Division Vote (Commons)
10 Dec 2025 - Seasonal Work -
View Vote Context
David Reed (Con) voted Aye
- in line with the party majority
and against the House
One of
91 Conservative Aye votes vs
0 Conservative No votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 98 Noes - 325
Division Vote (Commons)
9 Dec 2025 - Railways Bill -
View Vote Context
David Reed (Con) voted Aye
- in line with the party majority
and against the House
One of
95 Conservative Aye votes vs
0 Conservative No votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 170 Noes - 332
Division Vote (Commons)
9 Dec 2025 - Railways Bill -
View Vote Context
David Reed (Con) voted No
- in line with the party majority
and against the House
One of
94 Conservative No votes vs
0 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 329 Noes - 173
MP Financial Interest
David Reed (Conservative - Exmouth and Exeter East)
Original Source (1st December 2025)
3. Gifts, benefits and hospitality from UK sources
Armed Forces APPG - £60.00
MP Financial Interest
David Reed (Conservative - Exmouth and Exeter East)
Original Source (1st December 2025)
3. Gifts, benefits and hospitality from UK sources
Armed Forces APPG - £60.00
MP Financial Interest
David Reed (Conservative - Exmouth and Exeter East)
Original Source (1st December 2025)
3. Gifts, benefits and hospitality from UK sources
Armed Forces APPG - £25.00
MP Financial Interest
David Reed (Conservative - Exmouth and Exeter East)
Original Source (1st December 2025)
3. Gifts, benefits and hospitality from UK sources
Armed Forces APPG - £60.00
MP Financial Interest
David Reed (Conservative - Exmouth and Exeter East)
Original Source (1st December 2025)
3. Gifts, benefits and hospitality from UK sources
Armed Forces APPG - £60.00
MP Financial Interest
David Reed (Conservative - Exmouth and Exeter East)
Original Source (1st December 2025)
3. Gifts, benefits and hospitality from UK sources
Armed Forces APPG - £60.00
Written Question
Wednesday 26th November 2025
Asked by:
David Reed (Conservative - Exmouth and Exeter East)
Question
to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, if he will provide additional funding through the Local Government Finance Settlement for 2026-27 for the cost of delivering services in rural and sparsely populated areas.
Answered by Alison McGovern
- Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
On Thursday 20 November, we published the government response to the Fair Funding Review 2.0, which sets out the government’s plan to introduce a fairer and evidence-led funding system. In doing so, we will target a greater proportion of grant funding towards the most deprived places which need it most, ensuring the best value for money for government and taxpayers.
The government recognises that different parts of the country face different costs for delivering the same services. For this reason, we propose to take account of variations in costs between local authorities through an Area Cost Adjustment (ACA). The ACA considers differences in labour and rental costs, as well as the cost impact of longer journey times.
We are also proposing to include a measure of remoteness, to account for the potential impact on cost for rural authorities that cannot readily access local markets because of their location. Taking into consideration the available evidence and the views of stakeholders, the government has made a judgement that remoteness should be accounted for when assessing the cost of delivering adult social care services.