Representation of the People Bill

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

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

[Ms Minns]

I absolutely agree. From my work in the 1997 election I know that Mencap has looked extensively at the issue of accessible information for people with learning disabilities.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to place on record the Government’s commitment to dealing with this issue once and for all when the Bill moves to the other place, and to ensuring that blind and partially sighted voters are able to make their own choice, mark their own ballot and know that their vote is their own.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Public faith in our democratic system has been steadily eroded. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) provided some statistics on public opinion, and I will provide a few more. More than half of the public believe that politicians almost always lie, while only one in eight believe that we put the national interest above party advantage. That level of disillusionment did not emerge overnight. Broken promises, diminished opportunity and a growing distance from decision makers have left many people feeling unheard. Money and politics have deepened that divide and fuelled the perception that access to power is available to those who can afford it, creating a suspicion that influence can be bought rather than earned.

This is no longer simply a question of public confidence; it is a question of democratic resilience. Hostile states and malign actors seek to weaken institutions and corrode trust. Disinformation poisons debate, blurs the line between fact and fiction, and encourages citizens to doubt what they see and hear. Every loophole in our political finance system is a potential point of entry for those who wish our democracy harm. Questions are also raised when voters see Members earning substantial sums from outside interests: public duty traded for private gain. Taken together, these issues foster a growing belief that politics is something done to people rather than with or for them. That belief has consequences. Where trust weakens, democracy weakens; where democracy weakens, those who seek to exploit division find opportunity.

I welcome the measures in the Bill that seek to address much of the public concern around many of these issues, but rebuilding democratic legitimacy requires more than just tightening a few rules. It requires us to ask deep questions about whether our institutions still deliver the representation and accountability that people expect, and whether, if so many no longer trust the system, the system itself needs to change. For that reason, I hope that the Government will reconsider and commit to establishing a commission on electoral reform, not to pursue a predetermined outcome but to ask whether our political system is working as well as it should, whether it remains capable of rebuilding public confidence and whether it is worthy of the trust that is placed in it. The cure for public disillusionment is not less democracy; it is better democracy. The answer to distrust is not disengagement; it is accountability. The answer to frustration is not to retreat; it is to reform. That is not optional; it is necessary and urgent, and I urge the Minister to take that into consideration.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank all Members who have contributed to today’s debate for their constructive and informed contributions. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to face a telling-off from you, so given the timings, I will not reference each amendment but instead talk broadly about the main themes of the debate. I assure Members, who have asked a number of detailed and serious questions, that I have taken note of many of the questions; I commit to writing to them individually if I do not cover those areas in my closing speech.

Local Government Reorganisation

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the many exchanges we have had. I know that he just wants the best for his constituents, as we all do. It might help the House if I explain the process we go through. We provide Members of Parliament in affected areas with a short briefing before the announcement is made. That is done for all Members of Parliament; it is what has happened to date, and what I anticipate will happen as and when I am able to make the statement. We will be able to talk more openly once that decision is in the public domain.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Does the Minister believe, as I do, that if local government reorganisation is done correctly, it has the potential not just to reshape local government so that it is fit for the 21st century, but to help us secure much-needed economic growth?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important point. This is not just about constitutional niceties or the importance of councils to government in this country, crucial though they are; it is about having the right-sized authority to grow our towns and cities, and to give young people and everybody else in this country the opportunities they deserve.

Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon]

Any political party that abides by the rules the Government are introducing will be able to flourish in our political system. Those that do not can expect to be held firmly to account.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. I have notified the relevant Member that I am about to name them. Over the weekend, The Telegraph ran a study about the Iranian-born property magnate Sasan Ghandehari pledging to donate millions of pounds to Reform UK. He described the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) as an “honest politician”. Does the Minister agree?

[Samantha Dixon]

I am not going to comment on individual Members without having notified them in advance, but I note my hon. Friend’s comments.

Housing Needs: Young People

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Butler. When I first stood for election to this place, I did so with a mission to fix Oxfordshire’s broken housing market. I saw the mess that we were in. I saw the lives broken by that market long before I arrived here.

Oxford faces a crisis of unique and crushing proportions. Homes now cost 12 times local earnings—a burden for the city, a burden for the county and a burden that no other part of this country is asked to bear.

For our young people, the situation is transformative in the worst of ways. Those aged 25 to 34 are now the backbone of a private rented sector that has doubled in size since the start of the century. These young people are renters by necessity, renters without equity and renters without a clear path to a home of their own.

In Oxford, nearly a third of households rent privately. As the city’s prices climb, the pressure climbs; as the pressure climbs, people leave. They leave and go to places such as Banbury. They come for the 20-minute commute, but they bring with them the weight of Oxford’s exhaustion. Thus Oxford’s housing problems become Banbury’s housing problems. Demand has surged. Supply has stalled. My inbox swells as the local housing waiting list ticks up and up, quadrupling in a single decade.

This is what I say to the local voices who question why Cherwell district council, which covers Banbury, must contribute to Oxford’s unmet housing need: “It is no longer Oxford’s need. It is our need in Banbury as well. It is our future. It is our children who are being priced out of their own parishes.”

Let us be clear: this is not merely a housing crisis. It is an economic crisis. Oxford does not just grow; it prospers. It does not just work; it innovates. Our high-tech industries generate £23.5 billion in gross value added annually. We are a net contributor to the Exchequer, a global destination for talent and a titan of enterprise. That is why the Chancellor is right to champion the Oxford-Cambridge corridor—it is a vision of growth, infrastructure and national renewal—but that vision will remain a mirage if the workers required to build it cannot afford to live within it.

By failing to build, we are stifling the growth we seek, the talent we nurture and the very future we promised to deliver. I therefore urge the Government to give young people in Banbury and across Oxfordshire the tools, the support and the resolve that we need to help me to keep my promise of helping to fix Oxfordshire’s broken housing market.

Local Government Reorganisation

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

As I said in my statement, it is my intention that the elections to the new unitaries will go ahead next year.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I have to say that I find the bleating from the Conservative party—which delayed elections in Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire and Somerset, as well as in several other areas named by the Secretary of State—pretty astounding. As welcome as the reforms are, they are taking up considerable time and capacity for local authorities, including Oxfordshire county council. The council is prioritising, among other things, economic growth, which this Government have said is their No. 1 mission. I urge the Secretary of State and his team to look at picking up the pace of these reforms, as welcome as they are, so that local areas and the councils that emerge from them can get on with delivering for their local residents.

[Steve Reed]

I completely agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says. We want to go ahead with this reorganisation precisely so that we can improve public services and let councils get on with what they should be doing. Growing local economies and putting more money in the pockets of local people, including his constituents, is our priority.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to build more social and affordable homes in Banbury.

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

Our manifesto committed us to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, and we intend to do just that. Our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme will build around 300,000 homes over its 10-year lifetime, of which at least 60% will be social rent, ensuring that communities such as Banbury get the social and affordable homes they so desperately need.

[Mr Speaker]

Do you all represent Banbury? I am trying to find out why they all think they are in Banbury. I thought it had only one MP.

[Sean Woodcock]

Nearly 11,000 homes in Cherwell district have been granted planning permission but remain unbuilt. This causes understandable frustration for local residents and the thousands of people in housing need. Will the Minister set out what action the Government are taking to improve build-out so that much-needed homes are built and delivered?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the interests of Banbury, and he has rightly and forcefully conveyed the message that the communities he represents expect homes, infrastructure and services that have been promised as part of a planning approval to be delivered as quickly as possible. I am sure he will welcome the fact that the new draft national planning policy framework, on which the Government are currently consulting, proposes to strengthen national policies to ensure that major residential developments are deliverable within a reasonable period. He will also be reassured to know that we intend to take further action to incentivise faster build-out rates, drawing on the two consultations that we undertook last year.

Electoral Resilience

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the review. We have now had that support from all sides of the House, and that is appreciated. It is very important that the House of Commons stands united against the potential threats to our democracy from hostile foreign state actors. Our democracy is one of the most precious things we have, and it is important that we all work together across the Chamber to protect it. We are not targeting any particular states or individuals with this review; we are looking to confirm that the safeguards that protect our democracy from inappropriate or malign foreign financial interference are robust enough. I look forward to Philip Rycroft’s findings when we have them towards the end of March.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) recently failed to declare on time hospitality in a French villa from the wife of the former Russian deputy Finance Minister. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the offer and acceptance of gifts and free holidays from Russian oligarchs will be in the scope of the review?

[Steve Reed]

I preface my response by saying that the review is not looking at individual cases, but the broader issue of gifts and hospitality and how they may be used by malign, or potentially malign, foreign agents or state actors will be in scope for the independent review.

National Plan to End Homelessness

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the strategy and for joining the cross-party support for our objectives. It is important that we make it clear where we have agreement across the parties. I join him in welcoming the important work of the Shared Health Foundation.

On his final question, there are exemptions to the shared accommodation rate, and I would encourage him to have a look at that part of the strategy. On the local housing allowance, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee a moment ago, it is important that family incomes improve, which is why we took the steps we did in the child poverty strategy. I spoke about the Vagrancy Act in my response to the shadow Minister, but I will happily also send the hon. Gentleman the details about the steps that we are taking.

The hon. Gentleman also mentions the need to increase social housing, and I would recommend to him the detail on this published by the Minister for Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). I do not think any of us should have a cap on our ambition for building social and affordable homes, and I encourage all parts of the country to get on with spending the investment the Chancellor has allocated so that we can put a roof over people’s heads.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I welcome this strategy and pay tribute to the Minister and her predecessors for the work that has gone into it. I also pay tribute to the Banbury Youth Homeless Project in my constituency, which does great work with young people affected by homelessness, and extend an invitation to the Minister to come and visit the organisation at some point. One feature of the current housing crisis is that temporary accommodation is often anything but. The Minister has reiterated the Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes during the course of this Parliament, but I would be grateful if she could provide some detail on how the Government plan to accelerate the delivery of homes, particularly in areas like mine, where infrastructure issues are frequently a barrier to the delivery of much-needed affordable homes.

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend knows that I am a fan of Banbury. I am hoping to get there before too long, and would be most grateful to meet that organisation; it sounds like it is doing sterling work, and I am grateful to them for it. It is true, as he says, that temporary accommodation is often anything but. The distinction we are trying to draw in the strategy is one of quality. While good-quality temporary accommodation often cannot help a family get back on the road to stability, we do see some really poor-quality temporary accommodation. To give people a long-term home where they can set down roots, as Members will know, our Planning and Infra- structure Bill has been proceeding through Parliament. That legislation will allow us to speed up the delivery of all housing, including the social housing we so desperately need.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Vikki Slade]

I will withdraw new clause 5 as I think the Minister has made a fair comment about the way in which elections will go. However, I cannot accept her point about the capacity of planning consultants for communities that do not have a neighbourhood plan, and there are many.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. The hon. Lady makes a point about the importance of neighbourhood plans, and I have had parish councils contact me about this. As the Minister just said, it is about priorities. If the Liberal Democrats are serious about the Government funding local councils to continue with neighbourhood plans, should they not also put forward how that will be paid for, given that they have opposed all the tax measures that this Government have introduced in the last year?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for another fabulous contribution. I thought he was going to criticise my love of town and parish councils for a moment, but he did not. I have made it clear that I would rather see the Government bring this funding back, but the new clause would introduce a duty to provide professional planning support, because we recognise the chances of it not coming back.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

I will speak briefly to clause 57. The Opposition recognise why the Government are bringing in this system. As I have said before, I was a councillor in a unitary with a leader and cabinet system, and I think that that delivers the fastest decisions, and the most accountable decisions when there is a full council. In fact, we were able to constitute an overview and scrutiny committee, the chairmanship of which we gave to the opposition.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Having been a district council opposition leader for 10 years, I can say with some real clarity that the agenda was not always dominated by the controlling group; in fact, a lot of the motions put forward by the group I led were accepted by the controlling group. It is all about the quality of the councillors and the opposition—it goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire said about culture—rather than necessarily the system. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Paul Holmes]

I do agree. I am sure the main reason his group’s motions were accepted is that they were very well written. I know how he behaves in here—I do not agree with his speeches most of the time—and he comes from a decent place. I know that any motion would have been beneficial to the residents of wherever he served at the time.

Councils will have the power to internally constitute themselves to give opposition councillors the best way to scrutinise them. As I said, in Southampton city council, we gave the Labour group leader, or an allocated person, the chairmanship of a genuine overview and scrutiny committee, whose power the administration used to fear. Particularly at a time when the first-past-the-post system delivered what might have been a hung council or a minority administration, that committee, consisting of opposition councillors, had huge power. So I do not have a huge amount of agreement with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion on that point.

However, we have just had a debate about referendums, and an amendment asking for referendums to allow people to say whether they want local government reorganisation, so I want to say something about paragraphs 3 and 4 of schedule 25. Paragraph 3 would prevent any local authority from deciding to establish a directly elected mayoralty, which is absolutely fine. Paragraph 4 would amend the Local Government Act 2000 to allow an authority with a mayoralty to change to a leader and cabinet system. However, it leaves in place provisions governing how that change could take place, and a mayoralty established after a referendum could be abolished only if that is approved in another referendum, which can be triggered by the local authority, a petition or the Secretary of State.

In the schedule, the Government want to hold referendums to try to get what they want, so they approve of them. But they somehow do not approve of referendums to ask people in the first place whether they want to go into this local government reform. If the Minister could explain how that is not having her cake and eating it, and being completely inconsistent in the Bill, I would be grateful. Here, she is saying, “Well, we want you to change to a leader and cabinet system, but you need a referendum to do that, because you have already had a referendum.” That is tacit approval from the Government; when it comes to local government reform and changing how a local authority is set up, they want the consent of the people, but on the overarching view of local government reform, they somehow do not. After the last debate, I would ask the Minister to clarify again: do this Government believe in the right of local people, by referendum, to change the way in which they approve their local structures and live their lives? Yes or no? If it is good enough for this clause, she should go back to the schedule we have just discussed and put in the amendment we discussed to approve a referendum there.

I am slightly teasing the Minister, but she must understand that there is inconsistency in the Government’s approach—although I am not surprised about that. Overall, that is not enough for me to say that the clause is not worth being in the Bill. I think it does deliver a streamlined and accountable process for a leader and cabinet system, but she really does need to tell her officials, whom she leads and gives political direction to, to be consistent about when the Government believe the public should and should not be asked.

--- Later in debate ---

Perusing the website or hard copy of the local newspaper overwhelmingly increases the engagement in democratic channels the Minister is seeking. It acts as a safeguard to make sure that people have their say, particularly demographic groups and communities that are not online or digitally connected. We are expecting many, many more statutory notices and planning applications to go through in our rural areas and villages under this Government, as they attack the green belt and build on agricultural land across the country. Many of the people who live in those areas are older people whose digital infrastructure is not good and who might rely on being able to consult statutory notices in the right way.

[Sean Woodcock]

The hon. Gentleman rightly praises the role of local newspapers. I have some brilliant ones in my constituency, including one that goes out in Chipping Norton and hence is called Chippy News. It is produced by volunteers and does a lot of the things that the hon. Gentleman talked about. However, he mentioned the diminished circulation of newspapers. If he really wants better consultation and engagement with residents, does he accept that making the proposed amendments that might not be the best way to ensure that?

[Paul Holmes]

There is an argument for accepting that, but I would ask in return why the Government are giving local councils the opportunity not to use newspapers. Why put that in the Bill rather than allow the status quo to continue while enabling local authorities to do it in other ways? Why are we bringing forward legislative changes that will harm our independent newspaper sector? I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about not making useless amendments or putting useless new clauses into legislation, so why is this measure in the Bill in the first place? That is why we feel that we have to amend the Bill to protect our local newspapers, the vulnerable people who use them and their engagement in the democratic process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

Amendments 40 to 42 and 249 seek to improve how the assets of community value system works in practice. Amendment 40 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded to carry out assessments of whether land is a sporting asset of community value. Amendment 41 makes the same point on valuations, and amendment 42 would require local authorities, as far as reasonably practicable, to support the preferred community buyer in securing the purchase of land of community value. Finally, amendment 249 would ensure that community value does not stop mattering once a planning application is lodged by allowing the Secretary of State to issue guidance requiring the planners and His Majesty’s Planning Inspectorate to give special consideration to land of community value when making decisions.

Amendment 40, which would make sure that local councils are properly funded when assessing whether land is a sporting asset of community value, is vital in identifying and assessing sporting assets. It must not be a simple tick-box exercise, because evidence has to be gathered and local groups have to be consulted, and competing claims between landowners and residents often have to be resolved.

This can be done only with time, specialist knowledge, consultants and often site visits, all of which cost money. As we know all too well, and as the Minister has reminded us today, many councils are already stretched thin. Without additional funding, there is a very real risk that this new protection for sporting assets will be inconsistent or, at worst, non-existent.

For the same reasons, amendment 41 would require adequate central funding for land valuations. If councils cannot afford them, communities face delay and uncertainty and opportunities are lost. Adequate central funding would make the process faster, fairer and more consistent across the country. With this financial support in place, more communities will be able to come together to make a bid for their grassroots sports clubs and other important cultural assets in their communities.

Amendment 42 goes to the heart of community empowerment, requiring councils as far as is reasonably possible to support the preferred community buyer by guiding them through the process and helping them to gain access to expert advice and funding. Right now communities have the right to bid, but they are left on their own; this amendment would turn that right into success.

Amendment 249 would ensure that community value is not ignored in the planning system. At present, even a listed community site can be granted planning permission for demolition or redevelopment; it is my understanding that there is nothing in regulations to ensure that consideration is given to the fact that a particular site is on a list of assets of community value. This amendment would require planning authorities to give special consideration to the community value of such land before approving development. It would not block development, but would ensure that community value is considered and that the community’s voice is properly heard. It is a modest improvement.

Without these improvements to the legislation, the right to protect community assets risks being just words on paper. When it becomes a genuine tool for local and community empowerment, which is the welcome title of this important Bill, it will live up to the spirit of devolution that we all want to deliver.

I turn now to the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Amendment 373 would include historically significant buildings as community assets, while amendment 374 would support councils to buy land if there is no community buyer; if no community group comes forward, the local authority can step in.

Amendment 373 would expand the legal definition of what can be classed as an asset of community value to include land or property with buildings of historical significance. We all have those in our constituencies: even if their current use is not community based, they are still part of our built heritage, and they shape our sense of place, so they are really important. While the current asset of community value system focuses mainly on social use, some historically important sites might not fit neatly into that community use test, even if they are locally important and of historical significance.

Historical buildings are obviously important in their own right, of course, which is why we have the listed building system, but they also connect people to the story of their place and past industries—the movements that shaped their community. When those buildings disappear, communities lose part of their collective memory and character, and once they are gone, they cannot be replaced. That is really important.

More than that, though, historical buildings are community assets in waiting. Many historical sites, such as disused chapels, mills, railway stations, schools and places that are part of our industrial heritage can be restored into vibrant hubs, cafés, arts venues and co-working spaces. They can have a community-based use, and protecting them buys time for communities to develop and put forward a viable plan to the authorities, rather than watching the bulldozers move in. With imagination, we can help these historical buildings to become community hubs.

Amendment 374 is designed to support councils to buy land if there is no community buyer, by requiring the Secretary of State to provide financial support to the local authority to purchase the land itself. This is an essential amendment, because not every community will have the resources or capacity to raise the funds, especially in disadvantaged communities; even if they want desperately to save it, there is no recourse. No community anywhere in England should lose its assets simply because local people cannot afford to buy it or act fast enough. The amendment would mean that councils could step in temporarily, for example holding the assets in trust or leasing it back to the community once funding or a long-term plan is secured.

I will move on to new clause 51 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). The clause would create a statutory community ownership fund, which the Secretary of State must set up within six months of the Bill becoming law. Under this new clause, strategic authorities could apply for up to £2 million to support community groups or parish and town councils in buying assets of community value that are at risk of being lost; having been on the list for five years, they can be dropped without the community knowing.

The regulations to create and run the fund would follow the negative procedure, meaning Parliament could annul them, but not amend them. The new clause would give the community real financial teeth, turning the right to bid into a right to buy, giving the tools so that the community can act. Communities, as hon. Members will know from experience, often identify assets worth saving, but they lack the up-front capital to act. A permanent statutory fund would give councils and community organisations the power and financial support to ensure that assets of community value stay and are preserved for community use. By placing it on to a statutory footing, the clause will make community ownership funding a permanent part of local government support for community empowerment, and not just a pilot scheme.

[Sean Woodcock]

Briefly, I want to put on the record how much I value the protection of sporting assets. I have already mentioned Chipping Norton in my constituency, and how the football club there lost its land to a rather unscrupulous developer the best part of a decade ago and ever since has not been able to play in the town itself; it has to play almost 10 miles away. The protections are very close to my heart and I very much support them.

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon talked about pubs. I have numerous pubs in my constituency with active campaigns—the Fox Inn and the Bell Inn, for example—where the community is very active and keen to take on the pub to save it so that it is not lost to the community.

I rise to speak, however, because sometimes pubs close down and, with the best will in the world, are unable to reopen, despite the efforts of the community and people nearby. There is a real danger of unintended consequences if the amendment puts in too much protection and removes the flexibility that is necessary to allow historical buildings to survive.

I offer an example from my constituency, where massive efforts were put in to retain a particular pub. The brewers who owned it put it out to all sorts of people. Unfortunately, the amount of money required to bring it back up to standard made it totally unviable, not only for other brewers or people wanting to take it on, but for the community. The pub was in a historical village, and the real danger is that we wrap it up so much in protection and regulations that, in trying to save the pub, we will lose the historical building. If the landlord is not able to do anything with it, it can fall to rack and ruin, and even with the best will in the world we can end up losing that historical building. That pub ended up becoming a house; granted, it is no longer a pub or a community asset, but the building is retained and is no longer a dilapidated ruin in the middle of a village.

Although the amendment comes from a really good place, I cannot support it. I support the Government making it easier for communities to get involved, giving them more time and granting them more powers to take on historical pubs that are important parts of the community, but there is a real danger that the amendment could have an unintended consequence: a historical building being lost purely because it is so wrapped in regulation and protection that nobody is able to do anything with it. I would therefore vote against it.