Quarries: Planning Policy

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered planning policy for quarries.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the issue of planning policy for quarries to Westminster Hall today. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate.

I would like to declare at the very outset that, like many hundreds of my constituents, I will be impacted by the development that I am going to refer to. My South Leicestershire constituency has been home not just to me and many hundreds of my constituents, but to many quarries throughout the years. In 2022, a new proposal from Tarmac was floated for a mega-quarry in the hamlet of Misterton, which will have a huge impact on residents in Lutterworth, as well as the villages of Walcote, Cotesbach, Kimcote and Kilworth—to name just a few.

In engaging with that proposal, I have come to understand just how outdated, inconsistent and, in some places, inadequate the planning guidance for quarry operations has become. Nowhere is that clearer than the guidance on air quality. The documents that local authorities are expected to follow do not reflect comparable environmental standards in developed countries, the latest science or the reasonable expectations that residents like mine hold about their air that they and their children breathe.

I have had regular meetings with residents and the Misterton and Walcote residents group to examine the proposals for the mega sand and gravel quarry. I am pleased to say that some of those residents are here today. Three main concerns have emerged: the first is the scale of the proposed development, which covers 74 hectares—the equivalent of 104 full-sized football pitches—and will extract 400,000 tonnes of sand and gravel a year for at least 20 years. It has caused understandable concern over dust, noise and the movement of heavy goods vehicles, especially given that the site is directly opposite a proposed flagship housing development. There is an interesting potential conflict here, because Leicestershire county council is, rather unusually, the promoter of that housing development, as well as being the minerals authority tasked with approving the proposed quarry on the doorstep of its own proposed development.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. That is an everyday reality for my constituents in Epsom and Ewell: we have a chalk pit and residents are faced with dust, noise and traffic. Three agencies are involved: the Environment Agency, Surrey county council and Epsom and Ewell borough council. They all have different and sometimes overlapping responsibilities, so residents find it difficult to raise issues, and some just fall through the cracks. Does the hon. Member agree that the current system for regulating pits and quarries is too complex for residents to navigate and get their issues resolved?

[Alberto Costa]

As the hon. Lady will hear in the remaining parts of my speech, I entirely concur with her comments.

Given that the proposed quarry site is not allocated in Leicestershire county council’s minerals plan, which runs until 2031, we can understand why a group such as the concerned residents present today would try to seek the advice of a professional minerals planner to review the proposals, consider the data and write a report that the residents group could use as the basis for their representations to Leicestershire county council, as the appropriate local planning authority, on Tarmac’s proposal. What surprised me, as their Member of Parliament, was that it was nearly impossible to help them find someone in the industry willing to produce a report that the residents association could use. Why? Because virtually every qualified planner we approached—and there were a great deal—cited potential conflicts of interest with Tarmac. In fact, Tarmac is such a big beast of industry that it took nearly a year to find a planner willing to produce and put their name to an impartial report reviewing Tarmac’s Misterton quarry application.

I am concerned that ordinary groups of residents who want to hire a specialist barely stand a chance because of Tarmac’s influence on the industry. Does the Minister share my concern that local communities often struggle to access independent, impartial technical advice, particularly where the applicant is a large and influential company in the industry? If the Minister is unable to answer any of the questions I put to her today, I would be grateful if she would answer in writing, not least because the residents association would be most grateful.

On air quality, I have a specific concern about the regulation 25 notice issued by Leicestershire county council to Tarmac. Forgive me, Dr Murrison, for the highly technical nature of some of my speech. That relies on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2021 background model, which produces artificially low PM_2.5 figures that no longer reflect the current conditions on the ground. We now have local post-pandemic monitoring data from Harborough district council, showing that background PM_2.5 levels in rural areas close to Misterton are already at or above the Government’s future legal target. Even Tarmac’s own consultants—Vibrock—reported significantly higher background levels than those quoted by the county council.

Does the Minister agree that, to ensure evidence-led decision making, it is imperative that baseline data should be up to date and, if more recent local data exists, it should be used? Does she consider that, where a proposed major industrial development has the potential to increase community exposure to PM_2.5, a mandatory period of local monitoring should be undertaken to establish a reliable baseline before permission is considered?

The main guidance that developers and local authorities rely on comes from the Institute of Air Quality Management. Although the IAQM is a respected professional body that works closely with regulators, it is important to recognise that it is a membership organisation and, therefore, potentially vulnerable. For example, its members may also have commercial interests in consultancy firms that deliver air quality services to clients seeking planning consent, such as Tarmac.

The most relevant document used as guidance for developers and local authorities is the IAQM’s 2016 “Guidance on the assessment of mineral dust impacts for planning”. It is fundamentally used as the de facto industry standard by all who work in the industry, including developers, consultants and local authorities, but that guidance is now nearly a decade old. The document sets the industry standard for how dust, particulates and emissions must be modelled or evaluated when a quarry is proposed.

Last year, I wrote to the IAQM, raising concerns shared by my constituents, such as whether the IAQM guidance adequately distinguishes between nuisance dust and finer, more harmful PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 particles; whether the 250-metre screening criterion remains appropriate for fine particulates, given the emerging evidence showing that those dangerous particles can travel considerably further; and how well it aligns with forthcoming legal PM_2.5 targets, with which the Minister will no doubt be familiar. The IAQM has since contacted me and put a note on its website to say that the guidance on assessment of mineral dust for planning is now under review. That note says:

“The 2016 IAQM Guidance on the Assessment of Mineral Dust Impacts for Planning is now nine years old and as such there are some elements of the document that are dated”.

I repeat:

“there are some elements of the document that are dated”—

this is the document being used—

“and the focus of assessment is changing.

A full review is being carried out by an IAQM Working Group established specifically with regards to this guidance.”

Is the Minister’s Department liaising with the IAQM to ascertain when the review will be completed and a report published?

With the guidance now formally under review, developers and planning authorities need clarity on the interim approach, such as the one faced by the residents in my constituency. The Government’s own interim planning guidance on PM_2.5, published by DEFRA in October 2024, already encourages local authorities to take the 2028 interim and 2040 targets—10 micrograms per cubic metre annual mean—into account in planning decisions. Dr Murrison, I promised you that this speech would be full of technical details, and I hope that I am not letting you down.

Given the legally binding obligations under the Environment Act 2021 and Environmental Targets (Fine Particulate Matter) (England) Regulations (2023), can the Minister confirm, either today or by follow-up letter, how planning authorities should apply the most up-to-date scientific evidence and statutory air quality objectives when assessing quarry applications, especially given that the relevant IAQM guidance is under review, as I have just outlined?

The IAQM guidance to which I am referring is used by developers and planning authorities to assess air quality impacts, particularly in relation to fine particulate matter such as PM₁₀ and PM_2.5. I welcome the fact that it is under review, but I wonder: had the residents group not informed my team, and had my team and I not written to the IAQM to raise the concerns of South Leicestershire residents, would the review be under way now? The 2016 primary guidance documents from the IAQM, which are now under review, are used by the industry, and I understand that overall it is very good guidance, but in key areas it is behind current scientific understanding of the risks of respirable dust particle behaviour and the Government’s own commitments under the 2021 Act and the clean air strategy 2019. The guidance is also far too subjective, offering scope for varied interpretations and approaches.

We now know that PM_2.5 particles—those fine particulates that penetrate deep into the lungs—can travel much farther than previously assumed. The use of a 250-metre screening threshold, still applied in the current guidance, significantly underestimates risks, because it treats those dangerous particles as behaving in the same way as nuisance dust. Evidence from recent legal cases, including the Corby litigation, which was depicted in the Netflix hit series “Toxic Town”—I encourage listeners and viewers to watch that—has shown that those particulates can travel well beyond 250 metres, exposing far more people to harm than our assessments currently acknowledge.

Property Service Charges

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is a genuine pleasure to follow that constructive speech by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly). I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing a debate on what is without question a critically important and pressing issue for residential freeholders and leaseholders alike across the country, and one that, as the shadow Secretary of State rightly said, enjoys significant cross-party consensus. In opening the debate, the hon. Lady spoke forcefully and eloquently on behalf of her constituents in Redhill and, in sharing their plight with the House, brought alive the financial and emotional toll that leasehold terms can take on homeowners across the country.

The many excellent contributions that followed from hon. and right hon. Members powerfully reinforced the arguments that the hon. Lady made. The case studies littered across those contributions were shocking but will not have surprised anyone in this House. We all know from the work we do supporting leaseholders and residential freeholders in our constituencies that, for far too many of them, the reality of home ownership has fallen woefully short of the dream. It is precisely because this Government are no longer prepared to accept that situation that we are determined to honour the commitments made in our manifesto and do what is necessary to finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end in this Parliament.

I do not intend to detain the House for a huge amount of time—I know there is another debate to follow—but in the time I have available I would like to address the main issues that have been raised in the debate, starting with the various problems affecting homeowners on private and mixed-tenure housing estates. But, as ever, I am more than happy to meet any hon. or right hon. Member who has raised an issue that I am unable to cover.

As several hon. Members argued in their contributions, we have seen over recent years a significant shift away from a situation where local authorities and utility companies would generally adopt the respective amenities and public spaces within new residential developments to one where private management arrangements take hold—a so-called fleecehold arrangement. Shared amenities and open spaces are now routinely not adopted and maintained at the public expense, and the maintenance costs fall to residents through an estate rent charge, a fee paid in addition to council tax.

The estate charge also normally covers the management costs of the estate management company, although, as has been evidenced in the debate, residential freeholders frequently complain that these companies deliver little, if anything, beyond what a local authority would usually provide in an area where amenities would have been adopted.

My Department estimates that up to 1.75 million homes in England are located on such private and mixed-tenure estates, although not all are subject to charges. Properties on these estates often have restrictive covenants registered at the Land Registry. They may require homeowners to seek permission, often for a fee, from the management company for actions such as selling or letting their home or altering its appearance. In the worst cases, residents face excessive or unjustified charges levied for minimal services. Those may include fees for services normally provided by local authorities, arbitrary and costly administration fees, unexplained increase in charges and fees imposed during the sale of their home.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I just want to add one more case study to the plethora that have already been provided today. I have a resident who has a one-bed flat who saw their charges rise by thousands of pounds in just a few years. That financial burden also makes it even harder to sell their property. Simply too many rogue developers and estate management companies, as alluded to, are exploiting residents and demanding excessive fees for maintaining shared and public spaces in developments. Will the Minister, as many Members have called for, today commit finally to cracking down on these money-grabbing companies, capping unreasonable service and management charges, and urgently abolish ground rents on existing leases?

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Lady had been present for the debate, she would have heard extensive exchanges on this subject, but I will set out what the Government intend to do to provide leaseholders and residential freeholders with redress in these areas.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the sterling work he does in Torbay, and has done in the past as leader of the council, on these issues.

That change in the burden of proof may sound technical, but in fact it would gut the powers of local authorities to hold bad landlords to account, as my hon. Friend has just said. At a stroke, it would make justice for tenants far harder to achieve.

Lords amendment 53 points in the same wrong direction. It seeks to introduce fixed-term tenancies, but the whole point of the Bill is to shift to periodic tenancies—arrangements that give renters both flexibility and more security. Dragging us back to fixed terms, which would become standard across that particular element of student housing, would undermine those core principles.

On the other hand, there are amendments that make the Bill fairer and more workable, which we support. Lords amendment 19 recognises the reality faced by shared ownership leaseholders, who can be can be, and are, hit disproportionately hard when sales fall through, through no fault of their own. Without that exemption, they could face financial ruin. This is a simple matter of justice and we support it.

Lords amendment 64, which would create a new possession ground where a landlord needs to house a carer, is in keeping with the Liberal Democrats’ belief in the importance of supporting the millions of carers out there who are so often overlooked. It is right that the law should recognise the vital role they play, and if there are risks of abuse, it is open to the Government to table their own amendments to set out how they would make the same provision for accommodation needed by carers.

Lords amendment 39, which would legislate for a decent home standard for our military, goes to the heart of who we are as a society and our obligations to those who serve. I pushed for this amendment at earlier stages in the Commons, and indeed this has long been the Liberal Democrats’ position, having been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) in the previous Parliament. It is therefore disappointing that, while the Government have come forward with their own amendments on other matters, they have not come up with any such amendments on decent homes for our military, although that has been agreed across the parties in the other place.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Ministry of Defence itself says that the MOD housing standard is already higher than the decent homes standard, the Government should do the decent thing and accept Lords amendment 39 and put it on the face of the Bill?

[Gideon Amos]

Indeed, our military deserve no less than this being on the face of the Bill, in whichever way the Government wish to do it. If it is so easy and, as my hon. Friend points out, it is the Government’s position, surely it can hold no fear for them.

It would be disappointing not to have those amendments. We are told that 90% of service accommodation meets the decent homes standard—my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) had clearly already read this part of my speech—but those figures come from contractors who are responsible for managing those properties and have an interest in saying that they already meet the standards. There is no independent assessment.

The Defence Committee painted a very different picture, when families reported to it. The Committee stated:

“It is disingenuous for DIO to present glossy brochures about being ‘decent homes plus’ when they are anything but. It is clear that the DIO’s property frequently does not meet the standards.”

Crucially, it added:

“Moreover, there is no local authority”—

or anyone else—

“to hold them to account as would be the case for private and other local landlords.”

We are also told that it would be impractical to extend the decent homes standard to military housing because of access “behind the wire”, yet former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Stirrup, reminded colleagues in the other place that civilian officials already go into far more sensitive areas of military bases, so that is not a serious objection.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on sitting through such eloquent speeches on his first day in the job. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for securing the debate.

I am proud that people from all over the world have put down roots in Stratford and Bow. Some of them came bringing skills and experience, while others came seeking safe haven, but wherever they are from, they are welcome in Stratford and Bow. The story of Stratford and Bow is a story that can be found in every corner of Britain. It is about the very best of Britain—our humanity, our compassion, our fairness. It is a story that my own family know well. Fleeing pogroms in search of safety, my parents were given refuge in the UK, and they made east London their first home. That was nearly 50 years ago, and now they are proud British citizens.

I hear that story echoed by my BNO and Hongkonger constituents who came to the UK fleeing persecution. Since the publication of the Government’s immigration White Paper, dozens of my constituents who are currently already on the pathway to settlement have written to me to share their stories and concerns, specifically those about transnational arrangements for those who are already in the UK and on the five-year route to indefinite leave to remain. This is one of my constituent’s messages to me:

“Changing settlement requirements for those who are already in the UK risks a harmful message: that even those who play by the rules are not guaranteed fairness.”

I was struck by how so many of those who wrote to me introduced themselves and described their families as hard-working and law-abiding. They wanted to tell me about their incredible professions, from caring for our most vulnerable to driving innovation in the UK’s tech sector, and about how much tax they are paying, about how they contribute to the UK economy, about how they have made Britain their home and about the community groups they volunteer with.

Although it was nice to read their emails, it saddened me that we have reached a place in Britain where our neighbours and constituents—those who came here legally—feel the need to defend the fact that they belong here. Their stories also show me something else: pride—pride in participating in British life, pride in British values and pride in contributing to and playing their part in our national story. My constituent Chelsea wrote to share her pride in her own efforts to, in her words, uphold British values and integrate in British society. It is a pride that so many of us in this place know and share: a pride in contributing to our communities and playing an active role in shaping local and national life.

Another constituent wrote to me about bringing years of experience to work here in a highly specialised tech job. He told me that he declined offers in other countries and chose to come here,

“following the rules in good faith, trusting the commitments made when I arrived would be honoured.”

In a nation obsessed with queuing and fair play, what could be more British than a respect for the rules, standing in line and asking for one thing in return—fairness? Changing settlement requirements for those who are already in the UK risks sending a harmful message that undermines trust in legal routes: that even those who play by the rules are not guaranteed fairness in Britain.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Over the summer, I held a drop-in surgery for the Hong Kong community in Epsom and Ewell—there are over 1,000 of them—and I heard from many residents who were concerned about the proposal to extend the qualifying period from five to 10 years. They told me that this could have a profound impact, including disrupting their financial planning and causing increased stress and uncertainty for those individuals and their families. Does the hon. Member feel that it is imperative that this Government provide urgent clarity and reassurance to those affected?

[Uma Kumaran]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. That is what so many of us in this room, across the parties, are asking for at the moment. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that point.

My BNO constituent put it best:

“British nationality is a privilege not a right.”

I am sure that all in this room agree. However, it is also our right, as Members, to ensure that our system is fair. That means that we cannot treat migration like a sticking plaster on deep-rooted domestic issues such as skills shortages. It also means honouring the settlement expectations that people had when we welcomed them here legally, and honouring our historical obligation to Hongkongers who are claiming humanitarian protection and fleeing political repression.

As the Government prepare to set out their plans this autumn, I urge the Minister to consider the cause of constituents in Stratford and Bow and ensure that those who arrived under the five-year rule are allowed to complete the route to settlement without changes being applied retroactively. Allowing them to do so would reflect the British values that my constituents of all nationalities cherish. It would reflect the story of our fair, outward-looking and compassionate country, which we all hold so dear.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as someone who is still a sitting councillor. In fact, when I came into this place, I sat on three different councils, so I speak from a good history of local council knowledge.

This Bill focuses on mayors, yet we hear about putting power in the hands of local people. Having a Mayor of Greater Manchester, which has a single identity, is quite different from having mayors in Devon, which is a vast area containing different sorts of places—let alone, perhaps, a mayor of Devon and Cornwall. That is not power in local hands, and the idea that reorganising councils will save money is a fallacy. We will see a few senior executives go, but the numbers of people on the bins, doing the work in the streets that needs to be done across Devon, will not be reduced. Reorganising councils will not save money; in fact, it will cost a huge amount of money, which is not being funded.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

The Government have claimed that the measures in this Bill, including merging councils, will save significant amounts of money. However, the County Councils Network has revealed that reorganisation could make no savings and cost money. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures in this Bill are based on out-of-date reports that risk further bankrupting local authorities?

[Martin Wrigley]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. However, in my remaining minutes, I will focus on two or three other areas that were not covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). In all the powers and broad strategic aims of this Bill, the key roles played by town and parish councils are forgotten; in fact, the Bill barely mentions them. It also omits the role played by our national park authorities.

Parish and town councils are the first port of call for residents. They are closest to the ground and most responsive to the day-to-day needs of their communities—these are the truly local hands. As district councils disappear, their local assets of less significant value to the new unitary authority will likely suffer, or be overlooked or sold off without considering local input from the town or parish council, despite any changes to the community right to buy, whose successes—as we have heard—are few and far between. This Bill must contain a statutory obligation to work with the most local and community-rooted bodies, which are our parish and town councils. A duty to co-operate must be put into the Bill. Neighbourhood committees or areas, as vaguely set out as they are in the Bill, may play a part in keeping planning and other functions local within the wider unitary geography, but they must also consider and work with the town and parish councils that they cover. This must be a statutory requirement. The Bill allows mayors to convene partners and request collaboration, but those are discretionary powers. They may be used, or they may be ignored. There is no enforceable duty and no statutory requirement to co-operate, and that is a profound weakness.

National park authorities are mentioned not once in the Bill, yet they carry the legal responsibility for some of our most precious landscapes. National park authorities, such as Dartmoor, have a majority of members from a mix of local authorities—five, in Dartmoor’s case—and a minority of Government-appointed members. Without changes, if Dartmoor ended up completely within the boundaries of a new unitary, it would effectively be managed as part of that unitary and lose its unique identity. Its planning authority will be overridden and its strategic vision may be subsumed. We must protect Dartmoor and the other parks for people to freely access and enjoy, and not let greed rip things apart for mere profit. The Bill must address how these authorities will maintain independence and protect the identities of the areas they serve.

Another missed opportunity is the need to make the provision of public toilets a statutory responsibility. Too often, councils in financial difficulties cut these vital facilities, and in Devon we know that there will be no money left over once the special educational needs and disabilities overspend has been paid for by the carefully managed districts and their reserves. It will still be a case of there being no money left.

Finally, I welcome the return of the alternative vote for mayors, but urge the Government to go further and introduce full proportional representation for all the new unitary councils, making every vote count.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

The planning system certainly needs change, but local people know their area, which is why local planning authorities must retain their current powers, as outlined in amendment 1. As we have heard, each area is different. In my constituency we are fortunate to have the Loddon and Whitewater chalk stream rivers nurturing ecosystems and sustaining biodiversity.

The Labour manifesto promised

“more high-quality, well-designed, and sustainable homes… creating places that increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery.

Chalk streams in this country are at risk. A third are over-abstracted, a third failed their phosphorus targets, and a third failed their fish and plant assessments. Only 11 have any form of protection. We cannot rely on the local nature recovery strategy or the national planning policy framework to protect those ecosystems. These rivers need bespoke national protection written into primary legislation in this House, as outlined in amendment 16. We cannot make reparation after the fact. Once chalk aquifers are destroyed, they cannot be replaced. When we say irreplaceable, we mean it.

The Government also say they want to make the UK a clean energy superpower. My colleagues and I are thrilled that the Liberal Democrats’ call for solar panels on new homes is finally being implemented. Solar power is a key way to harness the power of the natural environment as we develop infrastructure for our communities. Supporting new clause 7 and putting solar panels on all new car parks would be the natural next step in the right direction.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Electric vehicles are key to achieving energy independence, but charging inequalities are simply holding us back, undermining net zero and energy security. Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities must be empowered to approve safe cross-pavement charging solutions without expensive and time-consuming street work licences or planning applications?

[Alex Brewer]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on those policies.

Solar panels do not just soak up the sun and create clean energy; they also provide shade, protect vehicles and, frankly, over a car park they look quite good while they are doing it. We should be prioritising solar panels on the 250,000 hectares of rooftops and car parks across the country, not on our precious green spaces. Car parks are often located in energy intensive areas— near hospitals, shopping centres and office buildings—so it makes perfect sense to generate the power right next to where it is needed.

[Alex Brewer]

We must find the right balance between agriculture and renewable energy.

France has already taken the lead by mandating that all car parks with more than 80 spaces must be covered with solar panels. The Bill is the right place for us to implement a similar clause. Solar photovoltaics produce about 10 times more energy per square kilometre than biomass. Solar is efficient, clean and ready to go. I am highly concerned that the Bill is overcommitted to biomass, which is not a form of renewable energy. In Britain, we have the knowledge and expertise to develop new housing, energy and infrastructure with nature in mind. The Government are treating this issue as an either/or, but we could and should be much more ambitious and have both.

[Helen Maguire]

I rise to speak in support of my new clause 93 and amendments 122 to 126, which aim to tackle the growing electric vehicle charging divide—an issue that is not only about infrastructure, but about fairness, affordability and climate action.

Nearly four out of every 10 households in the UK do not have a driveway. For many of them, the transition to EVs remains a challenge because bureaucratic barriers mean that they face charging costs that are 10 times more expensive compared with those who can charge their car at home. Today, someone with a driveway can charge their EV overnight for as little as 7p per kilowatt-hour, but a driver without one may be forced to pay up to 80p at a public charger. That means over £1,000 more per year, and renters, residents of terraced homes and lower-income families bear the brunt.

My amendments would cut unnecessary red tape and enable local authorities to approve safe cross-pavement charging solutions without expensive and time-consuming street works licences or planning applications. They would give councils control while empowering residents to take part in the EV transition. That is a vital step in closing the gap between those who can charge affordably at home and those who cannot. It would help to reduce reliance on overstretched public chargers, support grid resilience and build confidence in the EV transition, while unlocking green jobs and cutting emissions.

This is also an issue of energy security. Sky-high energy and fuel bills are hurting families and businesses, fuelling the cost of living crisis. Russia’s assault on Ukraine has reinforced the need to significantly reduce the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels and to invest in renewables, both to cut energy bills and to deliver energy security. Electric vehicles can help millions of families to avoid a petrol premium, save on travel costs and strengthen our national security and independence.

If we are serious about hitting net zero, cleaning our air and reducing the cost of living, we must make EV adoption a genuinely accessible and affordable option for everyone, not just for those with a driveway. I urge Members to support my common-sense, future-facing amendments and new clause 93.

Residential Estate Management Companies

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gideon Amos]

“Daylight robbery” is a good way of putting it. Those staggering increases in charges, with very little notice or warning to residents, are experienced in many of our constituencies, including my own.

In my constituency, I am receiving complaints about FirstPort from residents of Parsonage Court in Wellington, and from those of Quantock House, Pavilion Gardens, St George’s Square and Firepool in Taunton. I am also receiving complaints about Cognatum Estates from residents of Cedar Gardens and Fullands Court. These issues are arising in a whole range of properties.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

One of my constituents, Mr Vivian Lythgoe, is here today because of FirstPort. Unfortunately, he has had to make the painful decision to sell his home because he is fed up with dealing with management companies that are not interested in leaseholders. He has been fighting FirstPort to try to make it carry out basic maintenance, which residents have already paid for. Residents are not cash cows for management companies or footnotes in company accounts; they are people. It is time that they were treated as such. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is time for this shocking behaviour to be rectified and for legislation to be introduced. I will continue to work for the residents of the properties in my constituency that I have mentioned, and to get the legislation that we need.

Those who suffer from poor management can, of course, be leaseholders or freeholders. There are 4.8 million residential leasehold properties in England, which is equivalent to a fifth of the housing stock. That system is a relic of the feudal period. Its abolition has long been sought by Liberals and Liberal Democrats. The abolition of residential leasehold could be one of the most important carried-forward pieces of business from the last Liberal Government of about 100 years ago, which goes to show how long overdue it is.

Housing Development Planning: Water Companies

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Morgan]

My hon. Friend describes a situation that I think we are all familiar with. I agree with her about the role of water companies and will go on to talk about that point at some length in my speech, so I thank her for that intervention.

When there is heavy rain, the residents I met struggle with surface water flooding and, unfortunately, with sewage backing up into homes and gardens, which we all agree is pretty horrible. Further homes in the area are in the planning process, so the residents are extremely concerned. Each year, their situation gets worse. An elderly resident told me that sometimes, when it has been raining heavily, she has to ask her neighbours not to use their bathroom, because sewage will flood into her garden if they do. That is not a position that any homeowner should be put in, so we need to ask ourselves how we have allowed this to happen in the first place.

We are acutely aware of the need to build more homes, and we support the Government in their mission to build more homes, but it is essential that the infrastructure for both new and existing residents keeps pace with development. Astonishingly, water companies are not statutory consultees when a housing development goes through the planning process. That means that there is no statutory safeguard for home buyers that the company responsible for dealing with their foul waste has ensured or confirmed that its existing sewers will cope; nor is there any statutory safeguard for existing residents against a new development bringing some unpleasant surprises.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. River Mole River Watch, a local citizen scientists’ charity, has found that smaller pumping stations near new housing developments are seeing a sharp rise in storm overflows. More homes mean more sewage, as she has eloquently explained, and if the infrastructure cannot cope, raw sewage ends up in the River Mole. Does she agree that water companies must be statutory consultees in the planning process, so that sewage infrastructure is upgraded at the same time as building takes place? Otherwise, the problem will only get worse.

[Helen Morgan]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Water companies have certain powers to object to developments that exacerbate existing capacity problems, but they are very much constrained by duties under the Water Industry Act 1991, which obliges them to accept domestic flows from new developments. Moreover, developers have an automatic right to connect to the existing network for domestic flows, which limits the ability of the water companies to object solely on the basis of network capacity. They can apply for Grampian conditions—planning conditions attached to a decision notice that prevent the start of the development until off-site works have been completed on land not controlled by the applicant. Developers can do that through the planning authority, but only if there is already a scheme promoted and a date for the improvements to be delivered has been set, so Grampian conditions are rarely used.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) tabled an amendment in Committee to the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which would have provided some of those safeguards by making water companies statutory consultees and ensuring that water infrastructure requirements were considered.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Collins]

I fully agree. Many people have told me that, intuitively, they would like solar to be put on roofs first. I think there is strong consensus that that should be our direction.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) talked about some of the challenges of retrofitting. We need to listen to the social science, harness new initiatives such as GB Energy and activate local authorities to empower ordinary people to retrofit solar. We must develop ways for people to easily access trusted partners to help them decarbonise their homes and save money as a result.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

The average price to install solar panels post build is somewhere between £5,000 and £8,000. The majority of people do not have that kind of cash stuck down the back of the sofa. Does the hon. Member agree that supporting the Bill is an investment both in our environment and in reducing energy bills for all new homeowners, not just those who have the cash to do so?

[Tom Collins]

I agree. As we face a transition in a range of technologies—my professional background is in heat—it is important that we put consumers at the heart of that and ensure that it works for them, and that we find ways to make it accessible, easy, affordable and beneficial to embrace new technologies. There are new business models available that can help us do that—heat as a service, for example—and we need to embrace those. But whatever we do as we navigate the transition, it is vital that we put people at the heart of what we build.

Having worked in the energy sector for 20 years, there is one comment that I have heard, and uttered myself, very many times—more than I can possibly count: “We should be putting solar on every new home.” There are very few no-brainers in politics, but if any exist, surely that is one of them. We have the opportunity to make a crucial change, to stop growing the problem and start solving it. Putting solar power on every new home will save people money. It will boost our national renewable capacity. It will be a crucial step in our mission for clean energy. And it will mean that for our children, who hope for a better future for people and our planet, we can begin to deliver the homes that they have always dreamed of.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a pleasure to bring this important Bill back to the House this afternoon. Let me begin by thanking hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for their engagement with it over recent months. In particular, I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), and other members of the Committee for the diligent and thoughtful line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill that they undertook over the course of many sittings late last year.

This Labour Government promised to succeed where their predecessor had failed, by quickly and decisively acting to transform the experience of private renting in England. Today, we make further tangible progress towards delivering on that commitment. Our Renters’ Rights Bill will modernise the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector, levelling decisively the playing field between landlord and tenant. It will empower renters by providing them with greater security, rights and protections so that they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of homelessness.

It will ensure that we can drive up the quality of privately rented housing so that renters have access to good-quality and safe homes as a matter of course. It will also allow us to crack down on the minority of unscrupulous landlords who exploit, mistreat or discriminate against renters. The Bill will also provide tangible benefits for responsible landlords who provide high-quality homes and a good service to their tenants. Not only will its provisions see the reputation of the sector as a whole improve, as we clamp down on those landlords whose behaviour currently tarnishes it, but the Bill will also ensure that good landlords enjoy simpler regulation and clear and expanded possession grounds, so that they can regain their properties quickly when necessary.

Although we have eschewed the previous Government’s habit of shoehorning swathes of new clauses into legislation following Second Reading, we needed to make a modest number of improvements to the Bill in Committee. Many of the amendments in question were minor and technical or consequential in nature, but I shall briefly explain to the House some of the more substantive changes.

To increase fairness for tenants being evicted because their landlord is at fault, we chose to make an amendment connected to ground 6A. As hon. Members will be aware this mandatory ground allows landlords to remove their tenants when eviction is necessary for them to comply not only with enforcement action, but as a result of separate changes that we made to the Bill with planning enforcement action as well. The amendment allows the court to require landlords to pay compensation to the tenant when they are forced to vacate their homes under such circumstances.

To provide greater flexibility for social landlords in meeting the demands of local housing markets, we widened ground 1B for rent-to-buy tenancies, ensuring that registered providers can take possession in all necessary circumstances. We also exempted assured tenancies from the 90-day rule, which protects housing supply in London and benefits permanent residents by preventing the conversion of family homes into short-term lets. Should a tenant give notice early in their tenancy, meaning that they leave before 90 consecutive nights have passed, these changes mean that the landlord will not automatically be found to have inadvertently provided temporary sleeping accommodation.

Lastly, we made changes to ensure that the introduction of a decent homes standard in the private rented sector works as intended.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Last week, I asked the Government to ensure that all service family accommodation meets the minimum standards of social housing, as set out in the decent homes standard. The Minister for Veterans confirmed that this is already done, so will the Government support amending the Renters’ Rights Bill officially to extend the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence service family accommodation?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and I agree with the objective that she has in mind, but, as we discussed fairly extensively in Committee, we do not think that the Renters’ Rights Bill and the way that the decent homes standard will apply to assured tenancies in this sector is right for MOD accommodation. The MOD is undertaking its own review, and I shall touch on that issue later in the debate.

As I was saying, the changes around the decent homes standard will guarantee that the appropriate person can always be subject to enforcement action and they close a potential gap that may have been exploited by clarifying the types of accommodation that will be required to meet the standard.

Today, we are proposing a small number of further improvements, most of which are again minor and technical in nature. As I have made clear repeatedly, the Government have long recognised that demands for extortionate amounts of rent in advance put undue financial strain on tenants and can exclude certain groups from renting altogether. I am sure that many of us in the Chamber will have heard powerful stories from our constituents about the impact of such demands. The typical story is all too familiar. Tenants find and view a property which, as advertised, matches their budget only to find that, on application, they are suddenly asked to pay several months’ rent up front to secure it. Tenants in such circumstances often confront an almost impossible choice: do they find a way to make a large rent-in-advance payment, thereby stretching their finances to breaking point, or do they walk away and risk homelessness if they are unable to find an alternative?