Draft Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority Order 2026 Draft Cumbria Combined Authority Order 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am sure you will be pleased, as will the Minister, to know from the outset that the Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee on these orders. However, I do have a few questions to put to the Minister that are relevant to both orders; where they are not, I will be more specific.

The first question is about the agreement that the Minister may or may not have reached with the Treasury about the underwriting of the 30-year mayoral investment fund. One of the concerns that the Opposition have highlighted, which I know has been shared to a degree across parties, is that with the English devolution Bill there is scope, perhaps, for new mayoral authorities to raise significant precepts.

The feedback from several authorities is that the big incentive is that central Government are making a significant additional level of discretionary funding available to mayoral combined authorities. Clearly, 30 years runs over multiple future Parliaments, so it would be helpful to understand how the settlement has been reached with the Treasury, whether it means that the funding cannot disappear because of future changes in Government circumstances, and if so what the methodology has been, so that authorities entering into an agreement have a sufficient level of assurance that the funding will continue.

I would like to ask the Minister about data sharing, which is one of the new functions conferred by these orders. The authorities in question all have multiple statutory functions—they provide children’s services, adult social care and a variety of different services—but the primary focus of the orders is transport. What data ringfence is drawn around those new data-control and data-sharing measures so that residents can have a degree of assurance and clarity about what is to be shared on this footprint and what is not?

I also have a question about the precepts themselves. We briefly touched on the point about the 30-year mayoral investment fund; clearly, with transport as the major focus, the underlying assumption is that the mayor will use the new precept to underwrite investment in those transport functions. A great deal of debate is going on about how transport functions across the country should develop. It would be helpful for the Committee to know what assumptions, if any, the Ministry or other parts of Government have made about the level of the precept, and where that sits against other sources of funding, some of which the Chancellor has referred to, to underpin other elements of public transport investment. To what extent is it an additional levy being funded through a mayoral precept versus what is coming from central Government resources, as has been announced so far?

Finally, I have two questions specifically on Warrington. Members across the Committee will be aware that the Minister’s predecessor sent envoys into Warrington council last summer—it is an authority with a debt of around £1.8 billion. I appreciate that nothing in the draft order, of itself, will change the status of that debt as something owned by Warrington council, but the arrival into this combined authority of one council with such a comparatively large level of debt raises questions. The first question is whether there is a risk that the mayoral precept is effectively bailing out the debt of one of those authorities. Alternatively, given that Warrington will be required to contribute financially, will it be able to raise the necessary funds through its own arrangements, since it has envoys in place whose job is essentially to manage down that debt pile, which is extremely large compared with the overall turnover of the authority?

With those observations, which are largely about the process for reorganisation in these individual circumstances—as opposed to the principle, which we very much support—I close for the Opposition.

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner, for what I think is the first time.

As the Minister outlined, the purpose of the draft regulations is to round off the otherwise larger increases in business rates, but it is important to put that in context. A short time ago, we had a general election, in which the Prime Minister said that there would be a new regime of “permanently lower business rates”. I appreciate that the Treasury is currently hiring a new business rates tax adviser, but this issue is not going away.

In Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) referred to a 2,000% increase in the business rates applying to one of the pubs in her constituency. Previously, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) had reported that a survey showed an average increase of 41% for hospitality businesses, 44.4% for music venues and 27% for independent shops in her constituency. The body that represents the United Kingdom’s gym and health providers, ukactive, reports an average increase of 60% in the business rates for which its members are liable. The National Pharmacy Association has reported that its members are having to remortgage their homes and put their life savings into their businesses to meet the business rate increases proposed by the Government. To date, over the last 12 months, there have been a net 200,000 job losses in the retail sector, which businesses report are primarily due to increases in business rates and national insurance contributions.

It is clear that that reflects a very substantial, permanently higher rate of business rates and an unwelcome U-turn by the Government. All of us can see the practical impact in our communities, and I would bet that there is not a Member in this room who has not been lobbied by local pubs, cafés and shops about the impact that this is having on their business.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister agree that this is creating a perfect storm and that the reason so many people are getting in touch with us—many MPs on both sides of the House will have owners of pubs, restaurants and bars getting in touch with them—is that this business rates change will crystallise that? In coastal areas like Fylde, people have less money in their pockets, so there are fewer visitors to hospitality venues to start with. Those businesses already face significant cost increases because of changes to national insurance and other changes in the tax system. As a result, these 40%, 50% or 60% changes in business rates will be the final straw for many of those businesses.

[The Chair]

Order. We have an hour and a half to debate the regulations, but interventions must be a bit shorter.

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend has outlined in very clear terms what any of us in this room could on behalf of our constituencies. There will be different local dynamics, but everywhere is suffering as a consequence of the increased taxes on businesses. Government Members might not wish to hear such messages from Opposition Members—and that is understandable, because this is politics—but they might listen to the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier). In Prime Minister’s questions, he said that “any wins” had been “wiped out” by the increase in business rates, compared with what was proposed through transitional relief, and he reported to the House 60% and 70% rises in business rates affecting his local pubs.

I will conclude with some questions for the Minister. First, what is the net benefit of all these measures—the increases in business rates and the transitional relief—to local councils? We know from the local government finance settlement that two thirds of local authorities in England lost net funding from central Government as a consequence. Given the substantial increase in business rates income that this would imply, what will the overall impact on local government funding be?

Secondly, what assessment has the Department made of the impact that this will have on high streets and local businesses in particular? Many of those business have been lobbying us because the family business tax, the rise in national insurance and the interaction with the changes in the point at which national insurance is charged have put huge pressure on them. The impact of these business rates on top of that is enormous.

Thirdly, what role have the local reliefs, which were briefly touched on by the Minister and are set out in the explanatory memo, played in the determination of the funding settlement? Although the fig leaf is offered that local reliefs may be available, it is clear that the Government’s assumption is that all these increases will be implemented in full before any consideration is given to additional funding. What consideration has the Minister given to a return to the local authority business growth incentive business rates regime, which was designed to incentivise local authorities, through additional support from central Government, to look to create opportunities to support local businesses and high streets, in a way that we know was very effective?

The Prime Minister said on 7 January that the Government were in talks to see

“what further support and action we can take.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 260.]

That was days after he acknowledged that as a result of this settlement, pubs and hospitality, in particular, “will struggle.” The question for Opposition Members is, is this it?

[The Chair]

Before I invite Members to bob if they want to catch my eye, may I ask them to stick strictly within the confines of the draft regulations, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Today’s debate illustrates clearly how passionate Members are about their local high streets and the businesses in their constituencies, which I completely recognise. I will try to address Members’ comments.

The introduction of the permanently lower rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, paid for by the high-value multiplier, is just the first step in the Government’s programme to transform the business rates system, which the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner asked me about. In September 2025, the Government published an interim “Transforming Business Rates” report to set out what we will do next to meet our objective of delivering a fairer business rates system that supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. At the Budget, a call for evidence was published on the role of business rates in business investment, which will help us to develop a system that better supports investment and economic growth. The transformation of the business rates system is a multi-year programme happening throughout this Parliament, with much more to come.

I turn to other issues. The hon. Member asked about the impact on local government. We hope that the revaluation will be, as much as possible, neutral. We will adjust the business rates retention scheme to offset the impact on local revenues.

[David Simmonds]

I am grateful to the Minister for addressing that point. It slightly begs the question, however, if the main purpose of these increases—we have heard about 2,000%, 60% and 27% increases for independent shops, as well as 200,000 job losses—is to raise additional business rates income, but the effect on local government finance is neutral. What on earth is the point of inflicting all that pain on the business sector if it does not put a single extra penny in the pockets of local government?

[Samantha Dixon]

We do recognise that business rates make up about a quarter of local authorities’ core spending power and they support critical local services, but the revaluations maintain fairness in the system by redistributing business rate liabilities among ratepayers to reflect recent market conditions. Standard features of the business rates tax system mean that between financial years, tax take may increase or decrease due to inflation or changes in relief. Hon. Members will be aware that rates rise in line with inflation and change annually to reflect inflation. On the wider impact on local government, I will respond to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner in writing.

Members have raised the issue of the high street. It is important to note that the temporary and unfunded—I repeat unfunded—40% RHL relief for 2025-26 will end on 31 March, and will be replaced by the permanent lower retail, hospitality and leisure tax rates from 1 April. The change, coinciding with the revaluation, means that some retail, hospitality and leisure properties will need greater support to help them transition to their new bill.

We have provided exactly that through expanding the supporting small business relief scheme, which will, as I outlined, cap bill increases for ratepayers who are losing some or all of their small business rate relief, rural rate relief, 2025-26 retail, hospitality and leisure relief, or 2023 supporting small business relief, at the higher of either £800 or the equivalent transitional relief cap. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley put it most ably: to vote against this particular measure would be to see businesses facing higher bills, which is not what the Government want.

I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. As my right hon. Friend the Chanceller announced at the Budget, the business rates support package, of which this relief is a part, will help ratepayers facing bill increases as a result of the revaluation to move gradually over time to their new liability. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this matter today, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Leaseholders, like renters and prospective homeowners, have been made big promises by this Government. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of botched local government reorganisation, cuts to the budgets of two thirds of England’s local authorities, delays to elections and the wholesale abolition of housing and planning authorities in England’s shires on the delivery of those promises? This is just another promise that the Government are not going to deliver, is it not?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Forgive me—I do not know whether the shadow Minister has come in on the wrong question—but I cannot see how local government reorganisation will, in any shape or form, influence in any way our ambitious leasehold and commonhold reform agenda.

Local Government Finance

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is no surprise that the Government sought to sneak this consultation out with the minimum level of attention, proposed, as it was, for simply a written ministerial statement at the last possible second. We can all see that poverty is rising, driven by a shrinking economy and rising unemployment, combined with inflation running at 3.6% and higher energy bills. Rising business rates are crippling our businesses, and local communities everywhere are feeling the pressure created by this Government’s choices.

How does the settlement help our councils to deal with all that? First, it assumes that working people—all people—will pay higher taxes everywhere. We should not misunderstand the Minister’s words on core spending power. The settlement enshrines an assumption that taxes will rise to the maximum possible extent everywhere, with fees and charges for parking, libraries and everything else following the same trajectory. Even if the inflation target of 2% is reached—which seems unlikely given that it is currently at 3.6%—the increase represents a 1% uplift for local government during the whole life of this Parliament, and that sector was left £1.5 billion worse off by the rise in national insurance contributions alone.

Resources at a local level are going backwards. This is a settlement that punishes efficiency, with those councils that deliver the best value for money being raided to bail out the more spendthrift—and I am sure we can guess which parties tend to run those councils. It is a settlement that introduces new, higher taxes on hospitality—voted for by every party in this Chamber besides the Conservatives—bearing down on investment and opportunity. It brings in a homes tax on more expensive homes—money that goes to the Treasury, not councils. In the Red Book, that is estimated to cost the Government a net £335 million due to the damage it does to the housing market. Only this hapless Labour Government could bring in new taxes that actually cost the Treasury money—and here they go again.

This settlement repeats the fallacy that poverty is the only driver of council costs. The average English local authority delivers more than 800 different services. Our rural coastal areas, and anywhere else with lots of retirees, face the high costs of adult social care but do not necessarily score highly on indices of deprivation, despite the costs being driven by statutory duties. The undertaker Prime Minister is ushering many councils towards their financial doom. As this Government hammer Wychavon and Stratford-on-Avon, they are also hammering Ashfield, Dartford, Burnley, Cambridge, Hyndburn, Lichfield and Bolsover, which are among the places worst hit by this financial settlement.

The Government’s detachment from the consequences of their actions is striking, and all while the Prime Minister and the Chancellor dodge the new high-value council tax in their grace and favour accommodation. All this is behind the smoke and mirrors that disguise from our local authorities the financial impact. They have been required to carry out their public budget consultations without having had sight of the impact of this settlement.

Let me conclude with some straightforward questions. Will the Minister tell the House when our locally elected brethren will learn the net impact of this settlement on their council tax budgets? When will we debate the impact of the Government’s cuts to SEND capital funding? When will the House have the opportunity to scrutinise their decision to impose exceptional financial support or higher council tax rises to bail out the consequences of their decisions? When will they provide clarity on the impact of their SEND proposals on council budgets? How will the Government use the budgets allocated to the new devolution areas and now snatched back to mitigate the impact of their decisions?

Will the Minister admit to the House that this is a tax-raising, job-destroying, housing-hobbling, rate-raising, service-slashing, community-crippling, election-cancelling settlement that fails even on its intended purpose of shunting resources to politically favoured areas?

[Alison McGovern]

I can hardly wonder at getting that purely political response when I made the perfectly legitimate political point that under the Tories a lot of councils were dealt very bad funding settlements indeed. We do not need to trade political insults to see the libraries closed, the parks left unmaintained and the damage done to councils, but I look forward to discussing this issue with the hon. Member across the Dispatch Box as we move forward, once he has talked to his own councils about the funding settlement they will be receiving.

The hon. Member asked some slightly more important questions, particularly on SEND. He will know that this is primarily a matter of getting the absolute best outcome for our children. The Department for Education will bring forward plans in the new year, and I am working closely with Ministers in that Department to ensure that we get it right. I mentioned some of the details in my statement.

I do not recognise the picture described by the hon. Member on devolution, and I feel confident in saying that nor would the Minister for devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), who is in her place. She announced significant investment for the places affected, and we all look forward to working with areas up and down the country to ensure that our country grows as we wish it to.

Local Elections

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if she will make a statement about the cancellation of local elections scheduled for May 2026.

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

Let me respond to the question directly. Local elections will go ahead in 2026—that has been and continues to be our position. We are a responsible Government, so if there are extenuating circumstances on the ground in particular councils, we will have that conversation with them, as the House would expect, but we are as up for elections as anyone else.

This is about our commitment to devolution, and the creation of strategic authorities and mayors who can unlock the economic potential of their areas and deliver for their communities. That will always be our guiding star—our lodestar—in every decision that we make about devolution, so I am pleased to confirm the long-term funding offer to six areas in the devolution priority programme. Once their mayors are in post, the six mayoral strategic authorities will receive close to £200 million collectively per year for the next 30 years for their investment fund. In that way, we will ensure that our mayoral strategic authorities have the strong foundation to unlock the growth potential that we see in every part of the country.

The Government recognise that mayoral strategic authorities are most successful when they are built on a strong history of partnership and joint delivery. That is what we have seen in our established mayoral authorities in Greater Manchester, Liverpool and across the country. The devolution priority programme areas have already made huge progress towards establishing their strategic authorities. We want to allow for a meaningful period between the establishment of a strategic authority, and its mayoral elections.

We are also conscious that those places are simultaneously undergoing local government reorganisation while building those new institutions. The Government are therefore minded to hold the inaugural mayoral elections for Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Greater Essex in May 2028, so that those areas have the opportunity to conclude their local government reorganisation, build strong and effective unitaries, which is what we want, and establish their strategic authorities before their mayors take post. The inaugural mayoral elections will take place, but in the meantime we are determined to work with those areas to provide capacity funding, build the institutions, and strengthen their partnership and joint working to deliver for their communities. At the heart of everything we do is unlocking areas’ potential by building strong institutions that can do that job and working in partnership with them to achieve it.

[David Simmonds]

You and I both value local democracy, Mr Speaker. Last week, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), the Secretary of State told the House that

“the Government’s intention is that all the elections scheduled for next May will go ahead next May.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 5.]

The following day, the Minister told the House:

“Labour is up for elections… our clear intention is to press ahead with elections next year. The decision to postpone elections is never taken lightly”.

She went on to state the reason the Government were resisting the Conservative amendment to ensure that those elections went ahead:

“It does not allow for extenuating circumstances at a national level, such as a pandemic, or for exceptional circumstances locally”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 322.]

Given that we are all ready for and expecting the elections, having taken this Government at their word, the ambiguity that the Minister has created has caused a huge amount of doubt, significant cost and logistical challenges at a local level in changing the type of elections and the processes for nominating candidates, recruiting electoral canvassers and ensuring that we have the right polling station staff and that they are prepared to arrange that election on schedule. This is a huge waste of public money for elections that we are all ready for.

Given the Minister’s previous comments about circumstances in which council elections would be cancelled and the looming deadlines that electoral officers face, when will she make a decision, and what process will she follow in determining whether the planned council elections will go ahead? When will the Government brief the House on the timetable for the elections of mayors, which they made central to their Budget last week? Will she ask the Office for Budget Responsibility to update its Budget forecast, given the massive impact that this dithering and delay will have on the Budget’s clearly set out plans for housing, infrastructure, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and NHS reorganisation?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It is really important that we distinguish between two things. We have been absolutely consistent that local council elections are happening in 2026. We are cracking on with it and getting ready for them. I hope the Opposition parties are getting ready for them. We will crack on with them, but these are inaugural mayoral elections that are predicated on us laying a statutory instrument, which we are still to lay, and having the consent of constituent authorities. It is absolutely right that we take stock of where we are and the process that we are asking places to get through, to ensure that at the end of this, we have strong unitary councils that are going through the process of reorganisation, strong strategic authorities, and then a mayor. That is the right and rational decision. There is a clear distinction that I ask the House to make between local council elections, which are scheduled and run to a rhythm, and inaugural mayoral elections, which we have not had before.

On the economics, I will take the hon. Member’s question seriously, even though it was completely ridiculous. We are committed to unlocking areas’ economic potential, so we want to crack ahead with strategic authorities. We want to lay the SI, so that we can get the strategic authorities set up in the timeframe that we have been negotiating and agreeing with places. We are committed to that long-term investment. We will bring forward a proportion of that investment into next year and the year after in the transition, so that places can get on with their investment pipeline and their programme.

At the heart of this—I will keep coming back to this—is a determination on the Government Benches to work with every part of the country to unlock their economic potential. We will do that in good faith. We will do that without playing politics. We will do that in partnership with any leader, no matter which party they belong to. I hope all Members across the House will approach this in the same spirit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for her responses this morning.

[David Simmonds]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? When the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill was making progress in Committee, the Minister was very clear that elections to local councils would be considered for cancellation on request from the affected local authorities. She has told the House this morning that, in fact, it will be done only in a pandemic or exceptional local circumstances. There is clearly some risk that the House may be inadvertently misled on what the decision-making criteria for that cancellation may be. Can you give me some guidance as to how we can gain the necessary clarity on what the decision-making process for the cancellation of council elections will be?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that it was not a point of order but a continuation of the urgent question, and it could have been put to the Minister earlier. However, he has put his point on the record.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make some progress.

Finally, we have built on the amendments made in Committee to the local audit provisions. Our further amendments contain technical provisions that broaden the existing regulation-making powers relating to the payment of allowances to audit committee members to include expenses, gratuities or pensions to members of audit committees across all local bodies within the audit framework. Broadening this power will give clarity to the sector that remuneration can apply to all audit committee members, whether they are independent or not, across all relevant authorities, including the Greater London Authority.

The Bill originally required that the Mayor of London and the Assembly jointly appointed an audit committee. However, following discussions on its particular governance arrangements, it has become clear that it would be more appropriate for this power to rest solely with the Mayor of London, consistent with other audit provisions in the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. This change will enable the mayor to appoint an audit committee that includes at least one independent member, in line with the requirements set out in the Bill. I thank the GLA for its constructive engagement with my officials on these important audit measures in the Bill. It is vital that our reforms work in practice for all authorities within the local audit framework.

The Bill will help to build and rebuild local government, fix our broken local audit system and truly empower communities. Our amendments build on these ambitions and ensure that the Bill works as we intended. I commend them to the House.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I know that this issue has been exercising Mr Speaker. Yesterday, at topical questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) about a tourism tax, we were told by the Secretary of State:

“My hon. Friend tempts me to venture into terrain that is properly within the decision-making jurisdiction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She only has to wait 48 hours to find out what the Chancellor has decided. I suggest that she ask the Chancellor on Wednesday, rather than me this afternoon.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 19.]

During debate on the Bill yesterday, when asked the same question by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), replied:

“They have made an impassioned and effective case, but as I said in my opening remarks, I will not pre-empt the Chancellor. Tax decisions are for the Chancellor, and we will have a Budget in 48 hours.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 155.]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you and Mr Speaker have been very exercised by the number of leaks, which the former chief economist at the Bank of England described as

“the single biggest reason why growth has flatlined”.

You will therefore be concerned, as the Conservatives are, that a short while ago the Government put out a press release on their website saying that mayors will be given these new powers, before that was briefed to the House and after repeated comments to the House that Ministers would not answer that question. What further measures are open to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker to ensure that these kinds of damaging leaks, which are undermining our economy and particularly hitting our tourism and hospitality businesses hard, can stop?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Colleagues who have contributed to the debate should be here for the wind-ups. That is a notice. I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds]

I open by drawing the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I hold some voluntary roles in local government. I place on record my particular thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who served with such distinction on the Bill Committee.

Local government is the most efficient part of the public sector. It is uniquely democratically accountable among our public services. It is also uniquely financial constrained by the requirement for council budgets to balance in-year. We know that the average local authority delivers over 800 different services, which range from public health and child protection to housing the most vulnerable, trading standards, markets, parking and road maintenance. Councils empty the bins, recycle the waste, lend books and care for the elderly, but Governments rarely rise or fall based on what happens in the local government sector. It is not the most dramatic or glamorous part of our state, but day to day, as contributions from right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber have reflected, it probably has the most important impact in our constituents’ lives.

As we heard in Committee, and as we have heard in the amendments and in this debate, our local government is under unprecedented pressure due to this Government’s poor decisions. On the track record of my party in office, we saw local authorities using their discretion but for the most part seeking to keep council tax low, with the additional revenue from projects such as the new homes bonus, council tax freeze grant and the approach to business rate grant being implemented to support local businesses and local communities.

Today, with few exceptions across the sector, we see local authorities facing the maximum possible council tax rises, the maximum possible business rate increases and the maximum possible increases in fees and charges, against a backdrop where housing delivery, supposedly the Government’s top priority, has collapsed, despite a legacy of 1.5 million new homes—their target for the whole of the Parliament—with planning permission already granted. All this green belt-grey belt nonsense, which has caused such concern and anxiety to Members and our constituents, is entirely irrelevant. They already have an entire Parliament’s supply of homes with planning consent ready to build. The jobs tax has left our local authorities worse off by £1.5 billion net. It has driven up the cost of almost every local government service, from the care of the elderly and vulnerable children to the day-to-day maintenance of our roads and our environment.

Tonight, what we have before us is this Government’s botched and incoherent restructuring, with no clear vision of what local government in England is even for. When we consider the matters that we will press to a Division, new clause 69 on election cancellations and new clause 80 on statutory notices are among a very extensive list of options. We have heard from one or two Members that the retention of the committee system was democratically approved locally. Although measures adopting the Opposition’s proposals on councillors’ addresses make some minor improvements to the Bill, the cancellation of local elections is a clear example of a mess of the Government’s making.We support our local colleagues in making the best of the very difficult set of decisions that they have to take. However, having been told by Ministers—as the Opposition did when in office—that elections to local authorities that were due to be abolished would be cancelled, that was not what the Government then did. They simply deferred those elections for 12 months, making the waste of taxpayers’ money and the concern of local residents even greater, while raising the prospect of a lack of accountability as this important process goes through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

The Minister failed to tell us how the tourist tax would be brought forward in legislation. With the announcement coming yesterday, and after all the opportunities they had in Committee and in debates on the Floor of the House, does the hon. Gentleman think that this was merely a case of failing to get the Chancellor’s attention?

[David Simmonds]

The hon. Member puts to me whether it was simply a failure to get the Chancellor’s attention, but clearly the Chancellor has been busy at every possible opportunity briefing the press about things that may or may not be in the upcoming Budget. We have seen the impact that that has had: driving up Government borrowing costs; driving down business confidence; and driving unemployment up, every single month since this Government took office. Those political briefings have real-world consequences for our constituents’ livelihoods.

For all of those businessowners in the hospitality and tourism sector who have been seeking to make decisions, relying on what they have heard Minsters tell the House, to discover in a press release that this new tax is due to be imposed on them despite the previous assurances of the Tourism Minister, is just one of the many nails in the coffin of the British economy represented by the Bill and this Government’s actions.

In conclusion, when we look at the Bill, we see legislation that makes a complete mess of local democracy: elections cancelled and then deferred; announcements of new mayors that do not make it through to the final announcements about new structures. The Bill takes powers away from communities and gives them to mayors who, as we heard earlier in the case of Surrey, may not materialise at all. It devolves nothing of any significance closer to our constituents and seeks to make our elected local councillor brethren simply the hosts of talking shops, rather than decision makers for their local community. Worst of all, despite the Government’s occasionally lofty rhetoric, the Bill abolishes 90% of the representation of shire England at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. Where is the voice for our constituents in local government under this centralising Labour Government?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the thoughtful, constructive and robust interventions from hon. Members across the House.

I will start with a theme that has been raised once again by the hon. Members for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) —that this is a centralising Bill that seeks to take power away from communities and impose on them. I completely and utterly reject that idea. I made this point yesterday, and I will labour it again today: this Bill represents the biggest transfer of power from Westminster and Whitehall to our regions, local authorities and communities. The Government believe that we change the country by putting power in the hands of people who know their patch. That is the principle behind the Bill, and that is what we are determined to deliver.

Let me address the point on local election delays, which has been raised head-on in new clause 69. We understand the democratic necessity to hold elections. People have the right to vote—a right that we absolutely support and will absolutely protect. Labour is up for elections as much as any other party, and our clear intention is to press ahead with elections next year. The decision to postpone elections is never taken lightly, and was not taken lightly when it was made. It is a decision that we will always take with great caution, as it is one that we want to avoid.

However, we cannot accept the new clause, because it is neither rational nor reasonable. It does not allow for extenuating circumstances at a national level, such as a pandemic, or for exceptional circumstances locally that create a challenge for holding elections. While we are keen and determined to press ahead with elections, we are the Government of the day, so we will always take a considered and reasonable approach to this matter.

I turn to the point raised in new clause 17 by the hon. Member for Guildford on the funding of strategic authorities. The hon. Lady was right to highlight the pressure that local government is under. However, I would point out—again, I note the complete cheek of the Opposition here—that that is a consequence of 14 years of austerity and under-investment. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner talks about the plight of local government, yet fails to recognise the terrible inheritance that his party left—the huge legacy of denuding and undermining local government that we are now trying to rectify. In 2025-26, the local government finance settlement provided £69 billion for councils—a 6.8% increase in the core spending power for local government. We are moving to multi-year budgets, consolidated funding and a fair funding review, all in order to reverse the decline and under-investment of the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I will speak briefly. There is a high degree of consensus on some of the objectives that the Government have set out. We share the ambition to deliver more homes, and we share the ambition on economic growth and devolution. However, the alternative stimulants that the Government have chosen essentially involve more bureaucracy, more centralisation and new taxes, all of which will stand in the way of the delivery of those ambitions.

We, as an Opposition, are very clear about this. The things that our communities, our constituents and our local businesses want and need are not contained in the Bill. It cancels elections, it reduces local democracy, it centralises power with a swathe of new ministerial diktats, it raises taxes through an unwanted, unbriefed new tourism tax, and it opens the door to new unlimited mayoral levies that can be used at ministerial fiat, not on the say-so of local residents. It is a let-down for those who hoped to support it and a betrayal of the ambition of those who support our local democracy. We will oppose the Bill’s Third Reading.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call the shadow Minister.

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

When we look at the statistics, we see that homelessness and rough sleeping are surging under this Government, with London and the south-east hardest hit where social housing delivery has collapsed under the current Mayor of London. Will the Minister commit to lifting the restrictions that this Government have placed on councils’ use of the homelessness reduction grant, and will she commit to funding councils for the growing impact that asylum seekers are having on homelessness pressures, so that Housing First can become more than just a slogan?

[Alison McGovern]

Homelessness and rough sleeping doubled under the previous Tory Government. Our homelessness strategy will be published very shortly. Last week we published our policy statement on the fair funding review, which will stabilise council funding and target it at those areas with significant levels of deprivation. I look forward to the hon. Member’s support in ensuring that councils have the powers they need to ensure that everyone has a roof over their head.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The Opposition join the Minister in thanking our colleagues in the other place for their sterling work. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who has been our shadow Minister and contributed enormously to the debate in Committee.

I welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box for a further discussion on planning and infrastructure, and congratulate him on being the last man standing from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government team that was appointed in Labour’s golden summer of 2024. As he surveys the bombed-out wreckage of that ministerial team and knows that he is the only one not to have succumbed to friendly fire, I am sure that he shares my sense of disappointment that, after a year of debate and discussion, we have not made the progress that the British people expect from us in the delivery of planning and infrastructure.

The Opposition have three fairly simply tests to apply to the amendments and the Bill as a whole. First, does this deliver the required reform of our administrative state—the planning process, statutory undertakers, decision makers and all those who play a part—to ensure the swift delivery of infrastructure? Secondly, does this create the necessary incentives for host communities to support and embrace the opportunities that development offers? Thirdly—and most critically, we think, having undertaken many planning reforms during our time in office—does this get the market building the 1.5 million new homes that already have planning permission? The entirety of the Government’s target already has consent, with no further loss of green belt or environmental impacts.

[Mr Perkins]

Many people are concerned about this issue, which the shadow Minister’s party also faced when in government. Why does he think that developments do not get built despite their planning applications getting approval?

[David Simmonds]

I am going to develop my answer to that, because that is the question we face as a country. We set ourselves a target in the last Parliament of delivering 1 million homes, and we fell just short of that, but when this Government set out their commitment to net zero, I do not think they intended 23 of the 33 London boroughs to have net zero new housing starts, according to a new Bidwells report on the housing market in London. They did not anticipate a 20% reduction in completions of new homes. They did not anticipate a 55.9% drop in the number of new housing starts here in our capital city or a Labour mayor delivering 4.9% of the target set for him by this Government, despite record levels of funding. The context, as we saw today, of growth in our country falling to just 0.1%, is a significant clue to the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

When we assess this Bill and these amendments against those tests, it is clear that whatever lofty ambitions some may have, this Bill fails in the eyes of the Office for Budget Responsibility, because it does not generate the level of growth and contribution that the Government promised. That is reflected in the hasty implementation of large-scale amendments in the Lords that were not even contemplated at the Commons stages. It fails in the eyes of homebuyers—the many people who aspire to get on the property ladder for the first time. It fails in the eyes of our farmers, who were hoping it would make it easier to create the infrastructure that would make our farming and food sector more efficient. It fails in the eyes of the developers, who are talking about packing up and taking their investment abroad because the UK market is so poor at the moment. It fails in the eyes of the builders, who see no measures in the Bill to address the shortfalls they all face.

It fails in the eyes of the travelling public, who have watched this Government cancel projects such as the expansion of the A12, which was set to support the delivery of thousands more homes. And it fails in the eyes of lovers of nature, because for all that has been said, there is still a grave lack of clarity about how the measures in the Bill will support the ambitions we all have to balance the delivery of new homes and infra- structure with the needs of a nature-depleted country, to protect the natural environment that we all cherish. The Government signalled before they even embarked on this legislation that their intention was to reduce green-belt protections, which raises the suspicion that this is not a holistic agenda; it is about making it as easy and cheap as possible to build on the green belt, without the strategic underpinning that delivers the homes and infrastructure that our nation needs.

[Mr Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman has not actually answered my question. He is talking about the policies of the last 15 months, but the problem he is alluding to of developers sitting there with planning permission and not building has been going on for 15 years or more. Can he be realistic about what his solution is to get developers to build the developments they have planning permission for?

[David Simmonds]

As the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister’s questions, we would not start from here—we would not have made the mistakes this Government have made, which have led to the crash in house building that I outlined.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I would like to assist the hon. Gentleman. Is the answer not a “use it or lose it” planning permission, whereby a developer loses the permission or the land if they do not build on it?

[David Simmonds]

We spent a good amount of time debating that issue in Committee. “Use it or lose it” planning consent is one option. Application of council tax at different stages of delivery is another. We could also take a different approach to section 106, to the community infrastructure levy or to the way that local authorities interact with the housing market. All those measures that we either considered in government or have been debating—none of which has been taken up —have the potential to ensure that more of the homes that have planning consent get delivered.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Is not the principal difficulty that so many housing developments have now become unprofitable, and that is why they are not being proceeded with? It is the costs that have been loaded on builders in the last 15 months.

[David Simmonds]

My right hon. Friend tempts me to fast-forward to a point that will arise later on.

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the end of her Budget statement last year that she was wiping the slate clean, and from here on in it was on them, she was absolutely right. If we look at the impact that the measures taken have had on the deliverability of housing and infrastructure, and the rising costs of government driven by the colossal borrowing spree that has been embarked upon by this Chancellor, there is no question. A Government who have borrowed £100 billion this financial year alone are not in a position to talk about a businesslike approach to delivering housing and infrastructure.

The Opposition share the concern that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) set out in her intervention, highlighted in Lords amendment 1. Ongoing accountability is crucial. We know there will be trade-offs, whether it is on Heathrow—an issue that affects her constituents and mine—or High Speed 2, which has been very much debated, the delivery of new cross-Thames infrastructure to the east of London, new ports, new airports or new roads. There is a significant parliamentary interest in all those issues, and that process provides an opportunity to explain to the public where those trade-offs sit.

On heritage sites and reservoirs, the Lords have done some excellent work. I am grateful to the Minister and the Government for their willingness to embrace the debate about electric vehicle charging, and I know noble Lords have been extremely keen to support the work being done to deliver that net zero agenda. However, so many elements of the Bill incorporate a tendency to centralisation. The lack of community-level accountability and lack of ability for local residents to have their say about what is happening in their area—for example, on assets of community value—remains a fundamental concern. If we want those communities to embrace development and new homes, they need to be able to see the benefits and opportunities that a development will bring to their lives.

Another issue covered in the Lords amendments is chalk streams. I declare for the record that the River Colne, which borders my constituency, is a chalk stream, the majority of which are in southern England. Given the work done by my party in government, we are determined to ensure that there is an appropriate level of protection enshrined in legislation. We would choose to develop brownfield first. We seek the swifter redevelopment of brownfield sites, including here in our capital city, rather than intruding on the green belt, which is critical for nature, is important for the health of human beings and for leisure and is often a site of sports facilities and agriculture, supporting the lives of our communities. That is another area where, sadly, this legislation falls far short.

It is clear that this Government have a heavyweight majority. Through the measures that are being implemented, the Government are using that majority to deliver a left hook of reducing community voice and community say in planning applications. They are following that with a right hook of reducing protections on the green belt and building on virgin land—as we heard from the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who is no longer in his place—rather than previously developed land being recycled. That is followed by the uppercut of wholesale top-down council reorganisation, and then a jab demanding that local plans the length and breadth of the country be changed through the national planning policy framework changes, without there being remotely the capacity at the Planning Inspectorate to deal with those in a timely manner.

A number of Members have said, “Why is this happening, and what do you think needs to be done to address it?” The knockout blow to our housing market in the last 12 months has been delivered by the massive hike in national insurance introduced by this Government, which is leading developers, builders, the whole supply chain and local authorities to fear that they will have to throw in the towel, because it is simply not possible, under such a business-unfriendly Government, to deliver homes and infrastructure that require a pro-business environment.

As the Bill proceeds, pummelling our first-time buyers, hammering our homeowners, bashing our builders, and duffing up our developers, on behalf of the Opposition I simply say this to the Minister: there is an opportunity this afternoon to begin to change course, and to signal that he believes, and we believe, that a different course of action is possible that will deliver the homes and infrastructure that the British people expect. I always enjoy meeting the Minister across the Dispatch Box, and I always keep my spare Conservative party membership form handy just in case he should ever need it—his high standards of professionalism suggest that one day he will make the journey to the dark side. Minister, take the opportunity to say to your colleagues that it is time to add to so many poor U-turns, a good U-turn. Let us get on with the job of delivering the homes and infra- structure that the British people need.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

Houses in Multiple Occupation: Planning Consent

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Dowd, and to speak in this debate called by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm). He gave a clear exposition of the issues facing his constituents, which mirror the experiences of mine. I was out at the weekend talking to people in Lovett Road and Ash Grove in Harefield who told pretty much the same story that hon. Members on both sides of the House have set out. I have huge sympathy for the Minister and the Government because that story encapsulates the housing challenge: everybody is generally in favour of providing more housing, but they are not very keen on this specific form of more housing when it has an impact on their constituency.

The Opposition recognise that HMOs have always been a helpful source of additional housing. They have provided for temporary workers over the years and are a key plank of our student housing market. They are extremely important, especially for people who may be trying to put their lives back together and make the first step into social housing. Their numbers have grown in a housing market where, although private rented homes have the highest level of occupier satisfaction of any type of housing, there is none the less an acute need to ensure that people are found homes and are off the streets. There is a high degree of commonality and agreement, but I am sure we all recognise that that need will remain a significant challenge in the context of a collapsing housing market, especially here in London where the mayor is on track to deliver less than 4% of the housing target set by the previous Government.

The Opposition support the Government in bringing forward new provisions to improve the licensing process for HMOs, which several hon. Members on both sides of the House have called for. Historically, we have always sought to make that process as straightforward as possible to swiftly meet rising local demand for housing. However, we recognise that there has been growing pressure, particularly because of the unneighbourly behaviour that we have seen from some landlords, that needs to be swiftly and robustly tackled.

We also support a more straightforward implementation of article 4 directions. We recognise that where they have been implemented, their operation was restricted to ensure that the supply of this type of accommodation was not choked off by blanket application. When I was a councillor, my local authority applied one in very restricted areas where it was seeking to protect the student housing market, rather than using a whole-borough approach, but it is now considering implementing that more widely to address the kinds of concerns that hon. Members have highlighted.

The Government have just gained Royal Assent for the Renters’ Rights Act. As they look at leasehold legislation, as well as the devolution Bill, which contains housing elements, and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, about which I think the Commons is due to receive Lords messages next week, I encourage them to look at the opportunity for further amendments to those pieces of legislation that would enable local authorities to more effectively address these concerns through different routes.

It is very clear that there is a degree of community concern, particularly given the backdrop. We have heard the Government say that they are committed to shifting the asylum accommodation estate away from hotels, the use of which has grown very rapidly in the last 12 months, towards other types of accommodation. We have heard a lot about houses in multiple occupation and former military bases being put to use for that purpose.

I therefore encourage the Government to consider the Opposition’s proposals for a specific use class for asylum accommodation so that there is an effective public consultation, and so that residents understand the purpose of the HMO change. That would help to allay concerns and allow time for the local authority to consider in advance the impact of having families with children who need education provision and the impact on the NHS of providing support for people who may have war injuries or have suffered other circumstances that brought them to our shores as asylum seekers, for example. It would also enable representations to be made to the provider if it was clear that a locality was not able to provide the support needed by a household or class of users. Introducing an additional use class would bring about a higher degree of transparency and ensure that many of the genuine community concerns that hon. Members on both sides of the House have outlined could be effectively addressed.

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.