Community Transport Services: Minibus Drivers

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Freddie van Mierlo]

I thank my hon. Friend for her very sensible intervention. My own local authority in Oxfordshire also heavily supports community transport organisations. I am sure that her proposals were heard by the Minister.

Over the next five years, more than 3 million D1 licences are likely to be lost as drivers reach 70—equivalent to one in five of all D1 licences. We are therefore facing a ticking time bomb as qualified drivers age out at the top and are not replenished enough from below.

Without decisive action from the Government, there will be serious concerns for the future viability of community transport.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I am a massive supporter of Mendip Community Transport. In fact, my village has a community transport minibus, which is an absolutely essential lifeline, particularly in such a rural area where we have no buses. What does my hon. Friend think about the fact that if someone wants to undertake a minibus driving test in my area, they must travel some long distance and the test can cost up to £2,000, which seems extraordinarily expensive?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

I thank my hon. Friend for that addition to the debate. I was aware of the costs, which I will come on to, but I had not been made aware previously of the distance that some drivers may need to travel to carry out a test. That would be an additional barrier to enabling volunteers to do what they love doing most.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you might reasonably ask, “Why don’t people just take the test?” A test is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask someone driving 7.5 tonnes of fast-moving metal to pass—we accept that; no one is disputing it—but it is how difficult and how costly that test is that matters. How proportionate is the test to the social benefits of community transport? How easy are we making it for people who want to do good in their community, giving up their time for others, to do so? If we make it too difficult, they will just say, “What’s the point?” and move on to something else. At the moment, drivers must pass an additional theory test, a practical test and a medical assessment, all to the tune of up to £2,000.

Setting a cost of up to £2,000 might make sense in terms of passing on the administrative costs of the testing regime to the customer. I can see how we might have got to that point rationally. The Minister may be able to confirm whether a profit is made on the testing regime; if that is the case, I ask him to look into that. I argue that the social and economic benefit of having more minibus drivers able to run local community services should be taken into account.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which highlights just how widespread the issue is and how keenly it is felt in all corners of the country.

Rural constituencies like mine rely on volunteer transport to plug the gap between private motor vehicle usage and commercial for-profit bus companies. Many rural routes are not profit making and have no hope of being so. The alternative is clear: if we let community transport die a slow death, we will see more social isolation, with all the health and social care costs associated with that. We will also see councils come under pressure to step in with taxpayer-funded schemes and subsidies. At a time when the Government have cut my local authority’s funding, it is hard to see how that can happen. Why should it when we have a pool of people willing to volunteer? For the volunteers, it is rewarding work that gives meaning to people’s lives, providing an opportunity to give back and be part of something really special.

I put on the record my sincere gratitude for all the hard work that volunteers put in every day and the contribution they make. Two of those wonderful volunteers are John Pearman, the FISH transport co-ordinator, and David Whitehead, the chair of FISH volunteer centre. They do excellent work to co-ordinate half a dozen drivers and look out for opportunities to recruit new volunteers.

John told me how he found three potential new drivers, but once they had understood the costs and time needed to update their licence to D1 status, all withdrew their interest, even with the offer from Sonning Common health centre for free medical testing for volunteer minibus drivers. David and John therefore completely rely on the 47 to 69 age band, with the band becoming ever narrower each year.

When thinking about how to move forwards, the Government do not have to start from scratch. The 2022 call for evidence on driving licensing took views on the minibus licensing regime from over 2,000 respondents. Although most respondents supported a change in current licensing arrangements, no substantial actions have since been taken to improve the status.

The Government have pointed concerned parties towards exemptions that already exist for D1 licences. However, the Community Transport Association notes that those exemptions make no meaningful change in availability of drivers. The exemptions allow those with a standard driving licence issued post 1997 to drive a lighter minibus weighing up to 3.5 tonnes. However, nearly three quarters of all vehicles in the UK’s community transport fleet are minibuses with between 9 and 16 seats, often with weighty accessibility features. Larger vehicles give local charities, community groups and social enterprises the flexibility they need to operate effectively, with more affordable costs.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way for a second time. I would like to point out that a number of community minibuses are electric vehicles, and their batteries make them very much heavier, which, along with accessibility equipment such as wheelchair lifts, automatically take their weight way over the 3.5 tonne limit.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Of course, we want to encourage a shift to more sustainable and greener forms of travel, while still maintaining a good cohort of drivers. I will not take any more interventions because I know we have to move on.

More than one in 10 organisations have changed their service delivery model, often replacing conventional minibuses with cars or lightweight minibuses, resulting in lower capacity, increased costs and operational complexity. However, drivers of those lighter vehicles are not eligible to be paid, unlike those with the standard D1 licence, adding further to the burden.

So how can we help community transport? The CTA has put forward a proposal. It is not a blanket minibus licence for all drivers—not a return to 1997. Instead, the CTA proposes a targeted intervention to allow drivers to acquire a D1 licence to drive a minibus for non-profit organisations. The licence would draw on minibus learning programmes that already exist and require the driver to complete a training-based upgrade accredited by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, similar to the minibus driver awareness scheme, or MiDAS, which is a national programme of quality-assured education and training for the community transport sector. This approach was supported by respondents to the Government’s 2022 call for evidence. The CTA proposal requires an online theory test, a short practical session, and on-road and medical assessments, but, crucially, with a cost of under £300. The proposal allows the number of drivers to be increased in a safe way, using an established information and learning assessment.

Will the Minister say in his remarks whether he has considered the CTA’s proposals? I caveat that by saying that I am not a road expert and the CTA’s proposals may not be 100% the answer, but surely the Government can come up with a regime that achieves both aims: safe roads and a thriving community transport sector. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks on the points that I have raised.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) on securing this debate and on raising this important subject. I am grateful to him for giving the House the opportunity to reflect on the enormously valuable contribution that community transport makes to communities across the country. I want to begin by putting on record this Government’s strong support for the community transport sector and our appreciation for the staff and volunteers who make those services possible.

I pay tribute to FISH, in this plaice, for doing a fantastic job. [Laughter.] It really does make a splash for all the right reasons. The people there are o-fish-ally doing a great job—I could not resist that, as the hon. Gentleman gave me a heads-up that he would mention the charity.

On a more serious note, community transport can provide a real lifeline, particularly for older and disabled people, those who are vulnerable or isolated and people living in rural areas where other public transport options are limited. It helps people get to work, education, healthcare and other essential services. Just as importantly, it allows people to see friends and family, take part in community life and maintain their independence. The scale of that contribution should not be underestimated.

Community transport operators providing around 13.8 million passenger journeys each year. This is ultimately not just a debate about driving licence categories or regulations; it is about people’s ability to get where they need to go and to remain connected to the communities in which they live. That is why the Government provide practical support to the sector. The Department for Transport provides the Community Transport Association with an annual grant to support its work with its members and the wider sector. We also make available up to £3.8 million each year to eligible community transport operators through the bus service operators grant, helping operators with their running costs. A 60% uplift has been added to community transport claims until 31 March 2027, with further support during the current period of increased fuel costs.

Our support is not simply about direct financial assistance. We want community transport to be properly recognised as part of the wider transport network. We encourage local authorities to consider community transport within their local transport planning and to look at how those services can complement conventional fixed-route bus services and improve connectivity. That is particularly important in places where community transport fills gaps that other transport services cannot easily fill.

I turn now to the specific issue that the hon. Member has raised today: the rules governing the driving of minibuses. I recognise very clearly the concern within the community transport sector about the availability of drivers with category D1 entitlement. Prior to 1997, someone obtaining a car licence was automatically granted the restricted category D1 entitlement—commonly known as D1(101)—allowing them to drive a minibus when it was not being driven for hire or reward. The automatic entitlement ceased for people passing their car test from 1 January 1997. Since then, drivers have generally needed to pass an additional test to obtain a category D1 entitlement, although there are limited circumstances in which a holder of a category B car licence may drive a minibus without a full D1 licence.

The practical consequences are that drivers who retain a category D1 through those so-called grandfather rights are gradually getting older, and the number of drivers with D1 is gradually reducing. I understand the concern that this creates for community transport operators, which have traditionally relied on this cohort of drivers. The CTA has made the case strongly that a diminishing pool of D1 drivers is making recruitment more difficult and imposing additional costs on organisations that need to train new ones. I want to acknowledge the constructive work that the association has done in bringing this issue to the Government and to Parliament; during Community Transport Week in October, the CTA held an event here in Parliament and launched its white paper, setting out its case for changes to the licensing arrangements. The Department is aware of that proposal and we are actively reviewing it.

I recognise the seriousness of the concern behind that work and the effort that the CTA has made to develop a practical proposal. At the same time, however, the Government must consider any proposed change to driver licensing arrangements very carefully. This consideration also takes place within the wider framework of the Government’s road safety strategy, which was published earlier this year. The strategy reiterates the Government’s commitment to reducing those killed and seriously injured on our roads, and to ensuring that road safety impacts are properly considered when developing transport policy. Any changes to driver licensing arrangements therefore need to be assessed in terms not only of accessibility, workforce availability and operational benefits, but also in terms of their implications for road safety outcomes.

I had a look before coming here tonight, and I can tell the House the statistics from 2025, the last full year of pass rates for D1. Of the 3,069 tests taken, 2,511 were passed but 552 were failed. Under some proposed changes, those without this D1 qualification could potentially be driving minibuses, and we can see how important safety is when considering the implications of any changes. Minibuses can carry up to 16 passengers in addition to the driver. They can weigh up to 5 tonnes and be driven at speeds of up to 70 mph. The responsibility placed on the person driving such a vehicle is therefore different from that involved in driving a private car. Also, many of the passengers who depend on community transport are themselves older, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. While I absolutely recognise the pressures facing operators, road and passenger safety must remain at the heart of our consideration of any changes to the licensing regime.

[Tessa Munt]

Can I ask the Minister how many accidents there have been involving community minibuses in the last two or three years, please? If he does not know, might he be able to write to me with that information? I realise this is a very serious matter, and I just wondered how many incidents there were.

[Simon Lightwood]

I commit to write to the hon. Lady on that matter, as I do not have the information to hand.

Of course, what I have said does not mean that the Government should close their mind to reform—quite the contrary—but it does mean that we must be satisfied that changes designed to make it easier to obtain the necessary entitlement do not introduce unacceptable risks for minibus passengers or for other road users.

That balance between flexibility and safety is not a new question. In 2022, the previous Government held a substantial call for evidence to look at potential reforms to driver licensing regimes, and one of the questions considered was whether people holding a category B car licence should be granted entitlement to drive category D1 minibuses. The review ran between August and October 2022, and deliberately sought evidence about whether reforms could widen the pool of minibus drivers while maintaining the safe use of our roads. The response demonstrated significant support for the change, but that is not by itself the same thing as evidence that the change can be made safely. The Department’s assessment of that exercise was that, although there was strong support for extending driving licence entitlement, the evidence presented was not sufficient to allow us to fully understand and assess the associated road safety risks. I understand that the Community Transport Association does not agree that the evidence currently available justifies maintaining the existing position. That evidence gap is, however, important. It is why the Department has continued to say that any potential relaxation of the D1 requirements needs to be considered alongside the implications for road safety.

I do not want the hon. Member for Henley and Thame to take from what I have said that the Government are insensitive to the problem he has described—far from it. We recognise the demographic issue affecting holders of D1 grandfather rights. We recognise what community transport operators are telling us about recruiting drivers. We recognise the argument that the costs and practicalities associated with obtaining a D1 entitlement may be particularly challenging for small, community-based and not-for-profit organisations. Through its proposal for reform, the Community Transport Association believes that it can address those pressures while providing appropriate safeguards. We will consider that contribution seriously, but we will also continue to place passenger and road safety at the centre of our consideration.

I hope Members across the House would agree that those two objectives—of supporting the sustainability of community transport and ensuring that people can travel safely—should not be regarded as opposing ambitions. Our task now is to determine how best to secure both.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I commend all those who fought wildfires over the summer, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that the personal protective equipment that firefighters need is different in those circumstances. That is why we have put in £45 million extra for equipment, on top of the £97 million. We are working to ensure that our firefighters have the equipment that they need, and of course we announced aerial support, too.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Councils spend far more on enforcing against a breach of planning controls than the offender is ever fined—and even then, that money goes to the Treasury. When it is cheaper to break rules than follow them, we lose any sense of deterrence, and there is a perception that breaches have few consequences. Will the Minister look again at the amount of fines, and at whether councils could receive the proceeds of fines, so that they can recover their costs?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Would the hon. Lady write to me with some further details, to illustrate the precise problem she is trying to get at?

Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Tessa Munt Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

This is about meeting the challenges that we face, and making sure that those who are not taking responsibility, do. I am happy to continue the conversations with my hon. Friend to make sure that we get that balance right; that is what we want. We want those people to take responsibility and carry out the remediation. The remediation Bill before the House is the next major step in ending the building safety crisis.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I applaud what the Secretary of State is doing. However, would it not be sensible to stop the business of fire engineers, paid for by the building owners, using PAS 9980 to sign off dangerous cladding as acceptable, so that assessments confirm that buildings meet building regulations?

[Angela Rayner]

We are working on that. PAS 9980 is the established approach used across Government remediation programmes. It provides a robust and proportionate way of identifying the risk of fire spreading through a building’s external walls and the action needed to keep residents safe.

Retirement Property Management Companies: Regulation

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

I agree with my hon. Friend and with his constituent, Alex Roll, who has been in contact with me via Facebook. I take the point that my hon. Friend makes on her behalf, and that she makes on behalf of countless others, which is that these companies are inclined to effectively hunt with the hounds and run with the hare at the same time. When somebody dies and the property then goes up for sale—sometimes, because of the restrictive covenants, the resale can be a slow and difficult business—not only do these companies receive a fairly significant clawback at the point of sale, but they demand service charges to be paid while the property is vacant or while probate is awaited. They really are trying to milk it from both ends, and I just do not think that stacks up in the court of public opinion as being fair or justifiable. One should be able to say, “This property is vacant. We will not levy the service charge, as that will effectively be included in the clawback that we get at the point of sale,” because there is clearly no resident in that property using those services.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I just wanted to highlight a case of exactly that. I have a constituent whose property has been on the market since 2022. The landlord chooses who the new owner will be. The adult members of the family, who are struggling to get on to the property ladder, cannot move in because they are not over 55, and the landlord will not allow the property to be rented out, even though it rents its properties out on the same site. They are absolutely banjaxed. There is an exit fee as well. It is catastrophic. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees that this is just opportunistic profiteering at the expense of people who are vulnerable, and actually, when people have died, the families really are catastrophically affected.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady expresses it very well, and I agree with her assessment entirely. It is the age and vulnerability of many—the “anything for the quiet life” factor—that is being exploited to the max.

I want to mention specifically the hon. Member for Surrey Heath—although in this campaign he is very much my hon. Friend. We have been working together very closely on issues relating to Cognatum. He has Mytchett Heath in his constituency, and the issues being raised by his residents mirror those being raised by mine, and it is not a pretty picture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

Nearly right! My apologies. That is an issue that I will definitely be forwarding. I have taken a note of it and I will forward it to the Housing Minister so that the hon. Gentleman can get a proper response.

[Tessa Munt]

When the Minister says managing agents, does she mean management companies, a bit like FirstPort, which provide a lamentable service? One of the retirement buildings in my patch has just been offered the repainting of its windows for £240,000. I think that works out at over £5,000 per flat. This is just for the birds. It is absolutely bonkers. I want to be sure that they will be captured within the legislation that she is proposing.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that FirstPort continues to come up regularly. I had the pleasure, in my former role as Chair of the Select Committee, of scrutinising and questioning the managing director and chief exec of FirstPort, and the hon. Lady will be aware that the Housing Minister has also held important meetings with FirstPort. There are other managing agents that we should not let off the hook, but FirstPort has a large share of properties across the country.

The hon. Member for North Dorset mentioned the consultation on section 20, and this is a key issue that the Government have been looking at. The Government consulted on that last year, and my understanding is that they will be setting out the response in due course. Again, this is something that I will push the Housing Minister on, on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, to ensure we come back to this in a timely manner.

I also want to highlight the experiences that other hon. Members have raised on behalf of their constituents. It is important that we continue to share these really valid examples to show why we need to move at pace in regulating this important area. We recognise that the pre-legislative scrutiny report into the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill recommended that a number of measures should be extended to retirement providers, and we will consider that as part of our work. I am happy to say that it was a good Member of Parliament who led on that pre-legislative scrutiny.

I am grateful to the many hon. Members who have come to the House this evening to debate this important issue. I thank them for sharing their insights and, most importantly, sharing the lived examples and concerns that many residents continue to face. We continue to see people who are worried, when another bill or letter comes through the door, about what will be demanded from them. We see them worry that, when they do not respond to those letters, they could be issued with court and threatening letters. It is really important that we address this emotional, physical and mental impact; it is not just about the financial impact it is having on vulnerable residents. I want to thank all Members for engaging with this, and I look forward to working with them. I know that the Minister for Housing and Planning will also be engaging further with Members.

Question put and agreed to.

National Planning Policy Framework

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.

I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am grateful for the time to introduce this debate on the impact of the changes to the national planning policy framework. I called for this debate following a decision affecting the village of Yatton in the north of the Wells and Mendip Hills constituency, with 190 homes set to be built on a site known as Rectory Farm, Yatton Batch. Yatton Batch is in flood zone 3a, which is the highest level of risk, according to the Environment Agency. The consequences of this decision affect not just the people of Yatton, as I believe it sets a precedent for every other community living with flood risk across this country.

I will give the Minister some context to the geography of my constituency, which matters enormously. Wells and Mendip Hills falls roughly in two parts. One part comprises the limestone Mendip hills and the rest, the majority of the constituency, is wetlands and coastal plains: the Somerset levels and the North Somerset levels. Fifty-one per cent of my constituency is less than 20 metres above sea level.

I will send the Minister a map, on which he will see that the Somerset levels are a man-made landscape. The monks, led by the Abbot of Glastonbury, drained the land hundreds of years ago by digging what locally we call “rhynes”, which is why the map shows the waterways as straight lines in my part of the world. It does not take a PhD in geography to work out that low-lying coastal wetlands are prone to flooding. It has taken centuries of careful management and regular maintenance of the local waterways to keep this land habitable at all.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

On the subject of keeping land habitable, the hon. Lady will be familiar with the fact that the Lincolnshire fens, and particularly South Holland and The Deepings, are entirely flat, without even the undulation equivalent to the Mendip hills. Our land is drained, and much of it is reclaimed from the sea, yet there are perpetual attempts to put critical infrastructure on it, including solar, pylons and suchlike. That is incompatible, and those things cannot be reconciled. I entirely endorse what the hon. Lady says about the character of the land, its propensity to flood and what we should do with it.

[Tessa Munt]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I will suggest to the Minister that, if he wishes to pursue a policy of building on land that will almost certainly flood, we need to put those buildings on stilts. That is not impossible, and there is certainly one very beautiful house on the levels that sits on stilts.

Yatton, the village subject to the decision, sits within the North Somerset levels, barely 2 km from the Bristol channel. On Friday 12 June, the High Court handed down its judgment permitting the development of 190 homes in this flood-prone area, on a site that failed the flood risk sequential test. The judgment follows the NPPF exactly, as the judge had to, and prioritised building homes over protection from flooding. It imperils not only the new homes—I should explain that the judge said that homeowners threatened by flooding had sufficient time to vacate their houses before the floodwater reached them—but the homes and businesses in and around the Yatton site. The impact of flooding does not disappear just because people can get away safely. This is about property as well as people. The damage to wellbeing and mental health takes its toll on those affected, as does the damage to property, which can take months and sometimes years to remedy and replace.

I would not want the Minister to think that this is a case of nimbyism and anti-development sentiment by those in rural areas. My Lib Dem colleagues and I agree with the Government’s desire to meet the huge need for housing across the country. There are 12,800 people on the Homefinder list in Somerset, which covers 66% of my patch, and a similar proportion on the North Somerset list.

I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities. Many of our discussions centre on the Flood Re scheme, which was a great initiative that meant insurers could cover flooding claims and the premiums for home insurance in high flood risk areas were not astronomical. The scheme comes to an end in 2039, and the Government have been very clear that it will not be extended. As set out in legislation, homes built after 2009 are not covered by the scheme. As we get closer to that 2039 date, more and more homes built in high flood risk areas are not covered by the scheme and so risk becoming uninsurable and consequently unmortgageable. The consequences for developers and those who have already bought the homes will be awful. And the Yatton decision compounds the problems with the NPPF in allowing the need for home building to override common sense.

To press the point, it is very likely that residents of new homes built on floodplains, such as those in Yatton, will face flooding damage in the coming years. Not only will they not be able to make an insurance claim, but any new buyers will likely struggle to access a mortgage. Residents may well end up trapped, unable to sell a home that might cost them thousands of pounds in repairs every winter. The Minister knows the weather experts say that what we are experiencing now is the most stable weather that we are ever going to see.

I mentioned that the current neighbours would also be affected due to the simple fact that the floodwater must go somewhere. If developers choose to build up the land on which they wish to develop, the floodwater may well not hit those homes precisely, but will cause the existing homes and businesses in the area to be flooded more greatly. I have a lovely set of photographs of the land I am speaking about, which I will send to the Minister, showing exactly how it floods every year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for the ambition she has put forward. Does she not agree that there is a risk of severe regulatory divergence? If the English planning system undergoes massive deregulation and introduces a faster, rules-based yes by default to major projects, capital will do what it always does and flow through the path of least resistance. The Government and the Minister need to ensure that the possibility she outlines for her constituents does not happen elsewhere.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The point I would like to make to the Minister is that, if developers choose to raise the level of the land on which they wish to build, we make a complete mockery of the Environment Agency’s work in relation to the LiDAR data that it uses to measure flood risk. There will be little pockets that are no longer in flood zone 3a, for example, but everybody else is then in a more problematic area for flooding. The current neighbours would be affected, because floodwater has to go somewhere. In the event of flooding, if the properties are lifted above sea level by raising the land, the displaced water goes straight into existing homes and businesses.

The Association of British Insurers has been clear that, while it supports the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes, it has serious concerns about allowing developers to bypass the flood risk sequential test in areas at high risk of surface water flooding, which is precisely the kind of decision we have seen play out in Yatton. The scale of the risk to which it points is sobering.

The Environment Agency’s national assessment of flood and coastal erosion risk shows that 6.3 million homes in England are already at risk of flooding, 4.6 million of them from surface water alone. In just the first quarter of this year, insurers paid out £846 million in property claims, with the average weather-related claim reaching £6,040—the highest first quarter figure on record. Subsidence claims, often linked to the same extreme weather, rose 9% year on year to £17,820. Research commissioned by Aviva suggests that 11% of new homes built between 2022 and 2024 are already at risk of flooding, and that figure is projected to rise to one in seven by 2050, once climate change is factored in.

That is why I believe the Association of British Insurers, together with UK Finance and flood campaigners, has written directly to the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Housing, Communities and Local Government to raise the alarm. The message is simple: rather than weakening the sequential test, the Government should mandate sustainable drainage systems, finally implementing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. That legislation has been in the ether, unimplemented, for nearly 16 years. It is telling that 66% of the public already say that they do not believe the country or their local area is prepared for future flooding. Ignoring the industry that pays out when floods happen is really not the way to change people’s minds.

I put it to the Minister that Somerset council is required to deliver 75,000 new homes in the next 20 years, and I believe that North Somerset has to produce nearly 25,000 new homes in the next 15 years. To repeat something that one of my colleagues on Somerset council says, it has taken since the dawn of time for the population of the Somerset council area—not including the North Somerset council area—to reach 560,000. I am keen to know why the Minister and his Government believe that the population will grow by more than 75,000 people in the next 20 years. That is a 13% increase, when it has taken centuries to get to 560,000. It is a ridiculous population increase, and it is not realistic in the slightest. For context, the Office for National Statistics projects that the entire population of the United Kingdom will grow from around 70 million to around 72 million over the same period—a rise of just 2.8%.

I am the first to recognise that Wells and Mendip Hills is a lovely place to live—actually the best—but, even allowing for that huge appeal, I struggle to understand why the Government believe that such a disproportionately rural area will see growth at almost five times the national rate. The NPPF changes will affect much more than just flood risk—our area and its green spaces will be under pressure.

It seems especially disproportionate when I look at Bristol, my local city, which I love dearly. Its population is projected to grow by about 10%, which is again above the national average. It seems that those in Somerset and North Somerset will be asked to take a huge number of new residents. I do not know where they are coming from, and I cannot quite see how the Government have come to those figures. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me on how his team has come to that assumption.

The last matter I would like to raise is that farmers run factories. Those factories are the agricultural land—it is just that we do not have roofs on them. That is no different from any other part of the country that has some sort of manufacturing. Farmers use fields, and they do not have roofs, so it is quite hard for people to spot the fact that they are food factories. In the interests of an honest debate, I acknowledge that many in the farming community welcome what is set out in the new NPPF, but that comes with real caveats. It is worth the House hearing what they are.

A lot of our greenhouses are more than 40 years old and in urgent need of modernisation, yet large glasshouse developments are still routinely treated as major infrastructure projects, which triggers huge delays that again undermine our domestic food production. My colleagues will need no second invitation on this point: food security is national security. I am really glad that the Government recognised that in February. Ensuring that our farmers can produce the food this country needs is of critical importance in what is a very unstable world.

Will the Minister consider the points that I have made and write to me about the population figures? I want to make absolutely certain that he does not misunderstand me; this is not a sentimental case for nature and green spaces. It is very realistic damage that is happening to Somerset.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this important debate. Planning and local development is one of the most commonly raised issues in my email inbox, as I am sure is the case for many others in the room.

First, I would like to make it clear that I am completely aware of the dire need for housing in this country. Many young people have expressed to me their fears that they will never get a foot on the property ladder, or that they are having to move away from the communities they know and love to find affordable places to rent. Affordable housing is a need, not a luxury.

However, new homes do not need to come at the cost of the community that is already there, and nor should they be placed on flood plains. Local people and local elected officials should have a role in deciding the future of their area, because they best understand it. When local people are given the opportunity to help shape their future, it can be a roaring success. In the village of Holt, in my constituency, a neighbourhood plan shaped the development of a derelict, unused tannery site into an award-winning mixed-use development, combining homes and new commercial space, while still preserving the village’s distinct character and acknowledging its history. Meanwhile, in Seend, near Devizes, the village’s community land trust has delivered affordable homes for local residents, built to the highest passive house standards of energy efficiency. That demonstrates what rural communities can achieve by working with partners, such as local councils and Homes England, for the benefit of residents and the environment.

Although there is a lot of good in the framework, I am particularly concerned that it fails to commit to new homes being zero-carbon or held to the highest energy efficiency standards, as was shown to be possible by the development in Seend. It also contains no clear commitment to deliver actually affordable homes, and it risks encouraging more executive housing to make more money for developers, while failing to tackle the housing crisis.

I welcome the proposed presumption in favour of development near railway stations. Transport-oriented development is precisely the kind of planning approach needed to move away from car-dependent housing estates located far from town centres.

[Tessa Munt]

It is a very good idea to have development near railway stations. However, I have another application on the horizon in Yatton, which is the village I was discussing earlier, that involves a plan to build on the railway station car park. Does my hon. Friend think that that is a good idea?

[Brian Mathew]

It does sound most odd, if I may say so.

That principle lies at the heart of the Bath and Wiltshire metro proposal, which I support. It has the potential to unlock brownfield regeneration in Melksham town centre, revitalise the riverside and strengthen the high street through sustainable, rail-connected growth. However, if that ambition is to be realised, local areas must have access to the resources needed to develop robust transport business cases, masterplans and infra- structure programmes. I am therefore concerned that the removal of funding for sub-national transport bodies risks creating a significant obstacle to the station upgrades, service improvements and strategic transport planning required to support the housing and regeneration opportunities that the policy seeks to encourage. Without adequate investment in the transport network itself, the benefits of transport-oriented development may be difficult to deliver in much of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have had this debate many times. I will come on to housing targets and the fact that if there is an up-to-date local plan in place, the housing targets do not need to be immediately revised. On the specific point about rural affordable housing, the framework makes it easier for rural exception sites to come forward through clearer national policy. It makes it far easier for rural authorities to require affordable housing on smaller sites, including removing the need for legislative designation.

We have received over 20,000 responses to the consultation. We have made very good progress in analysing the responses and making final policy decisions, but unfortunately, as a result of the announcement made by the Prime Minister on 22 June that he was resigning as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party and the associated constraints on Government business in the period ahead of the summer recess, including the prohibition on initiating new policy commitments, it has not been possible to respond to the consultation and publish the final framework before the summer recess. We will seek to do so in due course.

The issue of flooding, which was raised by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, is of particular concern in her constituency, as she made clear. The NPPF outlines a sequential approach to flood risk management, requiring inappropriate development to be directed away from areas at highest risk and providing strong safeguards where development is necessary in those areas. In plan making, a sequential approach should be employed. That involves applying the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test. In decision making, where necessary, planning authorities also apply the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test to ensure that flood risk is minimised and appropriately addressed.

[Tessa Munt]

I wonder how the High Court came to its decision over the site in Yatton. What the Minister says sounds good to me, but it can be swept away because the NPPF is what the judge decreed was the way to go and, because there is a need for homes, the sequential test can be completely ignored.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is not quite my reading of the Yatton judgment. The judge confirmed that even if a site fails the formal sequential test for flood risk, elements of the exception test remain valid material considerations that can outweigh flood risk under the tilted balance in paragraph 11(d). The High Court made a judgment in that case on the application of the policy, but it applies, as I have set out—[Interruption.] I will give way briefly, but I do want to cover the other issues raised in the debate.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister meet me and those in my constituency who are particularly concerned about this to discuss it?

[Matthew Pennycook]

If I remain in post after the summer recess, I will be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady.

Where the sequential and exception tests have been applied as necessary and are not met, the framework is clear that development should not be allowed. I want to push back gently on the assertions made by the hon. Lady and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, that we have weakened the sequential test. We have not weakened the sequential test in any way. We have clarified through changes to the PPG the triggers for the sequential test as well as its application, but we have not weakened it. If it is found necessary to build homes in areas of flood risk, the statutory guidance accompanying the building regulations promotes flood-resilient building work in flood-prone areas through approved document C, and the framework makes it clear that developments of all sizes should use sustainable drainage techniques where the development could have drainage impacts.

The draft NPPF that we have consulted on includes a dedicated chapter on planning for flood risk and coastal change. This seeks to clarify how existing policies should operate and aligns the NPPF with recent updates to planning guidance. It also included policies incorporating a new requirement that sustainable drainage systems should be designed in accordance with the national standards for sustainable drainage systems to provide a consistent basis for improving their design.

On the presumption in favour of sustainable development, we are trying to drive up the coverage of up-to-date local plans. Several hon. Members have spoken today who represent areas that do not have up-to-date local plans and five-year housing land supplies. We are making great progress in driving up plan coverage. Over 60% more local plans are at examination now than at this time last year, but it will take time to boost coverage. It is important, where policies are not up to date or where there is an insufficient supply of land, that there is a fallback to encourage planning permission to be granted, and that is what the presumption provides for.

However, the NPPF we published in December 2024 not only improved the operation of the presumption by clarifying the circumstances in which it applies, but introduced new safeguards to make it clear that its application cannot justify poor-quality development. Under the revised draft presumption published for consultation last year, the default support in principle is turned off in certain situations, including where the development would conflict with sites allocated for specific uses or would use parks and open space or land identified for flood risk management. It would also be disapplied where development does not achieve acceptable standards in relation to harm to nature, heritage assets, flood risk, design and being an effective use of land.

I have only a short time available to me and a wide range of other issues were raised. I will touch on each briefly. On our housing target and the standard method we have introduced, in our view the new method better responds to affordability pressures by using a higher affordability adjustment in its calculation. That recognises the importance of housing affordability in assessing housing need and helps direct more homes to where they are most needed and least affordable. It also provides greater certainty to the sector through more stable and predictable housing numbers, compared with the previous approach that relied on out-of-date demographic predictions and unevidenced and arbitrary judgments.

On brownfield, grey-belt and green-belt land, the hon. Member for Orpington knows full well that we strengthened the policy in the December 2024 NPPF on brownfield land. We have gone further in the draft framework that is out for consultation. It is not the case that there is enough brownfield land, particularly not viable land in the right locations on brownfield land registers across the country. In certain exceptional circumstances, local authorities need to release green-belt land. We ask them when they do so to explore all options in maximising brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities and where necessary reviewing their green belt.

The definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the NPPF. There is no confusion about what it means. Where grey belt is being brought forward, it cannot fundamentally undermine the policies of the green belt across the wider plan area; we included that safeguard in the framework.

On train stations, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) was right that we want more development to come forward in sustainable locations around train stations. We obviously took a different approach to all stations, as opposed to well-connected stations, where we are looking for higher minimum densities to come forward. I must be clear that the proposals do not grant automatic permission on suitable sites or remove appropriate local oversight of the development control process. They add weight to what needs to be considered as part of an overall planning judgment, as is the case with all material considerations.

I will not dwell on rural or urban housing targets. I have said before and say again that across city regions the new standard method increases targets by 20% and, through that, housing growth is directed to a wider range of urban areas and smaller cities as well as our larger city areas.

I commend the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills and the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House an opportunity to debate these important matters. Over the past two years, the Government have sought to revamp the planning system to ensure that it will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of house building and high-quality infrastructure in the years ahead. To the point on infrastructure, the new NPPF strengthens expectations in that area as well.

More needs to be done to transform the failing housing system we inherited, but the revised NPPF we published in December 2024 and the wholly restructured framework we will publish in due course are integral to our plans to improve housing availability, affordability and quality in this Parliament. I thank all hon. Members for their considered contributions today and wish them all, and you, Sir Desmond, an enjoyable and productive summer recess.

[Tessa Munt]

I am grateful to you, Sir Desmond, and to the Minister for everything he has said. I very much hope that he stays in his place because we would like to carry on the conversation; I want him to stay exactly where he is. I know that the Government are not in favour of leaving notes, but if in a ghastly moment the Minister decides that something is not right and moves on, will he leave a long note for his successor?

I do not particularly wish to argue in the last moments of the debate, but as I understand it the national planning policy guidance permits surface water flooding sequential tests to be disapplied. I need to continue that conversation with the Minister, if I may. I point out that our local plans are up to date until such time as the housing numbers change, and then of course the local plans will not be in date any longer. In Somerset alone—I am not talking about North Somerset—18,000 new homes have passed planning but have not been built, which all relates to phosphate stuff. Those homes do not seem to be taken into account at all, given that we have another 75,000 on top of those, which seems inappropriate. I note the Minister’s comments about station parking; I really hope that we do not build on station car parks, as that would be mad. There are a number of other points that I would have liked to make—

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon]

Yes, I can.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Has she considered the merits of establishing an office of the whistleblower, which would create new legal protections for those who declare wrongdoing and promote greater public awareness of whistleblowers’ rights? Will the Government ensure that there are criminal sanctions on officeholders who fail to whistle blow when they know or become aware of political interference or wrongdoing?

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. As the independent regulator for our democracy, the Electoral Commission is always willing to hear from members of the public, political parties and other sources about anything that people believe may have been done incorrectly, whether inadvertently or deliberately. I refer the hon. Lady to the Electoral Commission, but I take her point.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is certainly not our intention to allow any loopholes into the legislation. That is precisely why we have brought forward a draft Bill rather than a final product. Such is the complexity and technical nature of the reform we are enacting that the additional and enhanced scrutiny to be provided by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee will be invaluable.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s announcement and I know that it will bring some joy, particularly with the further announcements he is going to make later in the Parliament, to many of the residents in my part of the west country. May I draw his attention to the housing with care sector? I am talking not about those gated communities that have a caretaker or somebody who cuts the grass, but about charities such as the St Monica Trust that provide some affordable rents and shared ownership but mostly provide leasehold purchase with a guaranteed buy-back and resale. This gives them a way of updating their contracts for residents and maintaining affordability. These organisations are really concerned that there will be an unnuanced ban on new leasehold care-led retirement living apartments. What consideration has the Minister given to the housing with care sector having some protection, and his attention?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The draft Bill, as published, includes exemptions that mirror the ground rent exemptions for new leases entered into since 30 July 2022, based on that previous Act of Parliament, but we will consider through the pre-legislative scrutiny process whether other exemptions would be appropriate for a small number of leases granted for specialist purposes. I can assure the hon. Member that I have given consideration, and will give further consideration, to the matter she raises.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

Somerset has been dealing with a financial emergency over the past few years, in large part due to the mess left by the previous Conservative-led county council’s financial neglect. Rising costs and demand for essential services have put budgets further under severe pressure.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

In Somerset, we were set back enormously by six years of council tax freeze during the early 2010s, under the Conservative-led council—[Interruption.] Council tax was frozen for six years, way in excess of what the Government had anticipated, leaving council finances in Somerset in dire straits.

[Sarah Dyke]

My hon. Friend will know that Somerset county council was near bankrupt in 2018. Indeed, we suffered a lot under the previous Conservative-led county council’s tenure because of its financial neglect. The rising costs and demand for essential services have put budgets under severe pressure, despite the significant transformation and savings now being delivered by the Liberal Democrat-led unitary council.

The lack of funding for local government is not unique to Somerset. It is a national problem that requires a national solution, with councils still waiting for the delayed details of the local government finance settlement. The current funding model is broken and it needs fundamental change. That has not been achieved in this Bill, but amendments 61 and 62, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, would ensure that councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receive appropriate funding to facilitate their transition, and combined authorities receive adequate funding to facilitate their establishment. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support such amendments to the Bill.

Housing, Communities and Local Government

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Written Corrections

The following extract is from Topical Questions on 2 December 2024.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Non-qualifying leaseholder status gets slapped on a property in perpetuity long after the required safety works are completed. That status means that it is almost impossible to acquire a mortgage—solicitors advise very strongly that purchasers steer clear of such properties, which are very often flats—and the status is inherited by successive owners in perpetuity. Has the Minister considered what this status does for the housing crisis?

[Alex Norris]

I completely understand the challenge. Drawing a line between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders—between people who own a property and therefore suffer from things that have been beyond their control, and landlords that are businesses and therefore have multiple assets—will always be a difficult job. At the edge, where the boundary between qualifying and non-qualifying becomes blurred, there are some difficult cases. As a new Government, we are committed to working with people to understand better how we can go forward on that. As for the substantive point on where the liability should lie, it is about finding the right balance between those who built the building and those who live in it.

[Official Report, 2 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 24.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris):

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am very keen on community ownership, and I am sad to hear about the situation in his community. I would definitely steer him towards the “asset of community value” process in the immediate term, and of course, I would be very happy to meet him and campaigners on this issue.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Non-qualifying leaseholder status gets slapped on a property in perpetuity long after the required safety works are completed. That status means that it is almost impossible to acquire a mortgage—solicitors advise very strongly that purchasers steer clear of such properties, which are very often flats—and the status is inherited by successive owners in perpetuity. Has the Minister considered what this status does for the housing crisis?

[Alex Norris]

I completely understand the challenge. Drawing a line between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders—between people who own a property and therefore suffer from things that have been beyond their control, and landlords that are businesses and therefore have multiple assets—will always be a difficult job. At the edge, where the boundary between qualifying and non-qualifying becomes blurred, there are some difficult cases. As a new Government, we are committed to working with people to understand better how we can go forward on that. As for the substantive point on where the liability should lie, it is about finding the right balance between those who built the building and those who live in it.