English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

As the Committee will remember, I had just covered Ireland. I will now take Committee members across the world to Australia, where a ban on upward-only rent reviews was relatively successfully deployed, as the Minister rightly said. As with Ireland, it is a very different model to what the Government are proposing. In Australia, the responsibility for setting how the model works lies with districts, so there is no Australian model that the UK can copy. In some states, the measure applies by size and sector, and the legislation is very specific to require an upward-only rent review on a size of property and a sector. In others, it applies to sectors. In at least one state, the legislation applies it to the type of business: it applies to landlords that are multinationals but small businesses can be exempt, as I understand it.

The Minister rightly says that the schemes have been applied around the world, but the scheme the Government are proposing has not. It is important that we avoid the unintended consequences of a broad, cover-all scheme. Investment in warehousing logistics, which employs one in five people in my constituency, or in the development of schemes at the Northampton Gateway, at the Daventry international rail freight terminal and right up the M1 corridor, could be hindered by an unintended consequence of our trying to deal with the issue that the Minister talked about—the unfair management of rent on the high street, particularly for small businesses.

I encourage the Minister to go further than the amendment that has been tabled to stop those unintended consequences. The measure could be applied by class of use or by rental value. In evidence, the British Property Federation suggested a £50,000 rental value cap, which would protect small businesses. That could also be specifically allocated in other ways. There are further things we can do if we want to fulfil the aim in the White Paper, which is to protect high streets, while ensuring that we do not impact the future development of health, data centres, logistics, commercial offices and all the other things we need to deliver growth in our country.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

We have some concerns, which are reflected in the amendments I have tabled. As we just heard, countries approach this issue in different ways. Broadly speaking, it sounds like one of the reasons why Ireland did not see an impact on the market was that what was implemented was the end of upward-only rent reviews almost in name only; there were still many other mechanisms that achieved the same outcome, even if that specific one ceased to exist.

Our concern is that we risk creating a number of complex structures for rental agreements that in practice have the same consequence, but without the benefit of upward-only rent reviews, which is that landlords’ certainty about their position in turn encourages investment in our high streets, the availability of the units we want to see, and those units not being turned into residences or repurposed for things other than business. The loss of upward-only rent reviews as part of the toolkit of available options undermines the confidence to invest in our high streets, and in turn undermines the objective, which we all share, of ensuring that they remain vibrant and successful. That is the purpose of the amendments, which I am sure we will come on to in due course. The Minister may have something to say about that, but that is the Opposition’s clear position.

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South for his thoughtful contribution. He is well versed, and has both reached out to business in his constituency and advocated his case persuasively.

We are very mindful of unintended consequences. We are also very mindful of designing this system in a way that strikes the balance between the investment that we absolutely want to unlock on our high streets and in our local communities, and the protections that we want to provide for tenants and to ensure that our high streets continue to thrive. I will take away my hon. Friend’s thoughts and challenges, and reflect on them as we go into the details of how we design this system in the best possible way.

I know that we will go into Opposition amendments in greater detail. However, the key point I want to emphasise at the start of this debate is that this is not a new debate and this issue is not a new one. We have known that we need to do something about this issue for well over a decade now. Huge amounts of work have gone into considering how we reform the system and there have been huge amounts of consultation over the years. So, we are very clear that something must be done, because the status quo is not fair and is not working for tenants, particularly the small and medium-sized enterprises on our high streets.

We need to respond and to reform, but we will make sure that we do so in a way that strikes the right balance between the protections that we must provide for tenants and the investment that we obviously want to see in our commercial premises.

Amendment 375 agreed to.

Clause 71, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 31

BUSINESS TENANCIES: PROHIBITED TERMS RELATING TO RENT

Amendments made: 376, in schedule 31, page 322, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 323 and insert—

“Part 1

Key terms

“Business tenancy”

1 (1) A tenancy is a “business tenancy” at a particular time if, at that time, Part 2 of this Act—

(a) applies to the tenancy, or

(b) has the potential to apply to the tenancy.

(2) For that purpose, Part 2 has the potential to apply to the tenancy at a particular time if, at that time—

(a) Part 2 cannot apply to the tenancy because—

(i) none of the property comprised in the tenancy is or includes premises which are occupied by the tenant, or

(ii) property comprised in the tenancy is or includes premises which are occupied by the tenant, but none of those premises are so occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant or for those and other purposes,

(b) the terms of the tenancy include terms (the “permitted business use terms”) which would permit the tenant to occupy the premises for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant (whether the terms permit occupation for the purposes of business generally, a specific business or a specific kind of business) or for those and other purposes, and

(c) if the tenant were to occupy the premises in accordance with the permitted business use terms (and taking into account all other circumstances), Part 2 of this Act would apply to the tenancy.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b), terms of the tenancy which—

(a) would prohibit the tenant from occupying the premises for some purposes, but

(b) would not prohibit the tenant from occupying the premises for other purposes,

are to be regarded as terms which would permit the tenant to occupy the premises for the purposes which are not prohibited.

(4) Sub-paragraph (2) must be construed as one with section 23(1).

“Business tenancy with a rent review”

2 (1) A tenancy is a “business tenancy with a rent review” at a particular time if, at that time—

(a) it is a business tenancy, and

(b) it is subject to rent review terms (whether contained in the instrument creating the tenancy or not).

(2) In this Schedule “rent review terms” means terms under which an amount of rent payable under the tenancy will or may change during the terms of the tenancy (“rent under review”).

Part 2

Triggering and operation of rent reviews

Application of this Part

3 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies to a tenancy at a particular time if, at that time, it is a business tenancy with a rent review.

(2) But this Part applies to such a tenancy only if—

(a) the tenancy is—

(i) granted, or

(ii) varied so that it includes rent review terms,

after this Schedule comes into force, and

(b) the grant or variation is not made under a contract entered into before this Schedule comes into force.

Tenant to have power to trigger a rent review

4 (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) an action is necessary for a particular rent review to be initiated (a “trigger action”), and

(b) the rent review terms, or any other terms (whether contained in the instrument creating the tenancy or not), do not allow the tenant to take the trigger action.

(2) The tenant may initiate the particular rent review by giving the landlord notice in writing.

(3) Notice under sub-paragraph (2) may not be given after the time when trigger action may be taken.

Tenant to have power to take action to enable rent review to operate effectively

5 (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) an action is necessary for a particular rent review to operate effectively (an “operational action”), and

(b) the rent review terms, or any other terms (whether contained in the instrument creating the tenancy or not), do not allow the tenant to take the operational action.

(2) The tenant may take the operational action.

(3) If the tenant takes the operational action, the tenant must give the landlord notice in writing of the action within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the action was taken.

Part 3

Rent review terms that are of no effect

Application of this Part

5A (1) This Part of this Schedule applies to a tenancy at a particular time if, at that time—

(a) it is a business tenancy with a rent review, and

(b) the rent review terms—

(i) do not specify new passing rent, and

(ii) include elements 1 and 2.

(2) But this Part applies to such a tenancy only if—

(a) the tenancy is—

(i) granted, or

(ii) varied so that it includes rent review terms that do not specify new passing rent and include elements 1 and 2,

after this Schedule comes into force, and

(b) the grant or variation is not made under a contract entered into before this Schedule comes into force.

Rent review terms that “do not specify new passing rent”

5B Rent review terms “do not specify new passing rent” if they are such that an amount of rent under review that will be payable at a time during the term of the tenancy (the “new passing rent”)—

(a) is not known, and

(b) cannot be determined,

at the time when the tenancy is granted or varied so that it includes the terms.

Elements 1 and 2

5C (1) This paragraph sets out elements 1 and 2.”

This would provide for various definitions; for application of provisions to tenancies that are varied; and for the provision about the triggering and operation of rent reviews to apply to any business tenancy with a rent review (regardless of the particular terms of the rent review).

Amendment 377, in schedule 31, page 323, line 38, leave out “relevant”.

This is consequential on Amendment 376.

Amendment 378, in schedule 31, page 324, line 3, leave out “relevant”.

Amendment 379, in schedule 31, page 324, line 13, leave out “relevant”.

This is consequential on Amendment 376.

Amendment 380, in schedule 31, page 324, line 19, leave out “relevant”.

This is consequential on Amendment 376.

Amendment 381, in schedule 31, page 324, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 on page 325.

This is consequential on Amendment 376, by which the new paragraphs 4 and 5 would replace the existing paragraphs 8 and 9.

Amendment 382, in schedule 31, page 325, line 19, at end insert—

“Part 4

Sub-tenancy required to include rent review terms that would be of no effect

Application of this Part

7A (1) This Part of this Schedule applies to a tenancy (the “superior tenancy”) at a particular time if, at that time—

(a) the superior tenancy is a business tenancy,

(b) the superior tenancy requires or permits the grant of a sub-tenancy (the “authorised sub-tenancy”),

(c) the authorised sub-tenancy would, at the time of its grant, be a business tenancy with a rent review, and

(d) either—

(i) the superior tenancy requires the authorised sub-tenancy to include rent review terms, and that requirement can only be complied with by the inclusion of rent review terms which (on one or more particular rent reviews) would produce, or would be capable of producing, the result that is prohibited by paragraph 6(3), or

(ii) the superior tenancy permits the authorised sub-tenancy to include rent review terms, but rent review terms can only be within that permission if (on one or more particular rent reviews) they would produce, or would be capable of producing, the result that is prohibited by paragraph 6(3).

(2) But this Part applies to the superior tenancy only—

(a) if the superior tenancy was—

(i) granted, or

(ii) varied so that it includes rent review terms that do not specify new passing rent and include elements 1 and 2,

before this Schedule comes into force, or

(b) if the superior tenancy is—

(i) granted, or

(ii) varied so that it includes rent review terms that do not specify new passing rent and include elements 1 and 2,

after this Schedule comes into force and the grant or variation is made under a contract entered into before then.

Modification of terms of superior tenancy

7B (1) The superior tenancy has effect after this Schedule comes into force as if it requires, or as the case may be permits, the authorised sub-tenancy to include rent review terms of any kind which (on each particular rent review) would not produce, and would not be capable of producing, the result that is prohibited by paragraph 6(3).

(2) The actual rent review terms that are to be included in a particular authorised sub-tenancy are to be—

(a) agreed by the persons who are to be the landlord and tenant under that sub-tenancy, or

(b) determined in such other manner as they may agree.

(3) Accordingly, the landlord under the superior tenancy may not require the inclusion of particular rent review terms in the authorised sub-tenancy (unless that is what is agreed by the persons who are to be the landlord and tenant under the sub-tenancy).

(4) This paragraph does not prevent a superior tenancy from being varied or modified by the parties to it (and accordingly sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) are subject to any such variation or modification).

Interpretation

7C (1) The following provision applies for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.

(2) The superior tenancy permits the grant of a sub-tenancy, or the inclusion of particular rent review terms in a sub-tenancy, if granting the sub-tenancy, or including those terms, would not breach the terms of the superior tenancy.

(3) References to the superior tenancy, and references to the terms of the superior tenancy, include references to—

(a) the terms of any agreement relating to the superior tenancy, and

(b) any document or communication from a party to the superior tenancy which gives or refuses consent for the grant of a category or description of sub-tenancy.

(4) “Superior tenancy” has the meaning given in paragraph 7A(1).

(5) “Sub-tenancy” means a tenancy that is inferior to the superior tenancy (whether or not it is immediately inferior to that tenancy).

(6) The “result that is prohibited by paragraph 6(3)” means the result that the new passing rent is larger than the reference amount.

Part 5

General provision”

This would apply to pre-commencement tenancies that require any sub-tenancy to include terms that would be of no effect by virtue of paragraph 6(3) (as they could result in the new passing rent being larger than the reference amount). It would enable a sub-tenancy to be granted without including such terms.

Amendment 383, in schedule 31, page 325, line 24, leave out “new passing”.

This is consequential on Amendment 382.

Amendment 384, in schedule 31, page 325, line 27, leave out “, in relation to a tenancy” and insert—

““business tenancy” has the meaning given in paragraph 1;

“business tenancy with a rent review” has the meaning given in paragraph 2.

(2) In this Schedule, in relation to a business tenancy with a rent review—

“elements 1 and 2” means element 1 and element 2 set out in paragraph 5C;”.

This is consequential on Amendment 376.

Amendment 385, in schedule 31, page 325, line 33, leave out “4(2)(b)” and insert “5B”.

This is consequential on Amendment 376.

Amendment 386, in schedule 31, page 325, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 326 and insert—

““rent review terms” has the meaning given in paragraph 2(2);

“rent under review” has the meaning given in paragraph 2(2).

(3) A reference in this Schedule to rent review terms that do not specify new passing rent has the meaning given in paragraph 5B.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This is consequential on Amendment 376.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

This group of amendments expands the scope of schedule 7B so that arrangements such as options and rights of first refusal are also within the scope of the ban. Arrangements of this type may allow the tenant to enter into a new lease on pre-specified terms, which could include upwards-only rent review provisions. Permitting such arrangements could therefore be used to avoid the ban’s effect. As a result, we cannot permit new leases such as those to be excluded from scope, as this would likely encourage gaming of the system and prevent businesses from being protected in the way that the Bill intends.

Government amendment 389 makes a minor change to clarify that the application of schedule 7B to an arrangement can vary over time depending on the circumstances, therefore allowing for arrangements to move in and out of scope. By doing so, this amendment ensures that different types of arrangements, such as options and rights of first refusal, are caught by the ban if they meet the stated criteria at the relevant point. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[David Simmonds]

I want to make the same point again, but I will not go back and repeat it. We remain very concerned about the loss of freedom of contract that this represents. Clearly, this is consistent with the Government’s direction of travel. The Minister refers to protecting businesses, some businesses will benefit from this and others will lose out, including property investors who are critical to the success of our high streets and commercial sectors. They are facing rapidly rising business rates and increases in national insurance, all of which are hammering our commercial sector and resulting in a very large number of job losses. We see this as part of that picture. We encourage the Minister to think again, reflect and perhaps change direction on this matter.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My summing up will be very short. There is clearly a problem. That problem has been around for decades. Upwards-only rent reviews are an outlier internationally, and it is putting huge pressure on our high street. I absolutely recognise that we have to strike a balance between the investment that we want to see in our local economies and commercial property sector, but we also need to protect tenants. It cannot make sense to have a system whereby rents can only go up, irrespective of what is happening in the market, and cannot go down if the market goes down. That is an illogical system and one that is putting huge pressures on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones. There is a reason why all other advanced countries do not apply this system. Those countries all function well and have vibrant property markets. Critically, there are specifics around individual places and the reforms that they have been through, but the lesson across the piece—whether in Ireland or Australia—is that reforms are possible, and in the end we can still have both a vibrant sector and a property market that is far more rational from the perspective of tenants. I commend these amendments to the Committee.

Amendment 387 agreed to.

Amendments made: 388, in schedule 31, page 326, leave out line 5 and insert “Application of this Schedule”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 390, in schedule 31, page 326, line 6, leave out “to an arrangement”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 389, in schedule 31, page 326, line 6, leave out “if” and insert—

“at a particular time if, at that time,”.

This would make clear that the application of Schedule 7B to an arrangement can vary over time depending on the circumstances.

Amendment 391, in schedule 31, page 326, line 9, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—

“2 (1) Condition A is met if Part 2 of this Act—

(a) applies to the tenancy, or

(b) has the potential to apply to the tenancy.

(2) In the following paragraphs of this Schedule—

(a) the tenancy to which Part 2 applies, or has the potential to apply, is referred to as the ‘existing tenancy’;

(b) the premises let under the existing tenancy are referred to as the ‘relevant premises’.

(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, Part 2 has the potential to apply to the existing tenancy if—

(a) Part 2 cannot apply to the existing tenancy because—

(i) none of the relevant premises are occupied by the tenant, or

(ii) the relevant premises are or include premises which are occupied by the tenant, but none of those premises are so occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant or for those and other purposes,

(b) the terms of the tenancy include terms (the ‘permitted use terms’) which would permit the tenant to occupy relevant premises for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant (whether the terms permit occupation for the purposes of business generally, a specific business or a specific kind of business) or for those and other purposes, and

(c) if the tenant were to occupy relevant premises in accordance with the permitted use terms (and taking into account all other circumstances), Part 2 of this Act would apply to the tenancy.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b), terms of the existing tenancy which—

(a) would prohibit the tenant from occupying relevant premises for some purposes, but

(b) would not prohibit the tenant from occupying relevant premises for other purposes,

are to be regarded as terms which would permit the tenant to occupy relevant premises for the purposes which are not prohibited.

(5) Sub-paragraph (3) must be construed as one with section 23(1).”

This would replicate the new paragraph 1 of new Schedule 7A that is contained in Amendment 376.

Amendment 392, in schedule 31, page 326, line 17, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 393, in schedule 31, page 326, line 19, leave out from “to” to end of line 25 and insert—

“a tenancy renewal arrangement.

(2) In this Schedule—

‘new tenancy’ means a new tenancy of the whole or a part of the relevant premises;

‘tenancy renewal arrangement’ means an arrangement under which the tenant under the existing tenancy—

(a) can require the landlord or another person to grant a new tenancy, or

(b) can be required by the landlord or another person to take a new tenancy.”

This expands the scope of new Schedule 7B to cover any arrangement under which the grant of a new tenancy can be required, whether it is the landlord or tenant that can impose the requirement.

Amendment 394, in schedule 31, page 326, line 26, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 395, in schedule 31, page 326, line 27, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 396, in schedule 31, page 326, line 31, leave out “lease” and insert “tenancy”.

This would ensure the defined term “new tenancy” is used.

Amendment 397, in schedule 31, page 327, line 1, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 398, in schedule 31, page 327, line 3, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 399, in schedule 31, page 327, line 6, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 400, in schedule 31, page 327, line 14, leave out “lease” and insert “tenancy”.

This would ensure the defined term “existing tenancy” is used.

Amendment 401, in schedule 31, page 328, line 22, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 402, in schedule 31, page 328, line 35, leave out “(2)” and insert “(2)”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 403, in schedule 31, page 328, leave out line 36.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 404, in schedule 31, page 329, line 2, at end insert—

“‘tenancy renewal arrangement’ has the meaning given in paragraph 3(2);”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Schedule 31, as amended, agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

There is a village in my constituency called Shapwick, which, for some reason I cannot quite understand, did not take the opportunity to do a neighbourhood plan a couple of years ago, and now has lost that opportunity. It is surrounded by green fields. There are four or five sites within this small National Trust village where there are gaps, cottages either having fallen down or burnt down over the years. We could recreate a beautiful chocolate box village that would really boost our local tourism and enable local services such as the nursery and the pub to maintain themselves in the long term by having a slightly increased population.

As Shapwick does not have a neighbourhood plan, however, it is reliant on Dorset council, which, through the Government’s desire to build 1.5 million new homes, is now expected to find 55,000 homes in the county of Dorset—not the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole element, just the Dorset council element. That will ruin small villages with 50 or 60 homes, as they now run the risk of having 300 or 400 homes that will change their nature forever. A neighbourhood plan would allow those villages to go, “Do you know what? We could probably get to 75 or 80 houses and still maintain everything that we love about our village.” That cannot happen now, because there is no capacity with such a small village to raise the funding required to produce a meaningful neighbourhood plan.

New clause 43 simply says that if neighbourhood plan funding is not directly restored, local authorities should be able to provide professional planning support to councils for the purposes of developing their neighbourhood plans. My preference is for the Minister to commit to restoring the independent funding, so that our town and parish councils and communities do not have to go to the local authority, but failing that, our only option is to push this approach and say, “If we can’t have our money back directly, let’s do it through this method.”

[David Simmonds]

I will try to deal with the two main issues raised by the new clauses, in reverse order.

We all recognise that last year’s Budget was a disaster for local government. The rise in national insurance alone was a £1.5 billion net cut, but the loss of funding to support neighbourhood plans, although small in the grand scheme of things, was one of the most challenging elements. As we heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, it is at that neighbourhood level—in the locality—that the buy-in of our constituents for new homes is often first secured.

The inability to support that work any longer is particularly challenging for very small local authorities. Although they do not employ many people, so they were not as hit by the national insurance rise as the big local authorities that do social care, the town and parish councils that support those neighbourhood plans—and the district councils that support such work in the local areas—have been particularly hit by the loss of funding. Ensuring that funding is there to deliver the vision that we set out when we were in government for neighbourhood planning is really important.

New clause 5 is about the ability to deliver local elections. The Government are in a bit of a mess on this issue: the messaging on devolution is that there is no point in having elections to councils that are about to be abolished, which I think we would all agree with, but the legislation simply defers the elections for one year. That is what the laws that we have passed actually do, so as far as the law stands, all the councils set to be abolished are due to have elections on their current footprint next year unless the Government return with further legislation to cancel elections under different provisions or to defer them again. The risk highlighted by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole remains a live one.

Multiple Ministers and two different Secretaries of State have assured us at the Dispatch Box that there will be elections, but without giving any specific commitments. In many places, in the normal cycle of events, there will be district elections. If the new mayoral authorities come into being, there may be mayoral elections. If there are not, under the current legislation, those existing counties will go to the polls next year. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide a clear assurance that the existing provisions that guarantee an additional separate grant to fund elections to take place will continue to apply, as has been established practice for a long time.

Will the Minister also tell us—or at least give us a steer—whether the Government intend to introduce further legislation to defer elections again, so they will not take place as scheduled next May in councils that are set to be abolished, or do the Government have a different intention? That may well affect how we vote on these new clauses; we oppose the deferral, delay or cancellation of elections, but we need to know the Government’s intentions so that we understand what we are voting for or against.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me address the question directly, and then I will turn to new clause 5, on the cost of local elections, and new clause 43, on support for neighbourhood planning.

We like elections, and we think it is absolutely right that voters have the opportunity to exercise their democratic mandate. We have therefore proceeded with elections. It is important to clarify that we opted to delay them where there were specific requests from the local authorities involved, because they were going through the process not only of local government reorganisation but of creating mayoral strategic authorities. The concern was that the capacity, resource and transitional arrangements would be jeopardised by early elections. All reasonable Members will understand that it is right that the Government listen to constituent authorities that are going through what we all acknowledge is a difficult reform and transition process, and that we get that balance right.

Our principle will always remain that we want elections to go ahead, because it is critical that voters have the chance to exercise their democratic rights. We are balancing that with being fair minded, rational and reasonable. When constituent authorities, including authorities of both parties, tell us that there is a genuine transitional and delivery risk that we need to take into account, we are sensible and reasonable, and take that into account. That is the balance that we will continue to hold to.

[David Simmonds]

On a point of clarification, when the process of reorganisation was embarked on, local authorities were told quite clearly, in accordance with long-established practice, “If you are due to have elections but we are going to abolish your council as a result of this process, we will not hold elections to that council again, because it is not going to exist.” However, the legislation introduced to Parliament simply delayed the elections for 12 months. All those authorities, including Surrey, which was today announced as the pathfinder, are, as a matter of law, expecting to have elections next May, but on the undertaking of Government they are not expecting to have any further elections to the existing authority again. Are the elections to the county councils that are about to be abolished going to proceed next year, or are the Government going to introduce legislation to delay them again?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I think I have been very clear. The legislation is very clear, and Members of the House were all involved in agreeing it. We are proceeding with elections. The principle that has guided what we have done is that the preference is always to have elections, but if there is a reasonable, justified case that there is a risk to delivering our reforms, or that the risk to the transitional arrangements is a genuine, material consideration for those authorities, it is right, rational and sensible for the Government to listen to them.

The legislation is that legislation that we have. We are proceeding with elections, and certainly the Labour party is gearing up to speak to its voters and ensure they come out—no doubt parties across the piece are doing that. That is the mode in which most of local government is operating, and certainly we on the Government Benches are.

The cost of local elections is met locally. Again, I refer Members to the new burdens doctrine, which requires that any new responsibilities are assessed. That is how we will approach elections, which are locally funded. Broadly, we are not hearing about issues with constituent authorities that are undergoing this process at the moment, but we will continue to review the new burdens doctrine to ensure that critical elections are held with no detriment to the voters in those particular areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

It is tempting to make reference to all sorts of detailed points of local government finance that we could bring up in a debate about allotments. However, I purely want to make a point about where this issue sits, which I think other Members have touched upon. The Opposition are big fans of allotments, just as everybody else is, but the local plan is the mechanism by which that should be delivered. We all know—particularly those of us, like myself, who have lots of allotments in our constituencies—that there are often waiting lists for some of the more desirable sites and also huge numbers of vacancies on others.

When allotments on their current scale were introduced in the 1950s, food was one of the biggest costs that households faced. Today, the UK has some of the cheapest food in the world, relative to household budgets. The UK and the US spend the lowest proportion of household expenditure on food in the developed world. Indeed, the proportions have reversed since the 1950s, and housing costs are now the highest factor.

One of the Opposition’s concerns about the purposes of this Bill, and about where the Planning and Infrastructure Bill was going, is that the focus on units and achieving targets will mean losing green spaces, particularly gardens and spaces outside people’s homes. When we pass this legislation, it is through the local plan that we will be able to ensure that we are not using allotments to plug a massive gap that has arisen because of those housing targets, but are instead building the types of homes that people want to live in, particularly those that include outside space. That is why, although we agree with the sentiment behind the new clause, we are not minded to support it.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We understand the intention behind this provision on allotments, and we are big fans of allotments and nature-rich spaces. However, I would point out that a duty to provide allotments already exists and sits with local authorities, which is the appropriate level. In addition, the provision of nature-rich spaces is already being tackled through multiple Government initiatives, whether that is the access to nature programme or the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which places a duty on all public authorities operating in England to consider, from time to time, what action they can take to further the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.

We recognise the need for green spaces and allotments for communities. We think that there is already sufficient provision in legislation, so the new clause is unnecessary. Actually, putting the duty at the strategic authority level is not appropriate; it should be at the local authority level. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[David Simmonds]

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

The need for this new clause has become greater as the Committee’s consideration of the Bill has continued. The original legislation and amendments from the Government have set out that new mayors will have precepting powers that will apply to non-mayoral functions. That gives rise to a suspicion, particularly in the context of the Government’s frankly dire financial situation, that such powers will be used as a means of levying, through a mayoral precept, additional resources that will be funnelled not into the priorities of local government but—the Government having set out that they see these new authorities as the local delivery agents of central Government—into the priorities of Government.

It is a long-established principle—it has been implemented for a good, long time now—that there should be some degree of constraint, and that consent should be required before a local authority seeks to proceed with a council tax rise above a certain level: 5% is the current figure. It seems to us a reasonable principle that the new mayoral authorities should be subject to the same constraint to ensure that the tax rises, which would of course be inflationary, notwithstanding the impact they would have on household budgets, would be subject to a similar process of democratic consent, rather than being something that a mayor can simply proceed with without needing to go down that route. That is the objective of the new clause, and it will be interesting to hear what the Government have to say about it.

Our key concern is that these new authorities do not become a means of addressing shortfalls in other areas of Government spending or simply backfilling some of those costs. The Minister likes to talk about a financial mess, and it is noteworthy that the Government have borrowed over £80 billion in this financial year alone already. We heard the Chancellor talking about a £22 billion black hole, which she alleged existed after 14 years of Conservative Government. I use the term “alleged” advisedly, because the Office for Budget Responsibility, which did the calculations, swiftly came back and said that it did not stand by the figure used by the Chancellor. That is £22 billion after 14 years versus £80 billion since the start of this financial year alone.

It is clear that the country’s finances are facing an exceptionally challenging time and have deteriorated exceptionally fast. Local government, in particular, has a £1.5 billion black hole that has been created purely by last year’s Budget, as a result of the national insurance rise, notwithstanding any previous challenges that may have existed. There will naturally be a temptation to see an unlimited, uncapped and unrestricted mayoral levy as a means of tapping taxpayers’ pockets further. We need to make sure that that is constrained in a proper democratic manner.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me respond directly to the inference by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner that, through the Bill and the devolution of power, we are essentially imposing the Government’s own agenda and requirements on strategic authorities, mayors or local authorities. Let me be very clear: that is not the intent. The intent is to enable mayors and local and strategic authorities to define and drive their own priorities. If the hon. Member spends any time with any of our brilliant mayors or our emerging strategic authorities, it will be incredibly clear that they have their own agenda, which is driven by the priorities of their local people. The idea that we can impose on them a set of things and use them essentially as a new revenue-raising mechanism is for the birds.

We do not think that the desire expressed in the new clause to impose restrictions on the ability of the mayor to raise a precept is right or proportionate. We are clear that the precept must be both proportionate and fair. Ultimately—I said this before, and I will say it again—mayors are democratically elected. They are no less immune to the requirements and the political pressure from their voters than I am or the hon. Member is. The process of democracy—of people having to account for both revenue-raising and, critically, for what they are investing in—is absolutely right. I trust our mayors to do that. Ultimately, if they do not raise revenue and, critically, invest it in things that improve the lives of their constituents, they will pay the price at the ballot box. They do not need the hon. Member to impose his requirements on them.

[David Simmonds]

Given the significance of this issue, we will push the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

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

We have spent a good deal of time debating the importance of housing and the delivery of housing targets. If we reflect on the construction industry news that came out yesterday, it is clear that there has been an absolute collapse in confidence in house building. Here in London, around 4% of the mayor’s housing target is being delivered, despite his having been allocated billions of pounds for that purpose.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Can the hon. Member remind the Committee when housing stocks plummeted? Was it not in 2023, on his watch?

[David Simmonds]

I think the Minister will probably be aware that the net additional new homes target that we set ourselves in the last Parliament was 1 million new homes. While we were, frustratingly, slightly below that target, we none the less delivered, in round terms, 1 million net additional new homes in this country. The collapse, as the Minister well knows, has taken place since the change of Government. That is an unfortunate reality. We know that the Budget in prospect later in the year is a significant issue of a conspicuous lack of confidence and a desperate need to get construction activity going again.

[Paul Holmes]

It is even worse than that: in the previous debate, the Minister said that she did not want the Government to be able to impose their ideals on mayors, but now they have reduced the affordable housing target for the mayor, to try to fiddle the figures and make it look as though more houses are built. That is poorer people suffering in our capital city.

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is desperation in action, and we can see that happening, as can the whole world. We would like to see the Government succeed—we would like to see the country succeed in developing the new homes that it needs. However, it has been a continuous theme in our contributions to debates on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that we must ensure that the 1.5 million homes that already have planning permission in England get built, rather than focusing on tearing up the green belt and on more permissions that also do not get built.

We know that in our capital city there are more than 300,000 new homes that already have planning permission, but on which work has not started. The purpose of the new clause is to ensure, just as we have sought to in the past in respect of private sector developers where there is a failure, that where a local authority or a mayor is in charge of a development, they are required to build it out in good time. That is so that we do not see a repeat of the situation where well-intentioned changes to the planning system simply result in more unbuilt permissions, while people who need homes do not have access to them, because that is not what is being delivered.

The focus of the new clause is to ensure that the system does what it is intended to and actually builds the homes, as opposed to churning out more planning permissions. Given the Government’s desperate need to move somewhere in the direction of achieving their 1.5 million target, I am sure the Minister will welcome the new clause and ensure that the Government support it.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I understand the intent behind the new clause, and the Government are absolutely committed to building the homes that people across the country need. But I cannot let it pass without setting the record straight: housing delivery plummeted because of action taken by the previous Government, including the scrapping of housing targets across the country, the under-investment in social and affordable housing and, dare I mention, Liz Truss—remember her?—who saw mortgage rates skyrocket. Those are the factors that have driven down housing stock, and we, again, are having to fix the mess left by the previous Government. I will take no lectures from them on house building, given their record.

We are determined to deliver the 1.5 million homes that we know the country needs, and we will work with strategic authorities and local authorities to do that. There are already provisions that will enable mayors to accelerate housing development and drive economic growth, and we are providing further tools through the Bill, whether that is the strategic planning powers, the ability to raise the community infrastructure levy, the extension of the ability to form mayoral development corporations to all mayors outside London or, importantly, the land assembly powers given to strategic authorities to unlock development. We are very clear-sighted about what needs to be done, and we are already equipping and empowering mayors to do that.

We already have examples of where this is working, such as the Olympic legacy in Stratford and the huge progress delivered in London through that. There are provisions in the Bill. Our challenge is that we have to fix the mess that we inherited, but we are absolutely determined to do that, and we will do it in partnership with mayors.

[David Simmonds]

Many interpretations can be placed on the facts, but it is very clear if we look at the numbers that Government borrowing costs are now significantly higher even than under Liz Truss. It has been a pretty disastrous period for Government finances. If we are to see the measures to which the Minister has just referred succeed, there must be some imperative around building. We cannot simply see a tranche of mayors granting permissions, assembling sites and failing to deliver in the way that Mayor Khan has in London.

[Mike Reader]

The Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex, said at the Conservative party conference that she wanted to cut regulation on building, but she was silent on the Government’s consultation on speeding up building. Is this a change of policy? Are the Conservatives now supporting the Government on build-out programmes? Can we look forward to the hon. Gentleman joining us in the Lobby when the proposal comes forward?

[David Simmonds]

It is a nice try by the hon. Member, but I think we know that there have been areas of deregulation where there is a high degree of consensus. In particular, we know that one of the reasons why some of those 1.5 million homes have not been developed is that, after local authorities have granted consent, delays are created by, for example, waiting for permission from the Environment Agency to proceed. There are elements of deregulation that I think we all support, and we can see how they would be of benefit, but where we have mayors such as the Mayor of London who are just abjectly failing, we need to make sure that there is a degree of compulsion so that the homes that our capital city and our country need are delivered.

Just as we would like to see that level of compulsion apply to private sector developers, who can be as guilty of this as Government—they might be land banking or looking at those permissions not as an opportunity to create homes, but simply as a means of creating a tradeable asset—we need a degree of imperative to hold the feet of those mayors to the fire to ensure that the new homes are delivered. I hope the spirit of the Government’s response signals their support for this amendment, which I will press to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[David Simmonds]

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

The intent of the new clause is very much in line with the recommendations that Mr Speaker has recently made in respect of Members of Parliament. There has been a degree of concern about the intimidation and victimisation of politicians and the impact that has had on wider public debate. It has been a long-standing principle that a person needs to declare their eligibility to stand in a particular place, and in a local authority there are specific requirements connected to the local area that person is seeking to serve.

However, it has been a widespread view for some time that there needs to be a degree of confidentiality so that members who are concerned that they will be victimised are able not to have that data, that information, placed in the public domain. Once they have satisfied the local authority’s returning officer that they meet the requirements—with evidence, as is currently the case—their home address does not need to be placed in the public domain, creating risk.

We think the precedent that Mr Speaker set out in respect to Members of Parliament is absolutely right. The intent of the new clause is to achieve the same for our locally elected brethren. I am sure that to achieve that objective, the Government will be pleased to support the new clause.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for this new clause. We wholeheartedly agree with its intent. In the English devolution White Paper, the Government committed to removing altogether the requirements for local government members’ home addresses to be published. The new clause would not achieve that aim because it relies on a member requesting non-publication. We believe that the default position should be non-publication, and we intend to legislate with more robust provisions when parliamentary time allows.

In light of the reassurance that we will be legislating on this important issue, which we agree on, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.

[David Simmonds]

I am afraid that I am not reassured. I am particularly concerned, because we know that “when parliamentary time allows” means this could be kicked into the long grass for a very long time. Given some of the incidents we have seen, which have affected both Members of this House and our locally elected peers, we know this has become a more pressing issue.

Some locally elected members see it—as some Members of Parliament do—as an advantage to have their home address published, and we, as Members of Parliament, are free to make that choice. At the moment, we can say, “I wish it to be known that I live at this address,” or, “I wish it to be known that I live, anonymised, in a constituency”, which is how it is listed for Members of Parliament. Broadly, the same provisions should apply, so those councillors and candidates who prefer to keep their address confidential should be able to do that, as we can. Those who choose to take advantage of that additional degree of confidentiality—perhaps because they have a young family or caring responsibilities, or whatever it may be—should be able to take advantage of that.

If we fail to include this measure in the Bill, I suspect we will see a number of local election cycles in which local council candidates will not have the same opportunity as we do. I will therefore be pressing the new clause to a vote. I encourage the Government, if they are not minded to accept it now, to consider implementing it when the Bill gets to the Lords, because we have a duty of care to our local councillors. Giving them the same opportunity that we have as Members of Parliament seems an entirely reasonable and minimal measure of protection to offer.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

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

I will speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). I am sure that in doing so I will also speak on behalf of other Members, in areas such as Cornwall and Yorkshire—my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) in particular, but I suspect there may be others, even in this room, who support the intent of the new clause. In short, the new clause would push devolution a step further.

[David Simmonds]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that during the passage of the Bill we have heard from some Members that they have been given assurances from the Government? Ministers have clarified that no such assurances have been given. Indeed, in response to a written parliamentary question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), the Minister set out that there are no provisions in the Bill that would provide such identity protections. Does the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole feel that this is something to which we need to return? Despite an impression that assurances have been given, it is clear that they are not present.

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I did a little research on the national minority status introduced by the former Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, back in 2014. This is fundamental. Cornwall has national minority status and it is critical that no Bill, including this one, should undermine that position. Other areas with strong regional identities and commonalities could potentially benefit from the new clause, which would allow for a degree of regional governance, across a number of mayoral regions, through the creation of regional assemblies. The clause includes protections: the Secretary of State would be required to assess the local appetite and need for a body, and Parliament would have to approve the creation of such an assembly. We hope that those will be effective in securing the support of the Minister.

This new clause is hugely important in relation to the people living in these areas. It would introduce greater protections and rights for local populations in those areas, devolving more decision-making powers and granting more freedoms from decisions made in Westminster, which are less applicable to these distinct areas. It would advance on the Bill’s power for collaboration across areas by providing an assembly structure through which multiple councils and mayors—although I recognise that if it was Cornwall, it would be a single council, probably with no mayor—could work together at scale to drive coherent change for a given region.

Clearly, the measure would need to be developed through the regulations listed in the new clause. The provision is embryonic, so that it allows for a lot of work and consultation to be done in the areas where it would apply. This is an opportunity to signal a direction of travel towards genuine devolution for places with special characteristics—I would argue that the Isle of Wight might have such special characteristics—or national minority status. We hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to embrace this change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon]

I thank the hon. Lady, but I note that according to the amendment paper, one of the two Cornwall Members has not put their name to the new clause. The hon. Member for St Ives is not on the list.

I will make some progress. We are two weeks on, and we have come full circle on the Cornish question. I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned national minority status, which is the crux. I have said it before and I will say it again: the Cornish people have a unique place on this island, as we are the only people with national minority status who do not currently have access to the highest level of devolution, even though the people of Cornwall want it. That can be seen very clearly across the political spectrum. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Labour, Green, independents and Mebyon Kernow are all in favour of greater devolution for Cornwall without the requirement of a mayor, which is the highest level of devolution. Only one party supports joining a mayoral combined authority: Reform. It would be a dereliction of duty on my part not to raise those concerns.

[David Simmonds]

It falls to me, as the shadow Minister, to be the voice for Conservatives in Cornwall, who would absolutely agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says. There is strong cross-party consensus. The reason we tabled our amendments, which were very similar in spirit to the hon. Gentleman’s, was to seek an assurance that because of Cornwall’s unique situation, there would be provisions in the legislation that would protect it.

The hon. Gentleman said very clearly that he had received assurances on the basis of which he had decided to withdraw his amendments. Since then, the Minister has clarified, in response to a written question, that there are no provisions in the Bill that would provide that protected status. Can the hon. Gentleman share with the Committee whether he has had any further assurances since that date to give us all comfort that the unique identity of Cornwall will be protected in the changes envisaged in this legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

I would like to thank all the Committee staff, yourself, Dame Siobhain, and all of the other Chairs, and all the Members on the Committee. I also thank the staff in our offices, who have had to work really hard and stay quite late into the evening to ensure that everything gets put into the Public Bill Office for the next stage. I pay tribute to all of them.

[David Simmonds]

I echo those comments, Dame Siobhain. The Bill may be poor, but the organisation and support have been flawless—[Interruption.] And the quality of the heckling is without parallel. I know we will be returning to many of the topics of debate later on in the parliamentary process, so we will have the opportunity to relitigate and seek to deliver the necessary improvements to the legislation. I thank all the officials, all those who contributed to the Bill, and the witnesses, whose evidence has been so helpful.

[Siân Berry]

To what everyone else has said, I want to add that, while I have spent a lot of time in the Committee complaining that scrutiny is not done well, we have done a really good job of scrutinising this Bill. My team has had the most amazing support from the Public Bill Office and the Clerks, and the Chairs have been fantastic, so thank you very much, everyone.