportion of the net budget and the funding headroom is tight. This could be mitigated by resizing services in line with available funding.”

Option D provides a significantly lower level of reserves, leaving it more vulnerable to shocks. The reserves of Greater Peterborough are comfortably the lowest in Cambridgeshire at just 16%, which is again deemed high-risk. By comparison, Huntingdonshire would be 42%.

On employment, we need look no further than the percentage of universal credit claimants in the local authority; in Huntingdonshire, it is 2.8%, while in Peterborough it is 8%, which is far and away the highest rate locally; Peterborough has the highest unemployment rate in Cambridgeshire. Greater Peterborough is also projected to have the highest prevalence of education, health and care plans, and the greatest risk of special educational needs and disabilities escalation. At present, Huntingdonshire has the second lowest rate of EHCP prevalence in Cambridgeshire.

This analysis strongly suggests that the system would all but immediately collapse. Greater Peterborough will have the highest spend per resident for adult social care and for children’s social care, more than double that of the other two unitaries, as well as the highest SEND spend per resident and the highest percentage of homeless households, at nearly double that of Greater Cambridge.

It is akin to the Berlin Wall being put up overnight, condemning one half of Huntingdonshire to eking out an existence in the bleak Peterborough Democratic Republic while the eastern half enjoys the trappings of a slightly better existence in the Federal Republic of Mid Cambridgeshire. But will we? Is Mid Cambridgeshire any more viable than Greater Peterborough? No, it is not. A unitary authority for Mid Cambridgeshire would be centred upon St Neots as the biggest town, compared with Cambridge or Peterborough in the neighbouring unitaries.

The option D business case barely even attempts to sell the viability of Mid Cambridgeshire, stating:

“It encourages reflection on ensuring the resilience of all unitaries, especially Mid Cambridgeshire”.

It goes on to outline that

“targeted action can be taken to sustain its market, towns and rural communities”

and that this model safeguards the rapid growth trajectories of the two city regions. It makes no effort to address the challenges that this would leave Mid Cambridgeshire to face.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing this debate on local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach, the progress made so far and the opportunities presented by this once-in-a-generation reform.

Before I get to the main points, let me say that it is clear from the contributions of the hon. Member for Huntingdon and my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) that they are passionate about local communities—that is what makes our Parliament great—but that there are sometimes quite different views about how to achieve what they want. Life would be wonderful for central Government if at a local level there was a single answer to the question and our job was merely to say, “Thank you very much for the submission. Everyone agrees on that, and it makes complete sense.” Of course, that is not the position that the Government find ourselves in. We have to arbitrate over many competing views. We receive the proposals without predetermination, on the basis on which they were submitted, and we have to act in good faith. I assure the hon. Member for Huntingdon and others that, as a Minister, I will do that with diligence and in good faith.

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s exact points later, but let me say that it is not helpful to make accusations in this place or on social media that seem to cast aspersions on the process. I know how passionate people are about their places, their identity and the future of their local authorities, but it is important that we set the record straight. I will attempt to do that and to answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions.

[Sam Carling]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating all Cambridgeshire and Peterborough councils on the collaborative way in which they have worked together on this process? Despite coming up with different options that they may or may not back, they have remained in a position where they have been taking to each other throughout. Those dialogues have been ongoing and I think that is something to be commended.

[Jim McMahon]

We have seen that across England in the two-tier areas. In many cases, people have come together across party lines because it is far better to agree a comprehensive proposal locally and submit it to Government than to have it done to them in another way. If there is more local organisation and agreement at that level, it is far better for local people and for the decision made later in the process.

Even where there is difference in nuance—there will be differences in some elements—the core fact remains that the two-tier system just is not working. For too long, too many areas have been served by complex two-tier structures that divide responsibilities, duplicate costs and blur accountability. Residents often struggle to know which council is responsible for which services; decisions to build homes or grow our towns and cities take longer than they ought to; and resources can be spread too thinly.

The Government’s aim is simple: to have clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services for local people. As the Prime Minister said, ending the two-tier system of local government

“is a nettle…that’s got to be grasped.”

If we want to devolve more powers out of Westminster, we need a structure for local government in England that is equal across the board. Reorganisations are the building blocks for devolution, and I am really pleased with the progress made so far. Decisions have been taken in 19 of the 21 areas, and we are now working with councils to get on with the job of implementation.

I turn to the constituency of the hon. Member for Huntingdon. I understand his wish for further clarity about the previous Secretary of State’s decision and the next steps for reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. On the decision itself, the former Secretary of State decided that more time was needed to consider which option, if any, to implement in that area. The decision was not taken lightly, and I say to the hon. Member for Huntingdon now that we will consider decisions on local government reorganisation closely. They represent a fundamental change that will affect residents for generations to come, so it is important that we make the right decisions in the right way.

We will aim to make decisions on which option, if any, to implement on or before October this year. That will still allow for elections to new councils in May 2027 before they go live in April 2028. I am grateful to the hon. Member, and to other MPs and councils in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, for their efforts to date. I assure him and them that we remain absolutely committed to delivering reorganisation across the area, and we will provide further updates shortly.

On reorganisation more broadly, we recognise that it is a demanding process, and we would not have made the progress we have without the hard work and dedication of local councils and officials. The Government have announced that £63 million will be made available to support the transition across the 21 reorganised areas. As well as the unprecedented £900,000-worth of transition support to each new unitary, areas will receive up to a further £150,000 per each new unitary council to support leadership capacity and continuity in children’s services, adult social care and public health. That will bring the total transition funding for LGR areas to more than £1 million per new unitary created. In addition, up to £1 million of funding in total will be available to support the small number of areas with complex fire and rescue authority transitions, building on the funding already given to Surrey.

Social Cohesion Action Plan

Sam Carling Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is right to call for action, and I agree with her point. We will now engage in a review of how best to disseminate the definition, and put it into action so that it makes a difference to people’s lives. There is £5 million of new funding in the report, but Departments across Government will have sources of funding that also can be used to disseminate the new definition. We are committed to appointing an anti-Muslim hostility tsar, who can advise and be a critical friend to the Government in doing the work that we need to do. We will engage widely across local government, schools, universities, broadcasters, the NHS and others to agree on how we can best utilise the definition in order to support the Muslim community.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I have long been arguing that we need an overhaul of charity regulation to tackle rogue operators who are exploiting charity status to peddle extremism and hate, so I am thrilled that the Government have listened and are starting that today with new powers for the Charity Commission—I look forward to seeing the detail. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Charity Commission will have a range of sanctions to impose where needed, and that there will be clear communication with HMRC to ensure that sanctioned and shutdown charities can no longer abuse public money through Gift Aid?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Charity Commission will be getting new powers so that it can close down those organisations that purport to have charitable objectives but are really cover for promoting hatred and division. With the changes we are announcing today, that will no longer be allowed to continue.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Sam Carling Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think that I have already committed to ensuring that a visit to her constituency is on the very long list of requests that I have received, but I will bear her request in mind.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for bringing forward these brilliant measures to protect leaseholders. Constituents across Hampton own the freehold to their homes but pay several levels of service charge—first, to managing agents such as FirstPort, which is supposed to be responsible for unadopted roads, and secondly, to Hampton Estates, which covers lots of the public open space, parks and drainage. As part of our reforms, how will the Government ensure that multi-level service charges like those are addressed, particularly in areas for which they were never supposed to be adopted?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Again, I refer my hon. Friend to the two comprehensive consultations that we launched before Christmas. We need to establish the new regulatory framework to provide consumer protections for residential freeholders on freehold estates. We are also consulting on how to reduce the prevalence of such private management arrangements, which are at the core of so many of the unjust practices that residential freeholders face.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Sam Carling Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I strongly support this Bill and was proud to serve on the Committee. The Bill will deliver an enormous transfer of power out of this place and into our local communities. As a former councillor, I know that trusting local representatives to make decisions about local services and issues leads to much stronger outcomes.

I want to speak strongly in favour of the Government’s new clauses 49 to 57, which provide for the introduction of national minimum standards for taxi licensing. I am delighted to see the Government bringing forward those measures, which I and others, many of whom have spoken today, have proposed to tackle the huge problem with cross-border licensing, which is an issue for both taxi drivers and passengers. Right now, local councils have significant flexibility around taxi licensing policy, without a baseline, which means there is huge variance between councils. Yet drivers can operate anywhere once licensed. Unsurprisingly, that creates huge demand for licensing from councils with laxer standards.

Wolverhampton has become the UK’s taxi licensing hub. In the first five months of last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) mentioned, the council issued over 8,500 licences, which is more than 30 times any other council in the midlands. From April 2023 to March 2024, 96% of licences went to people living elsewhere. Wolverhampton-licensed taxis now operate nationwide, and a third of taxis in Manchester are registered in Wolverhampton, 80 miles away. That is not the drivers’ fault, as seeking out the best deal possible is understandable, particularly if it is cheaper or if processing times are faster. However, there are several problems.

First, drivers who do the right thing and register locally are undercut by those going to councils with weaker standards, creating a race to the bottom that harms both drivers and passengers. We must emphasise that drivers want this to be fixed too, so that rogue operators can be dealt with. There is a real democratic deficit: local authorities cannot regulate their own standards effectively and they lose control, as seen in Peterborough in my area, where plans for CCTV in taxis had to be dropped because locally licensed drivers would pay more while others would avoid the cost by licensing elsewhere.

Secondly, climate and emissions aims are undermined too. Peterborough city council will not license a vehicle that is over nine years old, but Wolverhampton allows cars up to 12 years old. There is a lot of variance on that.

[John McDonnell]

We have all had a go at giving Wolverhampton a bashing. The council has not advertised this licensing; it just deals with it efficiently, so drivers have gone there—but it was not the council’s fault.

[Sam Carling]

I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said. In fact, I carefully drafted this speech to avoid attacking Wolverhampton in any way, because I recognise that the reasons for this situation are complex. That goes to my next point: overstretched councils cannot monitor conditions, let alone enforce them, for drivers operating hundreds of miles away. If there is an incident in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire involving a driver who is licensed halfway across the country, there is no way that their licensing council can properly investigate and do something about it. It would be like asking Police Scotland to investigate something in Cornwall; it just does not make sense.

Thirdly, there is a huge safety issue. Some councils have less stringent Disclosure and Barring Service checking requirements, they are cheaper, or they have no requirement for CCTV or emission-compliant vehicles, so both passengers and drivers are left without adequate protection when there are incidents. That was a key point of the recent Casey audit on child sexual exploitation and abuse, which identified that some councils go beyond statutory guidance as a means of tackling sexual exploitation, but were hindered by a lack of stringency from other authorities.

That problem was also raised in the 2014 Jay inquiry into child sexual abuse in Rotherham. That rings true with calls from all sectors, including from trade unions such as Unite and the GMB—I declare that I am a GMB member—in their long-running campaigns around this matter, to which I pay tribute. I am delighted that the Government have listened to me and others and adopted the proposals that were brought forward in Committee. I look forward to seeing the detail of what the Government propose for national minimum standards, and I will continue to engage closely.

At this point, I was going to talk about the importance of considering raising the licensing authority level to strategic authorities and transport authorities, so it was brilliant to hear the Minister say just now that we will be consulting on that, because that is the other key part of this story. Together, those two measures could have a profound impact on dealing with the issues in this sector.

Turning briefly to other amendments, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s new clause 45, which will remove the requirement for local councillors’ home addresses to be published. Given the security environment, this is excellent news. I am aware of more than one incident in my region over the past few years of councillors’ home addresses being publicised maliciously online by bad faith actors, encouraging people to intimidate councillors in their homes. Indeed, that has happened in my region on several occasions, so this provision will have a tangible impact on keeping safe those dedicated volunteers from our communities who are trying to do what is best.

New clause 79, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), talks about establishing local accounting officers and public accounts committees in each mayoral strategic area. The Government have been talking about this for some time, and there is a lot of support for these committees to hold local spending to account and provide some real oversight, so I would appreciate some thoughts from the Minister on why the Government are not bringing that forward at this time, and whether they are considering doing so more broadly.

To conclude, I really welcome the Bill. We went through it line by line in Committee, so I know what a difference it will make, transforming local government, pushing power out of this place and empowering communities to make decisions that make sense for their areas. As with the last Labour Government, we are spearheading the devolution we need to unlock the growth and opportunities that have for too long been overlooked.

[Alison Bennett]

My amendment 34 is simple but vital. It would strengthen the ability of all our communities not only to bid for assets of community value but to make informed, responsible decisions when doing so. At present, communities have a right to bid, yet, absurdly, no guaranteed right to view. We ask our town and parish councils to act as prudent stewards of public money, to conduct surveys, to secure financing and to follow proper decision-making processes, yet we deny them the basic opportunity to inspect the very asset they may be committing taxpayer funds to purchase. This is impractical, illogical and unreasonable.

A recent case in my constituency of Mid Sussex illustrates the problem well. Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common parish council sought to bid for a former church building listed as an asset of community value. I can attest to the value that this building had for the community, because when my children were tiny, they went there during the week. It served as their pre-school and I must say that Cottis pre-school was and still is a wonderful facility, led by Sam. I am still grateful to the staff there for their support and the best start they gave my children.

Throughout the six-month moratorium, despite repeated requests, the parish council was refused access to the building. Only after the moratorium ended, when the property was placed in an auction, did the auction house permit inspections. This left the council with just two weeks to carry out surveys, complete its internal procedures and secure public works loan board financing. No responsible authority could compress such due diligence into that timeframe. Predictably, the parish council was unable to bid, and the building—an asset that it could have afforded, based on the eventual sale price—has now passed into private ownership and been converted into flats, removing a much-needed community venue from village ownership.

My amendment 34 would correct that oversight. It would simply guarantee that community buyers had an early and fair opportunity to view an asset so that they could undertake proper due diligence. It would impose no unreasonable burden on vendors. It would merely ensure a level playing field. If we believe in empowering communities, and if we believe that assets of community value should genuinely remain available to those communities, we must give them the practical tools to act. A right to bid without a right to view is a hollow promise. I urge the Minister to support this amendment and give our councils and the communities they serve a fair chance to preserve the places that matter most to them.

--- Later in debate ---

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

When people get in a taxi or a cab, they want to know that they will be safe, that the vehicle is safe, that the driver has had training in a range of different situations, that their specific access needs or disabilities will be recognised and supported, and that they will be treated with respect. Of course, the vast majority of drivers treat their passengers with respect and their vehicles are safe, but passengers want to know that should they have any concerns or complaints, there is a transparent and accountable method for these to be dealt with, and that they know the name and unique number of the taxi operator and the driver, should they need it.

[Sam Carling]

Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that cross-border licensing is causing huge enforcement problems, because authorities that are miles away cannot properly investigate such issues?

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is another issue that has come up in our inquiry, and I do hope that the Government are addressing the cross-border issue. I will come back briefly to that shortly.

Passengers want to know that the same standards apply across the country, but there are no common standards. In fact, in England there are 270 different licensing offices and the more than 300,000 drivers operate under about 230 different sets of conditions and standards. The Transport Committee is in the middle of an inquiry on taxis and private hire vehicles. We have heard from drivers, their unions, operators, licensing officers, the Local Government Association, disability organisations, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and others. The single most common message we have heard in our inquiry is the need for common standards across England, and not basic minimum standards, but high and absolute standards.

That is why I am delighted that the Government have brought forward new clauses 49 to 57 to be added to part 3 of the Bill. This will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe standards for granting, renewing, suspending and revoking driver and operator licences. It enables actions such as on what is included in driver training, what requires the installation of specific equipment such as CCTV and what level of background checks on drivers is used. By the way, such actions, particularly CCTV, protect drivers as well as passengers.

I welcome the fact that the Government are responding to the calls of many, and not least to the issues raised in Baroness Casey’s report. The last Government set up a task and finish group, but they only published guidance on a set of standards for taxis and private hire vehicles, and they ignored the recommendations of the group, saying only that licensing authorities should “have regard to” standards. That Government ignored the calls, but this Government are delivering.

One of the main issues raised during our Committee’s inquiry is that the current variation in standards encourages licence shopping, which refers to drivers or operators choosing to be licensed in local authorities that have the least onerous standards or the cheapest or fastest processes, even if most, if not all, of their work takes place elsewhere. That happens thanks to the 2015 deregulation brought in by the Conservative Government. According to one taxi firm that submitted evidence:

“The lack of a national standard undermines passenger safety, fair competition and public confidence in the industry.”

On the role of councillors in licensing decisions, we have been told that the councillors responsible for individual decisions on who gets, retains or loses their licence may be put under pressure to make a decision contrary to the recommendations of officers.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Sam Carling Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Danny Beales]

If the Minister feels unable to accept new clause 31, I hope that they can provide a route that allows us to consider such a measure later in the Bill’s progress, at the Budget, or through future legislation.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is speaking eloquently about the length of time people have been lobbying for this power. I felt that when I was a councillor. Does he agree that the right to request in this Bill will help mayors to identify these issues, and provide a pathway for them to request such powers much more quickly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Wrigley]

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

[Sam Carling]

I used to be a councillor in an authority that had area committees, and we ended up scrapping them because they were not really doing a good job. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that mandating particular governance arrangements of that sort and at that level within councils in legislation undermines the principle of devolution and that actually we need to let councils do what is best for their areas?

[Martin Wrigley]

I agree that we should not be mandating those details. However, we were promised that these committees would perform that function. I say again that a simple duty to co-operate with towns and councils would actually take the place far better.

The other issue in the Bill, again, relates to the larger unitaries not having that localism built in. Should we end up with, say, a single large unitary within Devon, we will end up with Dartmoor national park entirely surrounded by a single unitary council. People might say, “So what?” At the moment, the local authorities surrounding Dartmoor national park appoint 10 people to the authority board, and central Government appoints nine. Consequently, if it is surrounded by a single unitary council, that council will appoint a majority to that board, losing the distinct identity of that agency for managing the national park, with the danger of the unitary’s desires overturning those of the national park with nothing to stop them. Amendments 164 to 167 would address that issue and require attention to the national park governance in the process of creating the new unitaries.

[Sam Carling]

I am glad that those governance arrangements work, but they sound like a nightmare based on hearing that information. Would the hon. Member not agree again that under one unitary council, there can be much more strategic oversight of such a situation? If local residents are not happy with the way that is being managed, they can elect different councillors. It should be a simplification, not causing problems like that.

[Martin Wrigley]

No, the park authority looks after the park with the park’s interests at its heart, and it is not tied to any other overriding interest. For example, if the new unitary needs another road, it might think, “The easiest thing is just to go through the edge of the park,” or “We need some new housing. We’ll just put it in the park.” At the moment, the park is responsible for its own planning; it is responsible for its own destiny. That identity is so important, and that was supposed to be maintained in this local devolution Bill.

I would have loved to have seen the new unitaries have a statutory duty to provide adequate public toilets, but that one was just too far out the way to even try to get it in. At this point, having taken up enough of your time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and having sat through a lot of interesting conversations—I will leave it at that—I will call it a day.

Houses in Multiple Occupation: Planning Consent

Sam Carling Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this debate.

HMOs can work for some people, such as students. With the average house price now more than 7.5 times the average salary, compared with the ’80s when it was three times, HMOs are increasingly becoming the default living arrangement for young professionals. After university or college, the last thing young people want is another year—or many years—sharing a space with others they do not know very well. It also does not mean that these people have significantly lower housing costs because, while cheaper than a full home, many of these places are still exorbitant. While HMOs have their place, their proliferation points to a bad housing market, one in which people are forced to share with strangers because other options are too expensive.

As we know, by default, a family home can be converted to a small HMO without needing an application for planning permission, meaning that an awful lot of HMOs, which put an awful lot of pressure on local services, are being created without planning oversight. Peterborough city council’s article 4 directions mandate developers to apply for full permission in parts of Fletton, Woodston and Hampton in my constituency, which is welcome, but that varies by council and area, meaning that HMOs can still build up in one place. That inevitably strains public services; it means difficulties for waste collection, oversubscription to local GPs and—this is one of the most visible issues—not having anywhere to park.

I join others today in calling for a simpler, stronger process for councils to issue article 4 directions. We need stronger regulation alongside a drive to build more appropriate housing, to increase supply and counter demand. We also need to have a real conversation about the housing mix that we are building. There are more and more single-person households now, who have nowhere to go other than the most expensive types of housing. Let us provide for them and slash the need for HMOs.

Property Service Charges

Sam Carling Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely agree.

To add insult to injury, Alfie told me that FirstPort charges an £80 administration fee if payment is not made within 30 days of demand. In 2023 he received his fee on Christmas day while in discussions about a payment plan to settle outstanding fees. FirstPort refused to remove the charge despite his financial struggles. Alfie has now left the UK and is renting his flat out at a loss, because that is the only option available to him.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady highlights the problem of residents being charged late payment fees. I have a number of constituents who never received an original letter demanding payment, but who are then charged late payment fees despite not knowing a payment was due. Does she agree with me that the lack of communication is another critical issue that we must address?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I am so pleased that we are taking the time today to debate property service charges in depth. Across my constituency, residents are drowning in soaring bills, deferred maintenance, opaque accounts and a carousel of management companies passing the buck. These charges do not exist in a vacuum; they sit alongside dodgy contracts, conflicts of interest and unadopted roads—a structural failure that leaves residents feeling trapped and powerless.

Since being elected, I have had so many constituents come to me with leasehold horror stories. Of course, it is the service charge hikes are that are brought up most. In one case, a £4,600 charge in 2017 was due to increase to over £9,000 this year, in a property where many residents are retired and on a fixed income. That is not to mention the lack of transparency over what the charges were for. In this instance, residents pointed out that a £6,000 charge for staffing was levied during a time when there were no permanent on-site managers. I want to give credit where it is due. When I met the team at that management company for an explanation, they held their hands up and acknowledged that things needed to improve, and they have since followed up with residents.

Other companies, however, are not quite as reflective. Having thought about this, I will not name the companies in my speech, because I do not want to blight the developments in question, but I must warn these companies that that is an option in the future if we do not see improvements. The managing agent of one development in my constituency did not respond positively to my letter setting out residents’ concerns. Indeed, it is displaying what I have come to call the four horsemen of the managing agent: hikes in service charges, inadequate maintenance, poor communication with residents and a lack of financial transparency.

In a previous contribution in the House, I said that residents had informed me of a 150% increase in the service charge in two years. In its very blunt reply, the managing agent said that that was wrong and that the real increase was only a doubling in four years, which it considers reasonable. I do not, and nor do my affected constituents, who have pointed out that if we factor in various additional costs that used to be in the service charge but were then separated out, it is closer to the increase they cited.

Maintenance work does not get done. When residents took me around their development this year, I saw for myself the shoddily constructed steps that create hazards, plus defective drainage, malfunctioning lighting and so much more. The responsibility for some of these issues is not clear, as the developer should be taking on some issues that arose shortly after development. The lack of clarity means that residents are dealing with onerous back-and-forths, whereby responsibility is forever passed on and it seems like maintenance issues will never be solved. Just today, a resident described to me how there was a rat infestation at one point, and a contractor was apparently paid £30,000 of residents’ money to resolve it. It did not. The residents’ association was later able to sort it out, but not before that huge sum of their money was frittered away.

That brings me on to the poor communication. When highlighting the above problems, as well as concerns from residents about service charge breakdowns, I asked the managing agent what it would do to improve communication. I expected an answer that pushed back but at least agreed to look into the concerns I raised. I did not even get that. The response said it all:

“We do not consider that communication requires improvement.”

Then we come to the fourth horseman: a lack of financial transparency. I have been told by residents that they are contractually bound to an insurance policy with a £5,000 excess, making it completely unusable. A resident has shown me figures for one block that show a total insurance premium charged of over £60,000, of which just under £20,000—around 30%—was commission, in a confusing brokerage set-up, with much of that going to a company linked to the managing agent in quite clear ways, which smacks of a conflict of interest or worse. There are so many other examples of this. At another development in my constituency, accounts were provided late to residents for three of the last five years, and in the most recent two years, accounts have not been provided at all, despite much pushing from residents and leaseholders.

It is not just leaseholders in flats who are affected by service charges. I have not yet discussed the fleecehold scandal sweeping up so many of my residents in the newly built developments of Hampton. Unadopted roads are rife in new developments, meaning that residents are paying twice for their local areas to be maintained: once in their council tax, and once in a separate service charge. I counted the number of roads that need to be adopted but are without a section 38 agreement—meaning there is a long way to go before they are adopted—in the Peterborough part of my constituency. There are 289 of them, and they are mostly housing roads. That is an unjust extra charge for thousands of residents in Hampton, Stanground, Orton and elsewhere because roads are not being adopted. Some proposals have been made on how we could tackle this problem. The Home Builders Federation, for example, has made useful suggestions about common adoptable standards and mandatory adoption by public authorities.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Many Members have raised the issue of the adoption of roads. Obviously, physical roads are easier to define, but there are parts of private estates that are only for that estate. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a challenge, given the current financial situation, because it usually costs councils money to adopt a road, and under the current law, it could be a big hit for those leaseholders to pay the fee up front for the council to adopt the road?

[Sam Carling]

My hon. Friend makes a very useful point. I should have clarified that the figure I gave does not include the private roads that were not supposed to be adopted; it was purely the ones that are having this issue.

As my hon. Friend says, councils are in a difficult financial situation. The precarious state of local government finances after 14 years of cuts and freezes certainly has not helped. We also have a lot of councils blaming developers and developers blaming councils, and there is an increasing divergence between what council planning departments are requiring to grant permission for development and what the highways departments of said councils are willing to adopt. That is particularly vexing when there is a two-tier system, with planning at one level and highways at another. I hope local government reorganisation will help with that, but it is happening in unitary authorities too, and we need to explore ways to deal with that.

Ultimately, these are symptoms of a wider issue in how the system treats freeholders and leaseholders alike. The leasehold and commonhold reform Bill will be a vital step forward. I am pleased the Government are committed to ending leasehold for new developments. From my experience, that change cannot come soon enough. A key advantage of commonhold becoming the default tenure is that managing agents will be appointed by and responsible to leaseholders, rather than absentee corporate freeholders. Of course, the situation with managing agents still needs to be improved, and I am very supportive of mandatory regulation as a core step towards that, which I hope the Minister will comment on.

This debate comes in a week of real progress: the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 has become law, finally giving tenants the fair treatment they deserve. Let’s keep up that progress, because nobody should have to pay through the nose for poor service, broken promises and a system that puts profit before residents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work on this issue on the Treasury Committee. In my speech, I raised an insurance issue that my constituents have gone to the Financial Ombudsman Service about, but they are having problems about whether it is a FOS issue or a property ombudsman issue, and it is just not very clear. Would she join me in calling for more clarity?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we need clarity on this issue. We are talking a lot about service charges, but the insurance industry has a responsibility because it accounts for a large chunk of them. Regulators have a clear role to play, and it is important that that is considered in all the changes we are discussing.

I am pleased that the Government have been consulting on these issues. The consultation on service charges ended in February, so I hope the Minister can give us an update about it. It is important to touch on a couple of other issues. We know that poor maintenance leads to high costs, so standards and expectations should be set on maintenance, which costs leaseholders, but costs them less in the long run if things are maintained. That is a repeated theme across my constituency, as some very modern blocks have not been maintained properly, which means leaseholders end up paying more in the end than they should have done.

There is also an issue with greening blocks. I have constituents working very effectively to try to get electric vehicle charging points and better insulation in a block that is an old warehouse; the famous loft apartments were very popular in my constituency at one point. However, improving such things creates betterment, which increases the ground rent, because the owner of the building can say it is an improvement and can charge more. Such tenants are making their property greener, cleaner and more efficient—costing them less in a lot of ways—but they are ending up with their costs being put up somewhere else, which seems to be a complete imbalance that we have not discussed.

On the right to manage and commonhold—I am a Labour and Co-op MP, and I am very proud to be pushing for commonhold—there can be issues where there is a right to manage. I am working with a development where there is a right-to-manage company, but the directors have hidden themselves away and are not acting responsibly in answering and providing information to their neighbours in the development. I think governance needs an overhaul in this area. It is not going to solve everything if residents take over the management but then do not do a good job, so there needs to be transparency all round.

As we know, this is on top of increased mortgage charges, and let us not forget what the 2022 Budget did to mortgage charges. Shared owners are paying mortgages, rents and service charges, and this is all adding to the cost of living and causing huge upset, on top of the spending on building safety requirements that are hitting so many of my constituents. That is causing real problems, but we need to be clear, so rather than go through the list myself, I will endorse all the asks that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) listed about transparency, openness and getting clearer rights for residents to challenge service charges and to make sure they absolutely understand why they are being charged such fees. That is the basic minimum, but we should be making sure it happens.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Sam Carling Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Siân Berry]

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

It is a pleasure to move the new clause in the name of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is a well-known enthusiast for allotments. I am a keen gardener in a space similar to an allotment, and my colleague Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb in the House of Lords is also a huge enthusiast. I hope that this issue and this kind of provision will continue to be discussed in the other place, whatever happens in the Commons. The Bill quite rightly puts health and wellbeing at the heart of a lot of the strategic functions of the new authorities. Sadly, however, it neglects the role that access to allotments and green spaces can play in boosting public health. The new clause would rectify that with some specific proposals for allotments.

Across England, demand for allotments is huge. People have really embraced the health and social benefits that they can provide. There is much more awareness of the environmental benefits that they can deliver, supporting pollinators much better than other kinds of managed land. They can be part of green corridors, linking together nature-rich spaces. The demand has led to long waiting lists, while allotments are being taken away. In 1950, there were 1.5 million allotment plots, but we have only around 250,000 today. The biggest losses have been in urban areas, where people need them the most. There are now 108,000 people on waiting lists. For example, in Portsmouth, one in every 25 adults is waiting. That is one person on every bus sitting waiting for an allotment.

At the moment we do not have many legal tools for councils to fix that. There are no reporting requirements on councils and there are no waiting time limits for councils to drive forward ambition on providing allotments, but the Bill provides an opportunity to fix that.

The new clause would create a duty to increase allotment provision and boost public health, to report on allotment and nature-rich provision in areas, and to fund community organisers to widen public access to those resources. It would also require action if allotment provision falls below a certain threshold. The new clause takes inspiration from Scotland—we have not just invented it for England here. Under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, the Scottish Government have mandated a 50% or less waiting-list-to-allotment ratio, a maximum wait of five years or less, as well as annual reports. That has not been an insupportable burden on local authorities there; indeed, they have taken it up with some enthusiasm. It would be brilliant to have that in England. It would provide legal direction, but also practical levers for councils and real imperatives for them to act.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

When I was a council cabinet member, I had responsibility for allotments. We are talking about strategic authorities, and the hon. Lady is talking about powers for them. I can see a duty in the new clause; I cannot see how it would help councillors who have responsibility for allotments to improve the situation, and I fear that having a combined authority stick its nose in could create extra bureaucracy and undermine the hon. Lady’s aims.

[Siân Berry]

Putting this duty on to individual smaller councils might be burdensome, but at a strategic authority level, collecting this information would seem to be really positive. As we have been discussing throughout the Committee, on many issues—land use, planning and support for community right to buy—there are levers for them to act. At a strategic authority level, it would be great to have some co-ordination—people from different councils getting together to find out how each of them is acting on this issue.

Let us not forget our aim here. We are talking about putting this issue within the health duty somewhat, and we know that time spent on allotments and other green spaces will reduce cardiovascular risk, improve mental health and lower people’s stress. We know that in areas where green space provision is better, men live three years longer and women nearly two years. We need to extend those benefits to the 20 million people who currently lack access to green space within a 15-minute walk, and allotments are some of the healthiest and most rewarding green spaces we can provide. The new clause is a path to more nature, more access to that nature, and improved public health.