debates/debates2025-11-25d conversation_22
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-11-25)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-11-25d conversation_22

Pippa Heylings:Two weeks ago, when I asked the Government whether they had had discussions with the Cambridgeshire integrated care board on the 16,000-strong petition to save beds at the Arthur Rank hospice, I was informed that it would not be possible to provide a response within the usual time period. I have a simpler request today: will the Minister meet me and the new Central East integrated care board to discuss how to identify need and strategically commission beds? \p Stephen Kinnock: Yes, I am happy to meet the hon. Lady. \p Peter Swallow: Bracknell is a life sciences superpower, with Eli Lilly, Sandoz and Boehringer Ingelheim all having a footprint in our town. What can we do to speed up clinical trial set-up to help to deliver the next generation of treatments for our NHS? \p Zubir Ahmed: The Government are already committed to clinical trials being under 150 days by next March. I commend my hon. Friend on all the work he does with his local pharmaceutical companies in advancing medical science locally and nationally. \p David Mundell: The Secretary of State will be aware that since the law change, the number of children who have received NHS prescriptions for medical cannabis for severe epilepsy has been pitifully low. Families and campaigners believe that part of the reason is that the Home Office still has large responsibility for those products. Will the Secretary of State meet me and other interested MPs to discuss whether his Department could take more responsibility? \p Zubir Ahmed: Although the Government have no plans to change the departmental responsibilities applicable to unlicensed cannabis-based products, we are cognisant of the need for research in this area. We have agreed to more than £8.5 million in funding for two world-first clinical trials to investigate the safety and efficacy of cannabinoid treatments for drug-resistant epilepsy in both adults and children, and I am happy to speak to the right hon. Gentleman about this matter further. \p Sonia Kumar: I have seen at first hand how severe musculoskeletal conditions such as lower back pain can devastate someone’s ability to work, have relationships and sleep, as well as their overall wellbeing. The education of more than 1 million children is disrupted by MSK conditions due to missed schooling and fragmented, hard-to-navigate services. Will the Minister therefore prioritise MSK conditions in phase 2 of the modern service framework and confirm when that will be published? \p Stephen Kinnock: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for saving the Ladies Walk health centre in her constituency, which the Conservatives were trying to shut. We are  advancing modern service frameworks for conditions where we can swiftly and significantly raise the quality of care. The National Quality Board makes recommendations on future modern service frameworks; its next meeting is on 8 December. \p Roger Gale: It is estimated that there are some 200 highly qualified Ukrainian dentists resident as refugees in the United Kingdom. They could be working for the health service, but, because of the moribund attitude of the General Dental Council, they are not allowed to do so. Can we try to drag the GDC into at least the 20th century so that those talents can be utilised? \p Stephen Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. I met the GDC recently. It has completed the procurement of the new management agent to run the overseas registration examination, and I am confident that we will see a significant boost in the numbers—that is coming onstream very quickly. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: it has been too slow, and it needs to speed up. \p Sarah Smith: About 38% of children in my constituency are sadly growing up in poverty. This Government are committed to ensuring the best start in life for all children, so in addition to the increase in mental health support teams in schools, does the NHS workforce plan currently address the vital need for trained specialist community public health nurses in schools? \p Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to improve the quality of the paediatric workforce. We are considering that as we revise the workforce plan. I am proud that already, with just one decision that we took in the first year of this Labour Government to expand free school meals, we are lifting 100,000 more children out of the poverty they were left in by the Opposition. \p Seamus Logan: In 2024-25, the NHS trust in the Secretary of State’s constituency collected £2.4 million from patient and visitor parking and a further £1 million from staff parking. Given that those costs fall hardest on the poor and the most seriously ill, will the Secretary of State consider abolishing this inequitable burden on the sick, their relatives and those who care for them? \p Wes Streeting: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would be more worried about the situation close to home and the SNP’s abysmal record of failure: while waiting lists are falling in Labour-led England and Labour-led Wales, in SNP-led Scotland they are rising, despite the biggest funding settlement since devolution began. It is a record that should make him and his party blush. \p Stuart Andrew: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you have been incensed by the unprecedented briefings we have seen by the Government in the run-up to the Budget. It beggars belief that, despite your clear statements on this issue, they have done it again today by announcing that the Chancellor will announce £300 million for NHS tech in her Budget tomorrow—not through a briefing to journalists but with an article  on the gov.uk website. This happened just today, after a Minister stood at the Dispatch Box yesterday and said:

“I can assure the hon. Member, given the respect that the Government pay to this House and to their obligations in it, that if there is an important policy announcement to be made, it will be made to this House.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 32.]

Given that that was clearly not the case in this instance, despite your statements, can you advise us as to what we as Members of this House can do? \p Lindsay Hoyle: It is frustrating for me and all Back Benchers, because everything should be heard here in the Chamber first. The Budget should be sacrosanct; it should be heard only on Budget day. What I would  say is that it makes a change for Budget speculation to at least come to the Chamber, as that is quite out of the ordinary at the moment.

I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. As I have said on a number of occasions in recent weeks, the Government’s own ministerial code states that major announcements should be made in the House in the first instance, not in the media. We had an urgent question yesterday on this issue. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has been conducting an inquiry into ministerial statements and the ministerial code. I look forward to seeing its report earlier rather than later. I would also point out that the country expects the Budget to come out on Budget day. It does nothing for the City and it does nothing for how people view this Chamber if it does not. We will leave it there. \p Keir Starmer: With permission, I will update the House on my recent international engagements and our work to strengthen the security of our continent and economy, starting with the situation in Ukraine, which is at the forefront of all our minds. Over recent days, I have had detailed discussions with allies; I met our partners in the coalition of the willing during the G20, and I have spoken a number of times to both President Trump and President Zelensky, who I spoke to again earlier this morning.

We are united in wanting a ceasefire and a permanent end to the horrendous suffering that this war has brought to Ukraine. I have always said that our aim must be a just and lasting peace, and those words “just” and “lasting” are both important. I welcome the continued efforts of the United States to end the war and stop the killing. The initial draft of the 28-point plan included points that were not acceptable, but it also included some important elements that will be essential for a just and lasting peace. For example, it sets out steps on security guarantees from the US and partners. That is very significant. The discussions in Geneva took important steps forward, with progress between the US and Ukraine on an updated peace framework. I can reassure the House that that work is ongoing to refine the plan.

We are clear about the fundamental principles: that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be maintained; that Ukraine should be able to defend herself in future; and that matters about Ukraine and its future must be determined by Ukraine. We are clear that Ukraine’s voice must always be at the heart of the process, and that elements relating to Europe and NATO will need the consent of Europe and NATO members. There is still a long way to go and a tough road ahead, but we are more committed than ever to the cause and to keep pushing forward on the process. That is why later this afternoon President Macron, Chancellor Merz and I will convene the coalition of the willing, which now has 36 members, to discuss how we can advance the peace process and how we can continue to keep Ukraine in the fight right now.

Ukraine continues to hold the line and Ukrainians continue to mount a fearless defence of their country. They deserve not just our respect but our help and support. After all, it is not just our values that are at risk here; it is our security, too.

In addition to targeting energy and food prices, Putin continues to seek to undermine our security, including by sending Russian ships into our waters. The Royal Navy has intercepted two Russian ships in our waters in the last two weeks. Let me assure the House that we are more ready and determined than ever to protect our territory and protect the British people. As we work towards that end, we will never let up on the support that Ukraine needs: the vital defensive capabilities that it needs to protect its people and the economic pressure that we must continue to mount on Russia to cut off the fuel to its war machine.

The urgent need to take Russian oil and gas off the global market was something that I discussed extensively at the G20. That is vital, especially now as winter begins to bite in Ukraine and Putin continues his barbaric attacks on civilians and civilian energy infrastructure.  As the House knows, and the British people know, there is only one nation that wants this war, only one nation that launched this illegal invasion and only one nation that deploys a constant barrage aimed at murdering innocent civilians. We saw that again last night with Russia’s strikes on Kyiv. Indeed, in the last week before last night, Russia had launched over 1,200 drones and over 60 cruise and ballistic missiles at Ukraine, killing children, like seven-year old Amelia, a Polish citizen who was killed alongside her mother by a Russian missile in Ternopil last Wednesday in an attack that took 34 lives in total.

Last night, as a family we celebrated my daughter’s 15th birthday. Later, I saw images on the news of a young girl about the same age being pulled from the rubble of a building in Ukraine, where her mother had just been killed. It is abhorrent—it is beyond belief—yet Ukraine lives that same story every night in its cities and every day on the frontline, where so many Ukrainians are killed fighting for their freedom.

We should not forget that Putin’s aggression, his illegal actions and his total disregard for human life have taken a huge toll on his own people. Thousands of Russian soldiers are killed every single day; 100,000 have been killed attacking Donetsk. In total, more than 1 million Russians have been killed or injured all because of the depraved ambitions of one man. We say again that this country will never falter in our support for the Ukrainian people. We will maintain a unity of purpose with our allies and we will focus on delivering the calm, serious leadership that is needed to advance a just and lasting peace for Ukraine and indeed the whole of Europe.

Let me turn to my broader discussions at the G20. I took the opportunity in South Africa to raise the ongoing and utterly horrifying situation in Sudan. We are working with our partners to break the restrictions on humanitarian aid and demand accountability. We must rally global pressure to stop the slaughter, achieve a sustained ceasefire and ultimately deliver a transition to civilian rule.

In South Africa I also chaired the Global Fund replenishment alongside President Ramaphosa, leading the charge in the global fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. That work has already saved over 70 million lives, yet malaria still kills a child under the age of five nearly every minute, 4,000 adolescent girls and young women still contract HIV every week and TB remains the world’s single deadliest infectious disease, even though we have had a cure for nearly a century. We will keep driving that project forward because it is the right thing to do and because it helps protect the United Kingdom from future pandemics and health emergencies.

A central priority at the G20 was delivering economic security and opportunity, as it is at every international meeting I attend. A strong economy allows us to be strong in the world. Economic security is national security. I can tell the House that we delivered for the British people this weekend, including through deals with South Africa for British firms to upgrade their railways and submarines, a £370 million deal for Rolls-Royce to supply jet engines to Algeria and a £4 billion deal with Indonesia for new ships, delivering 1,000 jobs in Rosyth, Plymouth and Bristol, and, if I may say, delivering another rebuke to all the people who prematurely wrote off British shipbuilding. We can only achieve those  things—we can only deliver for the British people—by working with our partners. I think this is a moment to raise our sights.

The House will recall that it was when the global financial crisis struck that the G20 showed its full potential, with my predecessor Gordon Brown marshalling a global response to that crisis to protect the savings and finances of the British people. In this moment of growing fragility and crisis around the world, it is time once again to take a more purposeful, unified approach, focused on global growth and stability. I called for a response based on the right balance of investment and fiscal discipline, open markets, reforming the global trading system and tackling the cost of living crisis. That approach was echoed by the leaders’ declaration from Johannesburg.

I am also pleased to say that the summit confirmed that the UK will take on the presidency of the G20 in 2027—the first time that it has returned to the UK since 2009. It will be a proud moment for our country and part of our work to restore Britain’s international leadership, which was neglected for so long. We will use the presidency to drive the agenda I have been talking about today: to drive growth and opportunity, to create jobs, to cut the cost of living and to fundamentally strengthen the economic security of the British people. That is what we are doing at home and abroad, and I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Leader of the Opposition. \p Kemi Badenoch: I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.

We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and our support remains unwavering. Ukraine is battling the most flagrant breach of territorial integrity in Europe in recent times. We must never forget that the war was started by Putin, who is trying to extinguish a democracy on our own continent. It is important that we stand together to defend the principle that aggressors should not succeed.

The previous Conservative Government led Europe in support for Ukraine. We were the first country to provide modern, western-made battle tanks and to gift munitions and Storm Shadow missiles. We led the way on sanctions and trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers on UK soil. It is now incumbent on this Government to leverage British influence at this crucial time for the west. Putin’s relentless bombardment of Kyiv and KGB-style negotiating tactics show he is not serious about peace, which is why Russia must not be welcomed back into the international fold without a comprehensive peace agreement. Will the Prime Minister rule out support for readmitting Russia to the G7?

We all want this terrible war to end, and as the Prime Minister rightly said, elements of that draft 28-point plan were unacceptable. Conservatives are clear that the blanket surrender of Ukrainian territory would mean rewarding Putin’s unprovoked aggression. What is the Government’s position on reports that Ukraine’s territorial integrity is on the table? If Putin is seen to emerge stronger from these negotiations, all our potential adversaries will be emboldened. Let us be in no doubt, the axis of  authoritarian states is collaborating to destabilise the west, aided by China, with Iran providing weapons and North Korea providing troops for Putin.

It is precisely for these reasons that the Government must continue to work extremely closely with the US and to understand its objectives. Parties such as the Lib Dems and the Greens, who are encouraging us to decouple from the US, are putting their anti-American prejudice above national security. Also, given that in the last fortnight the Royal Navy has intercepted two Russian ships in our waters, and with Russian spy ships pointing lasers at RAF pilots, it is a disgrace that Reform is still blaming NATO for Russia’s aggression, although perhaps it should come as no surprise when its former leader in Wales was sent to prison last week for taking bribes from Putin.

Earlier this year, many countries came together to form the coalition of the willing, pledging to strengthen support for Ukraine. Can the Prime Minister update us on the planning and readiness of the coalition of the willing? What is its scope and terms of mission? What can he tell us about a counter-proposal that is reportedly being submitted by the EU?

To stand with Ukraine, we need to know that we can also stand on our own two feet. Last week, the Commons Defence Committee warned that Britain was unprepared for a major attack and that the Government were making “glacial” progress towards conflict readiness, so it is concerning that reports indicate that the Ministry of Defence faces a potential budget cut this financial year of £2.6 billion. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether this is true or false? Meanwhile, the EU is reportedly demanding nearly €7 billion for the UK to buy into its defence fund. Conservatives warned that this would happen. At the time the UK-EU reset deal was being negotiated, the shadow Defence Secretary said that Labour had given away 12 years of British fishing rights in exchange for nothing. He was right. Will the Prime Minister rule out paying the EU for access to the Security Action for Europe—SAFE—programme?

It is extremely disappointing that Europe is still buying Russian oil and gas. Moscow should be denied safe harbours for its tankers and profits, and Europe should ban Russian oil and gas sooner than its current 2027 deadline. I believe that the Prime Minister agrees with that sentiment, so what pressure will he put on European countries to stop them buying Russian oil and gas?

The UK’s genuinely world-leading support has made a material difference to Ukraine’s ability to fight back against Russia’s illegal invasion—support that I remind the Prime Minister began under the Conservatives. Let us not forget that, in 2022, Russia thought it could capture Kyiv and subjugate Ukraine within days. So let us wake up and face that threat from Russia. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that we will be boosting our own defence capabilities, as well as using our influence to ensure that secure future for Ukraine? \p Keir Starmer: May I start by thanking the right hon. Lady for her support on Ukraine? It is really important that we stay united in this House. I readily acknowledge the role of the previous Government in leading on Ukraine and in bringing the whole House together on this issue, which they did for a number of years. This allowed us a platform on which to build the support that we are now putting in place.

In relation to membership of the G7 or G8, the focus at the moment is on a ceasefire so anything along those lines is a long way off. We have to remember that Putin is the aggressor here. He is the one who started this war. On territorial integrity, the sovereignty of Ukraine is paramount. That is why any questions about the future of Ukraine must be determined by Ukraine, and that is why I have been speaking frequently to President Trump and President Zelensky. I have spoken to President Zelensky probably five or six times in the last two or three days on a whole range of issues.

May I join the right hon. Lady in her comments about Reform? It is shocking that a senior official, its leader in Wales, has been jailed for over 10 years—a very significant sentence—for pro-Russia bribes. That is extraordinary. That is why I say again that the Reform leadership should have the courage to launch an investigation. How on earth did that happen in their party, and what other links are there? Today, this statement and the questions across the House will reinforce once again that Reform with its pro-Putin approach would have absolutely no role in bringing allies together on important issues across the globe.

The right hon. Lady asks about the coalition of the willing. Nine months ago, President Macron and I brought the coalition of the willing together. There are now 36 like-minded countries that meet and discuss frequently and align our positions and our support. That is a considerable achievement, and we have plans for security guarantees in relation to air, sea and land. On the text of the agreement that is being worked on in Geneva, there was, as she would have expected, an intensive discussion about this at the G20 involving a number of key allies, including the E3+3 and coalition of the willing allies. The strong consensus was that we should work with the text that is in existence—unacceptable though some parts of it are, because other parts are essential—rather than with a different text. That is the process that is going on in Geneva, and I think that is the right approach.

On defence spending, I have made my position clear, and it goes with the strategic review of defence as to how we take that forward. The SAFE negotiations are going on with the EU in the usual way, and one commitment I made in relation to our reset with the EU was that we would do it by quiet diplomacy, rather than by shouting from megaphones across the channel. The right hon. Lady asks about oil and gas, and this is really important. We are taking every opportunity to have extensive discussions to take Russian oil and gas off the market. This has to be done across Europe and beyond Europe, and I have had discussions beyond Europe on this issue. It is vital that we press ahead and we are taking every opportunity to do so.

May I return to where I started? I genuinely think it is important that we in this House are united on Ukraine. The only winner, if we divide on party political grounds, will be Putin. I again recognise the work and the lead that the previous Government took, which I was proud to support in opposition and I am proud to take forward as Prime Minister. I am grateful for the support that we are getting from the Opposition. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. \p Emily Thornberry: May I begin by complimenting the Prime Minister on his work on the international stage? Is he aware that a statement was put out yesterday by the Chairs of Foreign Affairs Committees of 22 Parliaments across Europe, in which we made it clear that we are united in the belief that Ukraine’s sovereignty is vital not just for brave Ukrainians but for the continued security of Europe? We are therefore pleased to hear the Prime Minister assure the House that any plan that is to be agreed will be “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”, but can he also assure the House that there will be “nothing about Europe without Europe”? \p Keir Starmer: I can reassure my right hon. Friend that I did see that letter that was put out yesterday. She is absolutely right to say that this conflict affects not only Ukraine and its sovereignty but the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom, in our values and our security, and materially in relation to things like the cost of living and the price of energy. Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine, nothing about Europe without Europe and nothing about NATO without NATO are key principles that sit behind the work that we are doing. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats. \p Daisy Cooper: I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. If this is the end game for Putin’s illegal and murderous war, we have one chance to get it right and to safeguard the future of Ukraine and Europe. The stakes could not be higher. Many of us fear that President Trump is gearing up to betray the rights of Ukrainians, who have fought valiantly in the face of war crimes, torture and the abduction of thousands of children. The White House has tried to deny that Trump’s original 28-point plan was a Russian wish list, but that is precisely what it was.

We Liberal Democrats welcome the statement from the Prime Minister that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be maintained. When the Prime Minister speaks with the coalition of the willing this afternoon, will he relay that all major parties in this House agree with him on unequivocally ruling out any proposals that would limit Ukraine’s sovereignty to defend itself now or in the future, including its right to join defence alliances such as NATO? Will the Prime Minister also offer his support and that of the coalition of the willing by joining President Zelensky for any future negotiations with President Trump, so that President Zelensky does not have to suffer the indignity of being bullied by Trump on his own once again and so that Europe can show a strong and united stand?

The Prime Minister is absolutely right to request that Reform UK conducts an investigation into pro-Russian bribes. Will he also commission a second Russia report into Russian interference in our democracy? My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) has brought forward a Bill enabling the unilateral seizure of Russian state assets in the UK. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether in his discussions with G20 partners he has secured any progress on plans to seize those frozen Russian assets, and if not, why not?

Will the Prime Minister use his role as the penholder for Sudan to take the lead at the United Nations to secure and enforce a country-wide arms embargo?

Finally, the Prime Minister did not mention China, despite reports that he met the Chinese premier at the G20. The apparent imminent approval of the Chinese super-embassy would be a moment of shame for this Government. Will the Prime Minister block this application and summon the Chinese ambassador to make clear that we will not accept Beijing’s efforts to spy on our Parliament, or to intimidate and harass Hongkongers in our communities? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the hon. Member for her support in relation to Ukraine—support which is important. Certainly, I will make a point this afternoon of expressing to the coalition of the willing how united this House is on the key principles. We are, I think, the closest respected and trusted ally of Ukraine, and that is why I have not only spoken intensively and extensively to President Zelensky over many months and years, but I have done so in particular over the past few days—a number of times a day, sometimes—including this morning, to do what we can to guide this into the right place.

I completely agree with the hon. Member’s comments about Reform. It is extraordinary that, in this Chamber, we are having a debate about a war which Russia has perpetrated on Ukraine, and a senior member of Reform has been convicted of pro-Russian bribes. Interference with democracy is of deep concern. We are having extensive discussions, including at the G20 and elsewhere, about what more can be done on the assets, and we are making progress. It is not straightforward, as she will know, but it is the subject of very extensive discussions to see what more we can do.

On the Chinese premier, let me just be clear: I said hello and shook the hand of the Chinese premier at the G20. We were in the leaders’ lounge together. It would have been a little bizarre and discourteous not to have done so, but we did not actually engage in any substantive discussion. The hon. Member raises the question of the embassy. That is obviously a quasi-judicial decision that will be taken in accordance with those processes. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the chair of the Defence Committee. \p Tan Dhesi: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement updating the House, but let us be under no illusions: President Trump’s originally proposed peace plan is humiliating and unpalatable to the Ukrainians, would be detrimental to our own European security and would reward the invading, annexing aggressor. That is why yesterday the cross-party House of Commons Defence Committee issued a very robust statement calling on the Government urgently to give full moral and practical support in whatever way they could, especially diplomatically, to our Ukrainian friends. Does the Prime Minister agree that at this critical juncture it is imperative that the UK, along with its European allies, shows clear and determined leadership and is actually around the table to negotiate, so that we can be a voice for our Ukrainian friends, because if we are not at the table, we will be on the menu? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. In relation to the original plan, clearly there were elements that were unacceptable, and that is why  I am pleased that progress has now been made in relation to it. I can assure him that we are giving support to President Zelensky and Ukraine at every level, and extensively, as my hon. Friend would expect. He is quite right that part of the reason we can have influence with our allies is that we are present at the international table in a way that we have not been over recent years. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: The Prime Minister has done a pretty good job of getting close to President Trump. Can he convince the tyrant bear that to reward him with land he has already taken would be bad enough, but it would be utterly egregious and appalling to allow him—the ruthless bear—to take land he has not even taken yet, in fortress Donbas? That would make Ukraine utterly defenceless, just as we allowed Czechoslovakia to be utterly defenceless when we forced it to give up the Sudetenland 85 years ago. \p Keir Starmer: I agree with the right hon. Member. The very idea of negotiating land that has not been taken in nearly four years of a conflict and has cost tens of thousands of lives is so obviously unacceptable that it should not be put forward or seen as a serious proposition. I agree with him wholeheartedly on that. \p Alex Sobel: I once more thank the Prime Minister for his unstinting support for Ukraine, and for saying that nothing can be done for Ukraine without Ukraine. In the last few moments, a media source in the US has reported that Ukraine has agreed to the peace proposal brokered by the Trump Administration. I know the Prime Minister will not have the detail of that, but if that is the case—I know that he is making a statement now—will he come back and give the House the full details of what has been agreed by Ukraine, the US and potentially Russia? \p Keir Starmer: Yes, of course I will. From my discussions with President Zelensky this morning, I will need to look precisely at that, but I suspect it will not be the whole of the agreement that needs to be reached, because obviously the discussions so far have been predominantly Ukraine/US. Obviously, there are European elements that are important and NATO elements that are important which need further discussion, and of course none of this has been back to the Russian side yet. I will have a look at the report and look behind the headline, and if there is anything material to report, I will of course do so. My sense is that it will probably be progress on the Geneva exercise rather than the agreement of all elements. \p John Whittingdale: Does the Prime Minister agree that, if Ukraine has agreed to a proposal that has been brokered by the United States, it must be made acceptable to Russia and that we need to exert every possible pressure on Russia through increased military support, sanctions and the use of frozen assets to make Russia accept a ceasefire? \p Keir Starmer: I certainly agree with that wholeheartedly. We will see; I suspect it is the version that emerged from Geneva yesterday that is being talked about, but of course the next step is Russia, and we  need to exert every pressure, whether that is capability, the assets, or oil and gas, on which we have been bearing down for a considerable period of time. \p Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sorry but that is just not within the rules of the House. I do not expect this from somebody who is so well established here. The right hon. Gentleman may by all means raise a point of order straight after the statement if it relates to the topic, but the rules of the House come first. I call Stella Creasy. \p Stella Creasy: I think we all understand that this is a breaking situation. In such an uncertain world, we know that allyship is integral to our security. The post-war generation created the NHS and NATO because they understood the power of collective solidarity. I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister talk about the importance of the Security Action for Europe negotiations, because our work with Europe is not about replacing our relationships with NATO but about strengthening them. Did he raise the SAFE negotiations with the President of the European Commission? This situation reminds us that we must get the European defence industry into a shape in which it can address the threats that we face from Russia. The UK must be part of those conversations. \p Keir Starmer: I can assure my hon. Friend that negotiations are going on in the ordinary way in relation to SAFE and a number of other issues.

I am endeavouring the get the best information I can in relation to what is developing, and I will weave it into an answer if I get anything that will help the House. \p Mark Pritchard: And will you come back? \p Keir Starmer: I will certainly come back, but if I am able to update the House as we go along, I will endeavour to do so, so that others can ask questions about it. \p Calum Miller: I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to ensuring that decisions about Ukraine are not taken without Ukraine, and to upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty. Yet we know that Russia is trying to use this negotiation to undermine the future security not only of Ukraine but of Europe. In the light of the ongoing negotiations, will the Prime Minister confirm that any future deal will reject Russia’s references to

“ambiguities of the last 30 years”—

code for unravelling NATO back to 1997—and reject attempts to determine which nations may join NATO or where NATO may put its military assets? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, because we must always remember that this is about Europe as well as Ukraine. Putin’s ambitions are not limited to Ukraine, as the bordering countries are intensely aware. It is therefore important that we see this for what it is, and act accordingly as European allies. \p Johanna Baxter: I appreciate that this is a developing situation, but we know that at least 19,546 children from Ukraine have been stolen by Russia and sent to more than 400 locations across eight time zones. We know that 1.6 million children in the occupied territories are being subjected to militarisation and indoctrination. We know that 200 military training camps turn Ukrainian children into Russian soldiers. And we know that one in 10 of the Ukrainian children rescued from Russia have reported that they have been sexually abused. Will the Prime Minister remind President Trump that behind every one of those figures is a child? Will he assure the House that any peace plan agreed will deliver the safe return of all the Ukrainian children who have been stolen, and that Russia will be held to account for the war crimes that it continues to commit? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning and all her efforts to keep a constant light on that appalling situation. It is shocking that Russia is treating those children as a weapon of war, kidnapping and subjecting them to all sorts of abuse and ill treatment. We are doing and must do everything we can to safeguard those children and get them back to their families, where they belong. \p Julian Lewis: May I ask the Prime Minister to focus on the question of effective security guarantees? Security guarantees deter aggression only if there is no doubt that the guarantor will act in accordance with the guarantee that he has given. Therefore, if there is a security guarantee to unoccupied Ukraine, it is absolutely essential that the guarantor has some forces on the ground, because otherwise a guarantee to an unoccupied region that is a strategic vacuum can lead to a wider war by miscalculation by the killer in the Kremlin. \p Keir Starmer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. That is why we have done so much work with the coalition of the willing on the capability and planning for land and sea; detailed plans are now as advanced as they can be until we know the next stage of the proceedings. It is also why I have worked so hard with the US to get a US security guarantee going alongside the coalition of the willing, so that the two go together. He will have seen that that is part of the discussion in Geneva, on which we have managed to make some progress. \p Fleur Anderson: I join many others here in welcoming the recent progress on the war in Ukraine at the G20, in Geneva and most recently. Putin is continuing to circumvent sanctions via other countries. Will the coalition of the willing work with those other countries, as the Prime Minister has explained will happen, to ensure that that money, which is continuing to fuel the war, is cut off? That will enable a just and lasting peace and the rebuilding of Ukraine. \p Keir Starmer: The question of sanctions is absolutely vital, as is bearing down on any individuals trying to circumvent those sanctions. That is why we put in place the sanctions and the measures behind them. We work with allies to make them enforceable. \p Stephen Flynn: I think it is important to begin by stating that those on the far right who parrot the views of Putin, and those on the far left who seek to undermine NATO, are no friends of Ukraine. I was pleased to hear in the Prime Minister’s statement his unequivocal approach to responsibility in this regard—he rightly pinned it on one person: Vladimir Putin. The Prime Minister did, however, equivocate in response to the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the G8. Kaja Kallas of the European Union was very clear in her comments this morning that Russia cannot be in the G8—she said, “definitely not”. Surely he agrees? \p Keir Starmer: Russia is the aggressor here. Obviously these are questions for the G7 to determine, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the focus is very much on the process at the moment, which is to get a ceasefire and an end to this conflict.

I join the right hon. Gentleman in his point about those on the left. The Green party, of course, says that we should pull out of NATO—at a moment like this. It also says that it would make renting out a property—landlords—unlawful, but make selling drugs lawful, outside the school gate. I have to say, I find that a little odd. \p Paul Waugh: Last week in Rochdale, I joined our proud Ukrainian community to mark the Holodomor, which was Stalin’s forced famine of millions of Ukrainians in the 1930s. There is a modern-day Holodomor going on in Ukraine through the drone strikes and air strikes by Putin’s regime. Does the Prime Minister share my absolute disgust at the treacherous actions of the former leader of Reform in Wales, who lined his own pockets with cash from the Russian regime, and does he agree that Reform UK’s refusal to carry out a full investigation proves that they really are Putin’s poodles? \p Keir Starmer: I agree. This is clearly a really serious case. Any other party would want to investigate to assure itself of how this could happen. This is not a minor transgression; it has now been visited with a 10-year sentence because it undermines our country. Surely the Reform leadership want to know how that happened on their watch, and what other links there are between their party and Russia. No wonder they are Putin-friendly. How on earth could they respond to a situation like this? There is no point in standing up and saying that you support Ukraine if within your own party, you are pro-Russian. \p Andrew Mitchell: The Prime Minister’s role in marshalling European co-operation is essential and very welcome, but would it not be obscene and unconscionable for any country—indeed, one of the permanent five at the United Nations—to invade its neighbour and murder its citizens, and to get away with it and profit from it, let alone to rejoin the G7? Have we not seen this film before? Do we not know how it ends? \p Keir Starmer: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising this. That is why it is really important that we make the case for, and ensure that it is, a just and lasting peace—because we have seen this before. We have seen agreements brokered before without security  guarantees, with the inevitable result that Putin will go again. That is why, in relation to all the principles I have been operating on, in setting up the coalition of the willing and in all my discussions, it has got to be a just and lasting peace. It has got to be one that actually deters Putin from doing this again, because we know that without that deterrence and those consequences, he has the ambition to go again, and he will go again, and we must guard against that. \p Uma Kumaran: I thank the Prime Minister for his steadfast leadership on Ukraine. My constituent Roksolana is one of tens of thousands of Ukrainian people with a loved one “missing under special circumstances”. These families do not know whether their loved ones are detained, a prisoner of war or even alive. It is likely that Russia has not notified the International Committee of the Red Cross on the status of thousands more prisoners of war. On behalf of Roksolana and all the Ukrainian families I met this weekend at St Mary’s Ukrainian school who are seeking answers about their loved ones, can the Prime Minister assure this House that the UK will support every effort to ensure that Russia complies with international humanitarian law regarding the treatment and identification of prisoners of war? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this and for her work bearing down on this, in particular the meeting she had at the weekend. This is a really serious issue. We are raising it with our allies. It is further evidence of the total disregard that Russia has for any of the principles of war, even in an unjust war, and we will continue to bear down on it. \p Gavin Robinson: Over the past 18 months, the Prime Minister has shown himself to be influential and purposeful at significant times in this crisis, so I thank him for that. While events may be superseding the statement this afternoon, there are some principles that should not change. Aggression must not be rewarded. Violence should not pay. There has always been an alternative to violence. But when the Prime Minister says, rightly, that there should be a “just and lasting peace”, does he recognise that it may be difficult to sell a lasting peace to the people of Ukraine if so-called allies are forcing President Zelensky to accept an encroachment on his sovereign territory, and that those allies should be robustly defending Ukraine, rather than allowing so-called friends to allow the loss of territory? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the right hon. Member and give him my assurance that I am acutely aware of the need for this to be a lasting peace for Ukrainians. A large part of my discussion with President Zelensky is how we bring that about, but I am extremely mindful of the fact that this has to be just and lasting for the Ukrainians, who did not start this war, do not want this war, have suffered hugely under this war and need to be reassured that if there is a peace, it is going to last and they are not going to be subject to the same thing in just a few years’ time. \p Nia Griffith: I commend my right hon. and learned Friend’s efforts to engage our allies in support for Ukraine. Does he agree that resolve,  unity and support from the west are vital to give Ukraine the guarantees it needs for a lasting peace? How optimistic is he about the resolve and commitment he will secure from the coalition of the willing later today? \p Keir Starmer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very confident about the assurance from the coalition of the willing, because we have already agreed plans between the countries in the coalition of the willing that are as advanced now as they can be until we know the next stage of the process. Obviously, I want to ensure that that is forged or welded together with US guarantees alongside the coalition of the willing, which will then be the strongest possible guarantee. \p Richard Foord: The Prime Minister welcomed the inclusion in the 28-point peace plan of security guarantees. Point 10 of the proposed plan says that if Russia invades Ukraine, it would lead to

“a decisive coordinated military response”.

Who would co-ordinate that response, and what does the Prime Minister anticipate would be the UK’s part in it? \p Keir Starmer: Without going into the details, the plans that the coalition of the willing have drawn up are about capability, co-ordination and command structure. A huge amount of military work has gone into exactly how that would operate in practice. These are not simply countries saying, “Here’s some capability that we’re prepared to put on the table,” as it were. They are military plans capable of being put into effect when they are needed. \p Joe Powell: I thank the Prime Minister for all his efforts on ramping up the economic pressure on Putin, including through oil and gas and the shadow fleet. On the $300 billion-plus of Russian sovereign banking assets in the west, we know there are a few holdouts in the European Union that do not want to mobilise a loan backed by those assets as a downpayment on reparations. Could he update us on what progress has been made to get that over the line and get that money moving? \p Keir Starmer: A proposal has been put forward in relation to how the assets could be used. Obviously, that requires a high level of agreement by various interested parties. That is why extensive discussions are going on as to how we can make that progress. There is no pretending that it is simple and straightforward—it is not—but that should not stop us trying to make further progress. \p Roger Gale: I understand that the order of the day when dealing with Mr Trump is flattery. I am afraid that 42 years of experience in this House have not yet qualified me for that level of sycophancy. The presentation of a Kremlin wish list by the White House as a peace plan is risible, which the Prime Minister indicated rather more elegantly than I have. Will the Prime Minister seriously consider—if necessary, unilaterally—ensuring that legislation goes through so that the frozen Russian assets can be used to support the Ukrainian war effort? \p Keir Starmer: On the assets, I do want to make progress. My strong view is that if we are to make progress, it is better that as many countries as possible act at the same time. That is what we are trying to achieve. If we do that, obviously, we will take whatever steps are necessary. At the moment, my focus is on trying to progress this discussion, which has been difficult and fraught with risk. None the less, there is a willingness, I think, to move forward on it. Other discussions I had in the margins of the G20 were with countries outside of Europe to see whether they will act at the same time along with us if we get that far, because I think it is important to do so. \p Alex Barros-Curtis: I am very proud to represent Cardiff West in this place. Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, was elected to serve the people of Wales in the European Parliament, but as we now know, he served not only himself but the interests of Russia. Having admitted not one, not two, but eight counts of bribery, he is now serving 10 and a half years’ imprisonment. I know the Prime Minister will join me in condemning that treachery, but will he also join me in demanding that the leadership of Reform UK—who, typically, cannot be present here today—launch an independent investigation into this act of treason? \p Keir Starmer: My hon. Friend puts the point very powerfully. It must be uncomfortable for the Reform party to hear this. This is completely undermining our national security. It cannot be right for a political party represented in this House to simply close its eyes and ears to this. There has to be an investigation. There has to be a level of reassurance that there are not other links to Russia within the Reform party, and on how this came about in the first place. His question is very good. It should be deeply uncomfortable for Reform MPs to hear this, knowing that they are sitting on their hands and doing absolutely nothing about it. \p Richard Tice: May I remind the House that last year I personally donated a five-figure sum, bought a pick-up truck, filled it with first aid supplies, drove it with friends and colleagues to Ukraine, and donated it to the brave soldiers of Ukraine. My support and Reform’s support for Ukraine has been rock-solid throughout, Prime Minister.

It is important that this House is united, which it is. Last week, when the 28-point plan emerged, we rejected it immediately. Just yesterday, I was with a Ukrainian delegation, and we were talking specifically about the leverage that European nations have with regard to the frozen assets, the majority of which are here in Europe. I urge the Prime Minister, among all the noise, to utilise that leverage, because that, I think, is one of the most powerful negotiating points that the west has against the vile dictator, Putin. \p Keir Starmer: The hon. Gentleman could have said that Reform has seen sense and decided that it will have an investigation into what happened in the bribery case. I do not doubt that he drove that truck and personally committed that support, but the simple fact is that you cannot be pro-Putin and pro-Ukraine; you have to decide between the two, and Reform is pro-Putin— \p Richard Tice: Rubbish! \p Keir Starmer: Well, a Reform politician has just been convicted and given a 10-year sentence for taking pro-Russian bribes, so the case could not be clearer than that. There is an unwillingness for Reform to say, “We need to investigate how on earth that happened.” Can the hon. Gentleman not see the inconsistency in what he is saying? \p Rachael Maskell: It is feared that the brutality in El Fasher will only intensify and spread to Tawila and beyond if international action is not convened and focused on the resolutions that are needed, not least to stop the incursions with drones supplied via the United Arab Emirates and mercenaries. Will the Prime Minister say more about what happened in South Africa to put the necessary focus in place, and about the next steps to stop the expansion of the atrocities we are witnessing in Sudan? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for raising Sudan, because what was an appalling situation has become even more appalling over recent days and weeks. We discussed it pretty extensively at the G20. We support the work of the Quad that is aimed predominantly at a ceasefire, the provision of humanitarian aid—it is the worst humanitarian situation in the world—and bringing about a better resolution.

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I do my best to update the House in relation to the latest news about Ukraine? It is coming to me second hand, so if it turns out to be not entirely accurate, I hope that the House will forgive me and I will come back to correct the record. My understanding is that there is not a new agreement, but Ukraine has confirmed that it is happy with the draft that emerged in Geneva yesterday, which does not cover the question of territory. My best understanding is that this is a confirmation of what came out of Geneva, not a new set of proposals or agreements—I think that is what it is—but if I get more information, I will update the House and we can discuss it in due course. \p Steve Darling: The Prime Minister talks of having extensive discussions about limiting the export of oil and gas from Russia—the engine driving the Russian war machine. Danish waters could offer the key to killing the shadow fleet. An international convention regulating shipping going through those straits would stop the shadow fleet and stop a significant part of its activity supporting Russia. It would also drive environmental support through stronger regulations set out in such a convention. What considerations have the Prime Minister and his colleagues given to this? \p Keir Starmer: We regularly discuss how we deal with the shadow fleet. The Danish authorities do a lot in their waters, as do the authorities in Norway and other countries in the region, and we are looking at what further we can do in relation to the shadow fleet. His underlying point about the oil and gas that are fuelling Russia’s aggression is hugely important. We need to ensure that that oil and gas is taken off the market, and that can only happen if we deal with the shadow fleet, among other things. \p Graeme Downie: I thank the Prime Minister for his continued support of Ukraine. Going back to the announcement about the  £4 billion deal with Indonesia at the G20, may I thank the Prime Minister for his efforts in securing that maritime partnership programme for Babcock? It will benefit people in my constituency and secure hundreds of jobs. Does the Prime Minister agree that the partnership is testament to the skills and experience of the workforce at Rosyth, and will he continue to do everything he can to support shipbuilding in Scotland, and at Rosyth in particular? \p Keir Starmer: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Winning such deals, whether they be the Indonesian deal, which we finally concluded while we were at the G20, or the frigate deal with Norway, means competing against others in the world—we competed against France, Germany and the United States for the frigate deal—and that is only possible for us as a country because of the quality of the workforce, their professionalism and their commitment to delivering on time. After the frigate deal with Norway, I went up to the Clyde to see the workforce and to thank them for putting me in a position where we could secure that deal. I would be grateful if he passes those thanks on to his constituents. \p Alec Shelbrooke: Signals matter. Right now, Putin thinks he is getting his own way but, as a point of principle, would the Prime Minister sit around a table if the indicted war criminal Putin was sitting at it? \p Keir Starmer: No, I would not. When I was at the United Nations Security Council last year, I took my first opportunity as Prime Minister to be very clear about where I stand. In that case, it was in relation to the Security Council, but the principle applies elsewhere. Leaders cannot subscribe to international law and the UN charter if they are in breach of it through this illegal war. \p Patricia Ferguson: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his work to secure peace in Ukraine and for his very good comments about BAE Systems, which is partially located in my constituency of Glasgow West. Point 24 of the Trump plan indicates that

“all civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.”

The kidnapping of children is heinous and a war crime in and of itself. Surely, as a mark of good faith, Putin should not wait for any agreement on this or other plans, and should release those children immediately. In saying that, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her work over many months on this issue. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that point 26 of that plan, that

“all parties involved in the conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and will agree not to make any future claims or pursue any grievances”,

cannot be tolerated? \p Keir Starmer: I agree with my hon. Friend on both fronts. Of course those children should be released straight away. They should never have been taken in the first place and it is heartbreaking, as well as intolerable, that they are held for a moment longer. As for amnesty, no, I do not agree with amnesty for Putin and others for their illegal acts. \p Ellie Chowns: I am deeply concerned that it appears that American negotiators have been listening more to the unreasonable demands of the Russian aggressors than to the security needs of the Ukrainians. Will the Prime Minister assure me that in his conversations with President Trump he has made absolutely clear that the voices of Ukrainians have to be front and centre in securing any just and lasting peace? \p Keir Starmer: I assure the hon. Lady that the principles that I have set out to the House—that matters on the future of Ukraine must be for Ukraine—have been the guiding principles in all our discussions and in everything that we have done. \p Olivia Blake: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and actions. If we achieve peace, as we all hope, the efforts to rebuild Ukraine cannot be only about infrastructure. They also have to focus on rebuilding people’s lives, from those who have been devastatingly injured or have lost loved ones, to civil society, which has been really tested. What will the UK Government do to ensure that funding and support is in place to allow not only the rebuilding of buildings, but the rebuilding of civil society? \p Keir Starmer: My hon. Friend is right. This will not just be about rebuilding infrastructure; it will be about the rebuilding of society. That is why I was really pleased last year to sign the 100-year agreement we have with Ukraine, which was intended to and does show that this is not just an agreement for the duration of the conflict, but something that goes well beyond the conflict to the lasting relationship that I hope our two countries will have. \p David Mundell: I was very pleased that the Prime Minister mentioned Sudan; we cannot be blind to Russia’s malign interest there or across the Sahel. What discussions has he had with Prime Minister Modi about his approach to Russian oil and what appear to be his overly friendly social media posts towards President Putin? \p Keir Starmer: I will not disclose all the details of my discussions, but the right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the principles I have set out to the House guide me in all those discussions. \p Rupa Huq: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for updating us all—this is obviously a fast-moving situation. Last week, at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, we harrowingly heard from our Ukrainian counterparts how 20,000 children have been abducted by Russia since this war began. May I ask him to reiterate that in the just and lasting peace we all seek, they are at the centre of all this? Will he send a clear and immediate message to say, as Pink Floyd might have put it, “Hey, Putin! Leave those kids alone!”? \p Keir Starmer: I agree with the principle that my hon. Friend puts forward; I am not sure I would put it in quite the terms that she does, but the sentiment is shared. This is just shocking—the idea of kidnapping children as an act of war and a weapon of war is just so  disgusting, frankly. We should do absolutely everything we can to ensure not only that the children are safe, secure and returned, but that there is full accountability. \p Mark Pritchard: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but if I may, I will caution him. I understand that the reports referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) are from a single source—an unnamed US official. I think we might be falling into a trap here, which others want us to fall into, of bouncing the Ukrainians ahead of an arbitrary deadline of Thanksgiving day. We need to ensure that officials and all of us are able to verify sources and corroborate them, even if they are reported in the mainstream media and repeated in the United Kingdom.

I believe I am still allowed to ask a question. What reassurance can the Prime Minister give to the people of this country and of Ukraine that President Trump’s very bad 28-point plan will not now be replaced by a bad 19-point plan? We all know from history that Ukraine, Europe, the United Kingdom and even our allies, the United States, will rue the day that we roll over for Putin. If we reward the aggressor, history tells us and we know that they come back for more. \p Keir Starmer: My instinct is with the right hon. Gentleman on the breaking news. I spoke to President Zelensky about four hours ago—I have obviously spoken to him extensively, so I have a pretty good sense of where he is at on this matter—and I intend to speak to him again this afternoon. \p James Cartlidge: Will there be another statement? \p Keir Starmer: My instinct is that this probably is not anything of greater significance than what was coming out yesterday. If it is, of course I will make another statement. I spoke to President Zelensky this morning and got a very clear sense of where he is at, and I intend to speak to him again this afternoon. We have the coalition of the willing, and if there is anything, I will of course update the House.

The right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) is right to caution, and he is right in the underlying point he makes. We must hold to the principle that matters about the future of Ukraine are for Ukraine. That means that we must engage as extensively as we are doing with the President and the Ukrainians to ensure that, every step of the way, we are taking into account in a practical sense that matters for Ukraine must be for Ukraine, and that can happen only if we are talking to them in the way that we are. \p Peter Swallow: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I thank the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown on Ukraine.

Year 6 students from St Margaret Clitherow Catholic primary school in Bracknell have written to me to express their deep concern about the ongoing crisis in Sudan, so I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership at the G20 on this conflict. What message does he have for those students who are concerned about this deep tragedy? \p Keir Starmer: Will my hon. Friend please pass a message back to them to say, “Thank you for raising this”? It is important that they have done so. The fact that they raised it with him means that it has now been raised through him on the Floor of this House, so they are directly inputting into our democracy and accountability. I assure them that we are working with partners to bring about an end to the appalling situation in Sudan. It has been the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world not just in recent days and weeks, but for a very long time—it is simply worse and more intense. Will he reassure the students that we are doing everything we can with partners to bring an end to this awful situation and thank them for their input? \p Claire Young: The Prime Minister referred to Putin’s barbaric attacks on civilian energy infrastructure. What discussions has he had with his G20 counterparts about learning from Ukraine’s experience to protect energy supplies and infrastructure from hostile Russian action? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. The attacks on energy supplies are intended to inflict damage on civilians in Ukraine, as they do on a regular basis, particularly as we go into the winter. We are doing two things: we are working with the Ukrainians on what more support we can give them to safeguard their energy supplies, and of course with allies we are looking at whether there are any issues we need to address in relation to any vulnerabilities we may have. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for his updates on the G20 and, in particular, for his commitment to the Global Fund, which we should be really proud of. I was also very pleased to see Sudan referenced in the joint declaration of the G20 leaders—as the Prime Minister has said, it is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, but we are also hearing appalling accounts of war crimes. What more will the Prime Minister now do with global partners to secure a ceasefire, protect civilians and hold the warring parties to account for their crimes? \p Keir Starmer: In particular, the Global Fund is so important—my hon. Friend heard the statistics that I went through. In relation to the wider situation, the focus is very much on a cessation of hostilities and on humanitarian support, which is desperately needed. \p Bernard Jenkin: Does the Prime Minister agree with many assessments that make it clear that Russia is actually in a far weaker position than President Putin pretends, so long as we continue to support the war effort in Ukraine? That depends on us developing more independent, non-American capability, and the best way to do that is to fund the Ukrainians to develop their own capabilities so that they can continue to defend their own country. \p Keir Starmer: It is important that we make it clear that Russia is in a much weaker position than it pretends. We should always remember that the early briefings and intelligence in relation to this conflict indicated, at the very beginning of the war, that Russia would achieve its end in a matter of a few weeks.  Here we are, nearly four years in, and because of the fearless defence of the Ukrainians, supported by others, that has not been the case.

In relation to the damage being done to Russia’s economy by sanctions and other financial issues, we can see that they are doing real damage if we look at the inflation rate and the impact on its economy. The hon. Gentleman’s central point is really important. The plans of the coalition of the willing are premised on Ukraine having the capability that it needs, around which the plans that we have put in place would operate—not as a substitute or an alternative, but based on the Ukrainians having the ability and capability within Ukraine to do what it needs to do to safeguard and self-protect. \p Catherine Atkinson: Trains, planes and submarines—the Prime Minister put the pride of Derby manufacturing front and centre at this G20. Millions saw him halfway around the world in Johannesburg on a train made in Derby, showing the world what our city is famous for. Will he tell us more about what the deals he has secured mean for my constituents who work at Rolls-Royce and in the rail sector? Will he continue his focus on winning international deals for more high-productivity, high-skills and high-wage jobs? \p Keir Starmer: My hon. Friend is an incredible champion for Derby. It was incredible to be in Johannesburg, sitting in a train that had been made in Derby. It is significant that countries around the world want to do deals with the United Kingdom because of the quality, professionalism and commitment of our workforce, whether they are in Derby in her particular case, or in other places across the country. Those particular trains will be used for the run to the airport and back, so they will be heavily relied upon in South Africa. I am proud that other countries are saying that it is the UK they want to do deals with, whether that is in relation to frigates, submarines or trains. She should be very proud of the workforce in Derby. If she could pass on my thanks to them for allowing us to do this work, I would be grateful. \p Ann Davies: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. The draft deal states:

“It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries”.

To say it is “expected” is wholly inadequate, given that we cannot place our trust in the words of leaders such as Vladimir Putin. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to ensure that this agreement includes clear, enforceable safeguards? What measures are being implemented to strengthen the UK’s resilience against Russian interference? \p Keir Starmer: On the security guarantees, planning has taken place with the coalition of the willing. That needs to be put together with the US guarantee to ensure that it is not an expectation that Putin does not invade Ukraine again, but that there is an absolutely clear message that if he does, there will be consequences. It is only if that is in place, with strong guarantees and credibility, that we will be able to deter Putin. Without those guarantees, he will, as we have seen in the past, simply breach any agreement that was reached in due course. We need to bear down on Russian interference in our democracy, and we will continue to do so. \p Torcuil Crichton: My friend the Scottish journalist Jen Stout has just returned from the grey zone between Russian and Ukrainian forces, where to try to evacuate the wounded or even to wander outside for a moment is to invite death from the sky by drones. The message she brings back from Ukrainians on the frontline is that they will not give up this territory that they have defended for years. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the message that comes from here—apart from the Lord Haw-Haws paid by Putin—is that their frontline is our frontline, that Ukrainian sovereignty must be respected and that we will stand with Ukraine? \p Keir Starmer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The change in the use of drone warfare over the past three to four years has been accelerated and intense, to the point that now, as he reflects, if you are seen, you are dead. That is the effect of drone warfare, and everybody on the frontline understands that. Tens of thousands of lives have been lost defending particular lines, particularly in Donetsk. I will never forget visiting a hospital in Kyiv where I met those who had been burned very badly on the frontline. They were receiving treatment in those hospitals, and it was a poignant reminder of the impact that the war is having on Ukrainians. It is no wonder that they are not going to give that up after so much sacrifice. \p Desmond Swayne: What indication was there that Putin would accept even the earlier iteration of this agreement? \p Keir Starmer: I am not able to say, because I have not been involved in any discussions with Putin, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect. The main thing is to be clear that the draft was not acceptable in a number of respects, but it did have essential elements that will be required. That is why work is being done to ensure that we get to a place that is acceptable to Ukraine and that can then be used as a basis, I hope, for some sort of negotiated outcome. \p John Slinger: I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s emphasis on a just and lasting peace. Does he agree that while it is noble to want the fighting to stop, that can always be achieved in any conflict by giving in to the aggressor’s demands? History shows that that is not peace, but appeasement. Does he further agree that Ukraine must not be forced to give up its territory and long-term security needs, not only for its defence, but because it would weaken the very principles of sovereignty and the rules-based system, endangering us all? \p Keir Starmer: I agree with the principles that my hon. Friend sets out. I assure him that at the meeting of the coalition this afternoon, I will make the point that I always make when we meet: while we are working for peace and trying to put in place security guarantees, we must not let up on keeping Ukraine in the fight now. That would be a big mistake, and I worry that because of the hope of peace, it is always possible that the focus goes off the fact that Ukraine needs support now to stay in the fight. We must never lose that focus. \p Robin Swann: The Prime Minister’s statement says that Putin continues to seek to undermine our security. Can the Prime Minister give  this House an assurance that when a deal is done to the satisfaction of Ukraine, our preparations for our security and defence against Putin—and he will not give up—will continue. \p Keir Starmer: I can give the hon. Member that reassurance, but we will not wait until there is some agreement in place; we are taking those measures now. \p Jim Dickson: On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate the Prime Minister on demonstrating UK leadership by supporting the Ukrainian Government and President Zelensky in turning the 28-point peace plan, which very much appears to have been authored by Russia, into a much more acceptable 19-point peace plan, which clearly needs to be built on. Does the Prime Minister agree with me, and with the majority of my constituents who contact me, that it is vital that the UK and Europe remain steadfast in their support for Ukraine to achieve a lasting and just peace? \p Keir Starmer: I agree with my hon. Friend and his constituents. We are doing everything we can to ensure that. It is remarkable that through the coalition of the willing, which is mainly European countries but not just European countries—Japan, Canada and Australia were centrally involved in our discussions over the weekend—there has been such a singular purpose in supporting Ukraine. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I appreciate that this statement might be being outpaced by events outside this Chamber, but negotiating this peace deal with Russia seems to be at odds with nearly four years of steadfast military support. The overriding message is that the rules-based order means nothing, that we will acquiesce to countries that breach sovereign borders, and that actions no longer have consequences. The Prime Minister may as well be waving a piece of paper at Heston aerodrome. The message this sends to our adversaries, and specifically to China, is that the west will be too weak to take action if China invades Taiwan. The Prime Minister mentioned earlier that Russia will face consequences if it invades again. When he talks about a just and lasting peace, what consequences will Russia face for its current actions, or can it act with impunity? \p Keir Starmer: We had a pretty good tone up until now. I am not here waving some piece of paper; I am working with Ukraine and with other countries to try to bring about a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. We all want a just and lasting peace, but it will not happen if we do not have negotiations. We have to have those negotiations with clear principles about accountability and with strong security guarantees. The hon. Member is not doing this House a service by undermining a serious effort by international partners to bring about a just and lasting peace. It is very easy to speak in this House; it is much harder in practice to negotiate an end to a conflict on just grounds. We will do so, as we have done from beginning to end—and as the last Government did, in all fairness—by being clear that we are the closest ally of Ukraine and the most supportive country. I am proud that that is the approach we have taken in this House. \p Jonathan Brash: The Prime Minister rightly said in his statement that Putin continues to seek to undermine our security. Those efforts were  aided and abetted by Reform’s Nathan Gill when he took Russian bribes. He is a traitor to this country. How plausible does the Prime Minister think it is for that just to have been an isolated incident? Does he think that Reform’s refusal to investigate its own party and find out how many more Putin puppets and traitors lurk there tells its own story? \p Keir Starmer: The way I would put it is this: if the leadership of Reform were confident that there are no other pro-Russia activities and links in their party, they would surely want to have the investigation. The very fact that they will not look at this tells me that they are not confident of that, and they do not want any of us to know about it. \p Adam Dance: Will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that he will oppose any peace deal that rewards Russia for its aggression, whether that means carving up Ukraine’s territory or allowing Russia to join the G7? If Putin gets what he wants, this will never end. \p Keir Starmer: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman’s constituents that we will absolutely fight for a just outcome and a lasting outcome. He can tell his constituents that we are working very, very closely with the Ukrainians on this, as we always have, and supporting them for as long as they may need that support. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today, and for his continued leadership on a global scale, particularly in respect of Ukraine. I also welcome what he said about the investment that the Government will put into the Global Fund, because I recognise the importance of tackling HIV, malaria and tuberculosis. However, may I put in a personal plea for my constituent Anne Strike, a Paralympian and a polio victim, and ask that we continue to lead on the world stage in the eradication of polio? We are so close, but global conflicts such the one in Ukraine will obviously lead to more instances of polio in the future. \p Keir Starmer: My hon. Friend is a proud champion for Harlow, and I am pleased that he has raised polio in that context, linking it to his constituency. We must not lose sight of the devastating impact of polio, HIV/AIDS and TB. They are having a devastating effect across the globe, and they will be a threat to us as well if we do not act. \p Danny Chambers: I, too, thank the Prime Minister for reaffirming his commitment to the Global Fund. I secured a Backbench Business debate about the fund last week, so we really do appreciate that.

The Army Training Regiment Winchester trains about 20% of new recruits, putting them through basic training. I was there last week to see the passing-out parade. However, it is scheduled to close next summer, and the replacement facility at Pirbright is not due to open until 2030 at the earliest, although we have heard that the opening will be delayed. Will the Prime Minister review that decision? A four-year gap between one facility  closing and another opening, at a time when we are rightly trying to increase troop numbers, does not really make sense to anyone. \p Keir Starmer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I do not have the details to hand, but I will ensure that I provide a full response in writing to the point he has raised. \p Sammy Wilson: Many of the Ukrainian refugees in my constituency have welcomed the continuity between the last Government and the current Government in respect of their support for Ukraine. President Zelensky is under great pressure from some within the American Administration to accept an unreasonable deal. Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will give his commitment to the President of Ukraine to ensure that he does not have to give in to the unreasonable demands for land surrender, for a restriction of Ukraine’s ability to defend itself in future, and for Russia not to pay for the crimes that it has committed in Ukraine? That is important for Ukraine, but it is also important to send Russia the message that we will not reward the aggressor. \p Keir Starmer: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I can give him that reassurance. That is why we are working as closely as we are with the Ukrainians, particularly with the President but at all levels. \p Vikki Slade: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as the host of a Ukrainian.

Given the growing instability around the world and the absence of the US President from both the G20 summit and COP30, how will the Prime Minister use the close relationship between the UK and America to ensure that Trump does not undermine the ability of global partnerships and agencies to keep us all safe from all types of problems in the future? \p Keir Starmer: It is very important that we make the case for multilateral work across the globe, whether it is done by the G20 or by COP30. We will constantly make that case, because it is important for a rules-based system throughout the world—of which the United Nations is one part and the principles of war are another—but it is also in our own interests as the United Kingdom. \p Jim Allister: The Prime Minister has told the House today that he and the United Kingdom will never falter in support of Ukraine. Does that mean that the United Kingdom is not part of the pressure on Ukraine to concede territory that is already occupied? How could the ceding of territory be anything other than the rewarding of aggression and the whetting of the appetite of the aggressor? \p Keir Starmer: The approach that we have taken is based on the principles that I have set out to the House, and is absolutely rooted in what the Ukrainians want out of this. That is why we are speaking to and working with them so extensively in relation to these negotiations. All matters involving the future of Ukraine must be for Ukraine, and that is the guiding principle in everything that I have been doing. \p Monica Harding: I was pleased to see that Sudan was included in the G20 consensus. Will the Prime Minister set out what that will look like in practice, given that the atrocities of El Fasher seem likely to be repeated in Kordofan? What protections will be in place for the safe passage of civilians and humanitarian workers, what will be done about the assistance funding gap, and, importantly, what conversations are taking place with or about states that are said to be funding the belligerents and keeping the war going, including the United Arab Emirates? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I can reassure her that we are having extensive conversations with the Quad, which is driving this forward, on all fronts but most immediately about the humanitarian situation, and we will keep the House updated. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Prime Minister for all that he does for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, indeed, for the western world. It is appreciated by many.

There is a plan that we all hope can end the war in Ukraine and stop the devastation and the killings. Our eyes are focused on that plan. I think of the innocents killed, the women and children targeted, and the massacres carried out by Russians. I think of the children as young as eight and women as old as 80 who have been raped by Russian monsters, and of the massacres in Bakhmut, where more than 200 people were found in a mass grave. And there is more: we can watch video of Russian soldiers torturing people and murdering people. I suggest that whatever peace will bring, it must ensure that the Russians who have carried out those terrible crimes are held accountable, so can the Prime Minister confirm that there will be retribution? As a Christian, I know that there will be retribution in the next world, but what I want to see is retribution in this world, and eternal damnation for the rest of their lives. \p Keir Starmer: That may have been the last question, but it is a very important one, given the atrocities and the impact that this has had on all Ukrainians. I remember, in the early days of the conflict, seeing the images of civilians handcuffed and shot in the head, lying in the streets just outside Kyiv. It was shocking. I went to visit those communities when I was over there, and talked to the individuals. It was their brothers, their sisters, their families and their colleagues who had had their hands tied and been shot in the head, and it fell to them to pick the bodies up, put them in shopping trolleys, wheel them to their church, and try to give them the best burial they could in the circumstances. We should never lose sight of the human impact that these atrocities have, not only on those individuals but on all of us, myself included. \p Ed Miliband: With permission, I would like to make a statement about the COP30 climate summit.

The climate crisis represents the greatest long-term threat we face as a world, but the transition also represents the greatest economic opportunity of our time. At home, we are driving for clean energy and climate action, because it is right for energy security, lower bills, good jobs and growth for the British people, as well as for protecting future generations. We went to COP because, with the UK representing just 1% of annual global emissions, working with other countries to tackle the climate crisis is the only way to protect our home and way of life, and because there are huge investment and export opportunities for our country by accelerating the transition globally.

More than 190 countries participated in this COP to build on the progress made over more than three decades of global co-operation, which has seen us move from a world heading for 4°C or more of warming to one where national commitments put us on course for around 2.3° to 2.5°; from a world where no major economy had a net zero target to one where 80% of global GDP is covered, thanks in no small part to the leadership of the UK at COP26 in Glasgow; and from a world where a majority of energy investment was in fossil fuels to one where twice as much is invested in clean energy. The energy transition is happening, the world is moving and multilateralism is working. The forces around the world—including here in Britain—who want to deny that the climate crisis exists, or to delay the action we need to address it, are losing. But at the same time, we were conscious in Belém of the further progress that needs to be made. Our Brazilian hosts were determined to make this an “implementation COP”, and the negotiations served as a focal point for action. This was the first COP to be held in the Amazon, and therefore a significant focus was on protecting forests. The UK was proud to work with Brazil to help it develop the pioneering Tropical Forest Forever Facility, and work on this was moved forward at COP.

The UK was also proud to work alongside the Brazilian presidency on the global climate action agenda, which is about building coalitions of Governments, businesses, cities and civil society groups to accelerate action on issues including reducing methane emissions, phasing out coal and driving investment in clean energy. Thousands of British businesses, as well as our researchers, universities, mayors and others, were involved. The agenda is part of the unstoppable transition that is happening in the real economy, including here in Britain, where our net zero sectors are growing three times faster than the economy as a whole, and where £52 billion of private investment has been announced in clean energy since July 2024.

Turning to the negotiations themselves, I want to put on record my thanks to the UK’s brilliant COP negotiating team, led by our chief negotiator Kate Hughes. I saw once again in Belém the huge admiration there is around the world for the talent, expertise and dedication of our civil service, as well as the recognition of British climate leadership, which has built up over many decades under Governments of different political parties—the foundation of our ability to stand up for Britain on the world stage.

Of course, there is a truth that we must acknowledge: these summits are hard and complex. More than 190 countries negotiating how to transform their economies and societies is never going to be easy. We did not get everything we wanted from the talks, and there were times when it appeared that there would be no agreement, but in the end an agreement was reached, and the outcome represented progress on three critical issues.

The first is about redoubling our efforts to keep global warming to 1.5°. Last year, the Prime Minister announced the UK’s target to reduce emissions by at least 81% by 2035, based on the previous Government’s carbon budget. Many other countries have announced commitments over the last 12 months, including China pledging to cut its emissions for the first time, alongside the EU, Brazil and a total of 120 countries, covering three quarters of global emissions.

However, we must do more to close the gap to 1.5°. Recognising the urgency of action, it was agreed in the final COP30 text that all countries had to play a part to keep 1.5° within reach, that this required us to meet net zero as a world by or around the middle of the century, and that all countries should be encouraged to raise their targets. There will now be a forward process into COP31 next year, so we remain focused on the urgency of this issue.

Secondly, ambition on reducing emissions goes hand in hand with finance. This is in our interests, because there is no route to global stability, growth and development without supporting developing countries to take the low-carbon path and to better protect their populations from the impacts of the climate crisis. At COP29 in Baku last year, countries agreed that we needed to mobilise at least $300 billion per year for developing countries by 2035, and to scale up towards $1.3 trillion from all sources. COP30 agreed to target a share of the global resources agreed last year towards a trebling of adaptation finance by 2035, to make sure that developing countries have the resilience they need.

Thirdly, we know that there is no solution to the climate crisis without action on the transition away from fossil fuels. The need for this transition was agreed by all countries at COP28 in Dubai, including by the UK under the last Conservative Government. The Brazilian presidency put forward the idea of agreeing to a road map so that we could grapple with the difficult issues facing fossil fuel-producing countries, as well as the need for a just and fair transition.

At COP30, we saw the emergence of a broad coalition of 83 countries from the global north and global south, backed by more than 140 global businesses and civil society groups that endorsed the idea of a road map. This turned out to be the hardest sticking point in the talks, and it could not be agreed in the final text because some countries objected, yet as a result of the momentum built, the Brazilian presidency announced at the conclusion of the COP that it would launch such a road map on fossil fuels, as well as a road map to halt and reverse global deforestation. These coalitions of the willing are important when we cannot reach universal agreement, as we have seen with the Powering Past Coal Alliance, initiated by Britain and Canada, which is now supported by 65 national Governments.

The COP30 agreement also took important steps forward on building carbon markets, the just transition, technology transfer, and transparency on implementing commitments so that countries are properly held to account. Taken together, this package represents incremental but important progress and extends the arc of the progress we have seen over 30 years of COPs. That was particularly important this year, because the summit was a test of whether countries would continue to work together on the collective threat we face or whether, with the US stepping out of the Paris agreement, there would be a domino effect of others departing. That has not happened. At COP30, more than 190 countries reaffirmed their faith in the Paris agreement, their faith in working together to keep global warming to 1.5°, and their faith in multilateralism.

The message coming out of Belém was clear: whatever the challenges, clean energy and climate action are the foundations on which the global economy is being remade and rebuilt. That is good for Britain because of the economic opportunities that clean energy represents. It is good for Britain because it is the route to energy security and lower bills.

And it is good for Britain because it is the only way we can keep future generations safe from the threat of climate breakdown. I commend this statement to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Claire Coutinho: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

Let us be clear: when this Secretary of State resumed office, he decided to impose the most punishing climate policies at home, because according to his argument, if we lead, others will follow. That is why we are the only country in the world to be shutting down our domestic energy supply in the North sea, and why he is forcing us into ever higher energy bills. He has taken the most hair-shirt, ideological approach to climate policy, with thousands of jobs lost and high bills for decades. We are not setting an example to the rest of the world; what he has created is a warning.

It is now the renewables advocates at home who are raising the alarm about the folly of the Secretary of State’s plans to shut down the North sea. [Hon. Members: “Who?”] They say, “Who?” Let me name them. Scottish Renewables, Octopus Energy and—they may have heard of this one—the chair of his very own Great British Energy have all said that we have to continue to drill in the North sea, because they know that there is no just transition by pulling the plug as thoughtlessly as the Government are doing. This is student politics, yet thousands of Britons—[Interruption.] Labour Members laugh. I might remind them that it was their Minister who got booed when we went to Aberdeen, because thousands of Britons are paying the price with their jobs.

Secondly, while the Secretary of State has been gone, it has become even clearer that his plans are raising energy bills at home. Martin Lewis and all our country’s biggest energy suppliers have publicly made it clear that the Secretary of State’s costs are now raising bills. The truth is that he promised the public lower bills and more jobs, when in fact his policies are destroying jobs and signing us up to higher bills for decades. That is not what the public were promised.

The real path to lower emissions is cheaper electricity. If we want people to choose electric cars or electric heating, we need to make electricity cheap, and our cheap power plan would cut the cost of electricity for everyone by 20%. We have some of the cleanest but most expensive electricity in the world. Our plan would address that, and even the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), has said that it merits consideration.

Let me return to COP to see what the Secretary of State did achieve. How many countries joined his new Global Clean Power Alliance? We did not hear about that in the statement because the answer is, “Not a single one.”. Perhaps the terrible outcomes that he is achieving at home have put them off. Worst of all, despite this conference cutting down acres of the Amazon rainforest, the Secretary of State chose not to support this conference’s flagship forest fund. Every Conservative Government since 2021 have supported global funds on deforestation, but he made sure that Britain, for the first time in four years, did not contribute. Is this not the height of hypocrisy? When people say they support environmental policy, first and foremost they mean protecting the natural world that we all cherish. Does this not show up his green ideology for what it is— bureaucratic, punitive and ultimately ineffective?

The Secretary of State’s plans are completely counterproductive, so he should answer these fundamental questions. First, what do his plans mean for electricity bills, when everyone from Martin Lewis to Ofgem have made it clear that his policies are raising bills? What assessment has he made of how damaging those higher electricity bills are for electrification? Here is the rub: he is making electricity more expensive, and expecting people to use it for their heating. As a plan, it is simply absurd.

Secondly, how many more emissions will the UK account for if it is increasing its imports of liquefied natural gas, which has four times the emissions of North sea? The Secretary of State is driving away British jobs to import gas with higher emissions, and he should explain to the House what the environmental benefit of that is. Thirdly, how will it help climate change if AI firms that want to use gas power set up shop in some other country rather than Britain? Those data centres will still exist, just not here in Britain, thanks to his policies. Fourthly, what does he say to Martin Lewis, who has made it very clear that the problem pushing up bills is not gas, but his plans?

Here is the problem: from our electricity price to the North sea and AI, the Secretary of State is impoverishing Britain for no benefit to global emissions. This is student politics. We have become a warning, not an example, to the rest of the world. Here is what he should remember: no country is going to be convinced by a moral lecture from this Secretary of State. They are persuaded by prosperity, and his hair-shirt approach is the biggest blocker to British prosperity. \p Ed Miliband: Oh dear, oh dear! I remember a time when the Conservative party was serious about the COP negotiations. The shadow Secretary of State had advance sight of the statement, but she did not ask any questions about it. I have to say that there is a fundamental issue here: do we engage internationally on how we  drive forward the clean energy transition, or do we have a series of really pretty useless talking points, which is what she chose to do?

Let me get to the right hon. Lady’s questions, such as they were. She talks about jobs, so let me tell her some of the things that have happened on jobs in the last couple of weeks: 3,000 new jobs with the small modular reactors in north Wales, which is the biggest investment in north Wales in a generation—promised multiple times by the Conservatives, but never delivered—and 600 jobs in Great Yarmouth, Belfast and the north-west, all thanks to our clean power plans, while SSE has announced thousands more jobs as part of its £33 billion investment in the UK.

Let us not forget that all of this would be put at risk by the Conservatives’ plan to rip up the Climate Change Act 2008. Do not take it from me; in the words of Rain Newton-Smith, the director general of the CBI, that would be

“a backwards step in achieving our shared objectives of reaching economic growth, boosting energy security, protecting our environment and making life healthier for future generations.”

It has been roundly condemned by British business, and of course the proof is what we have seen in the last 15 months. The shadow Secretary of State talks about the record, but more than £50 billion of investment in clean energy in Britain has been pledged because of our plans.

The right hon. Lady talks about bills, but her problem is that she has learned nothing from the disaster the Conservatives imposed on the country with the worst cost of living crisis in generations in this country— \p James Cartlidge: Because Putin invaded Ukraine! \p Ed Miliband: Oh! The hon. Member says it was because Putin invaded Ukraine—excellent, excellent! I congratulate him on his sedentary intervention—exactly, exactly! Why did prices go through the roof and why were we so exposed? Because of our exposure to fossil fuels. And what do the Conservatives want to do? Double down on our exposure to fossil fuels. As the shadow Secretary of State knows, the truth, as the Conservatives used to believe before they went a bit more wacky than they were before, is that there is only one route to energy security in the modern world, which is clean home-grown power that we control. Despite everything they say, the truth is that they have learned nothing from what happened.

Let me turn to the questions, such as they were, on the COP. By the way, the shadow Secretary of State complains about the COP being held in the Amazon. I have to say to her that, with the greatest of respect, I will take President Lula’s judgment about where the COP should be held rather than hers. For goodness’ sake, have a bit of respect for the Brazilian presidency! It decided that the right thing to do was to hold the COP in the Amazon to draw attention to the issue of deforestation, and she is complaining about its decisions to make the COP possible—for goodness’ sake!

On the point about the TFFF, we are supportive of it, and we will keep under review whether we can make a contribution. It was because of fiscal circumstances that we did not, but we are investing more than £1 billion over five years in countering deforestation. I am proud of what we are doing on that and the Congo basin.

On the point about British leadership, the right hon. Lady could not be more wrong about the role of Britain on these things. What people are seeing is an ambitious Government who are leading on these issues, so there is actually some respect for what Britain is suggesting others should do. There is a record under both parties that we need to learn from here, and I say this as politely as I can to the Conservative party: ambition at home is what makes possible leadership abroad. We passed the Climate Change Act in 2008, which she now wants to rip up, and 60 countries followed us. We put net zero into law by 2050, and she wants to rip it up. I praise Theresa May for that, but is it not extraordinary that I can praise Theresa May, but the Conservative party cannot do so? She put net zero by 2050 into law, which the Conservatives want to rip up, and 80% of global GDP has followed us.

I will end by saying that there is a truth here, which is that the Conservatives used to aspire to global Britain. Now, they have simply become the party of little Britain, and it really does not look good. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. \p Bill Esterson: My right hon. Friend rightly reminded us of the progress that was made at COP. The recommitment to limiting global warming to no more than 1.5° is hugely important. He was honest in saying that we did not get everything we wanted, and that is sensible. However, he also reminded us of the absolute seriousness of climate breakdown, and that we must take every action possible. That goes beyond COP, and I hope he agrees that that work should continue whether or not it is in relation to a COP.

The Secretary of State started to talk about energy security, and I want to link this subject to that, because there is a worrying tendency towards a loss of support for the transition. Does he agree that it is really important, especially in the light of the ongoing aggression from Russia—and we have just had a statement, including on Ukraine, demonstrating it—that we make it clear to people that energy security and climate breakdown are very strongly linked, and that the answer to both of them is the energy transition? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The reason we have seen a movement of support for the transition away from fossil fuels is not simply climate-related, but energy security-related. Lots of countries, including Britain, recognise—unwittingly helpfully, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said this from a sedentary position—that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine showed our vulnerability due to our reliance on fossil fuels. At a very striking roundtable hosted by Marina Silva, the Environment Minister in Brazil, many countries from the global north and the global south said the same thing, which is that, for them, the move away from fossil fuels towards home-grown clean energy is the route to energy security, so he makes a very important point.

The only other point I would make is that my hon. Friend is right that these negotiations are hard and painstaking. We have to look at the progress that has been made over  the course of the 30 years. It is tough, and different countries are in different positions, but that is what these talks are all about. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Pippa Heylings: COP30 was the first climate summit since the world experienced a full year of global warming above 1.5°C. That is a stark reminder of the urgency we collectively face. At home, due to extreme weather, our farmers faced their worst harvest on record and lost billions in income from arable crops, while we saw devastating wildfires, doubling records, that wiped out national parks and local environments that are precious to everyone. These are the costs of inaction and climate breakdown here in the UK.

I was proud to be part of a cross-party group of MPs who attended this COP and to carry with me the hopes of young people in South Cambridgeshire who sent me pictures, videos and poems. Freya, aged 11, wrote:

“I don’t want to just inherit my future. I want to be able to shape the decisions and actions that others are taking on my behalf, because I am afraid.”

I want to commend Brazil, the Secretary of State, the UK negotiating team and all those who worked tirelessly to keep the COP process alive, despite relentless attacks from climate denialism, delay and deception. The multilateral system is far from perfect, but it is the best alternative we have for global co-operation on climate change. There were positives: the pledges to cut methane; the recognition of the links between climate, nature and public health; the commitment to triple adaptation finance, which we know from Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica is absolutely critical; and the demonstration by business that the transition is an economic imperative and opportunity.

The global climate action agenda is just so inspiring and has a massive impact, but we know that hope was not matched by delivery: there is still no credible plan to reduce the gap between current national commitments and the reductions needed to stay below 1.5°C; the refusal to reference fossil fuels and the transition away in the final text, despite it being the root cause of the crisis, was a staggering failure; and the Prime Minister’s unexpected and inexplicable decision not to support the Tropical Forests Forever Facility was really, really disturbing. This was what Brazil launched: an innovative investment facility to save tropical forests and give them a value while standing. \p Ed Miliband: I agreed with much—not all—of what the hon. Lady said. On her overall point about the fact that we have so many countries driving forward with action, she is absolutely right. On her point about the gap to achieving 1.5°C, she is also absolutely right. In a sense, part of what the future of these COPs will be about is each country driving others towards greater ambition, because we know we need greater ambition. It is also important to look at where the world has come from. The multilateral process has all kinds of maddening aspects to it, but it has definitely made progress. On the point about business, she is absolutely right and that is really striking. The fact of the agreement and the fact of this staying on track is an important signal to business, just as the Climate Change Act 2008 is an important signal to business here at home.

On the hon. Lady’s point about the TFFF, let me say candidly that we have a very difficult fiscal situation in this country. We have not ruled out contributing to investing in the TFFF in future. It is, as the Prime Minister said, something that we will keep under review. Overall, I thank her for her support, because we want to keep as much of the cross-party consensus as we possibly can on this really important matter. \p Sarah Coombes: I was part of that same cross-party delegation to COP in Belém. We were proud to meet parliamentarians from all over the world who are absolutely invested in the COP process and still absolutely believe in its importance. I was struck by how many conversations we had about the UK’s enduring global leadership on climate change, from our landmark Climate Change Act in 2008 under the last Labour Government to our clean energy policies today. It is not just about driving down carbon emissions and climate change; it is also about Britain’s role in the world. Will the Secretary of State commit Britain to continuing to lead the way on driving down carbon emissions and saving our planet, and continuing to make the case that this action is making life in Britain for British people safer and cheaper? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. With the UK at 1% of global emissions, as I said in my statement, engaging with the world is incredibly important. There is huge respect for Britain on these issues. I give credit to some of the actions taken under the previous Government by Lord Sharma and Theresa May, because the different actions we have taken have built a legacy of British leadership and it is incredibly important to build on that. \p Blake Stephenson: I, too, would like to ask the Secretary of State some questions on the TFFF. I am glad that he is proud of the previous Government’s actions and innovation in setting up that facility. He has explained that there is a tough fiscal situation and that is why the Government are currently not committing to that fund, but it is disappointing that in the statement there is only sentence on the TFFF. It concludes that

“work on this was moved forward at COP”.

Will he please update the House on what specifically was “moved forward” at COP in relation to the TFFF? When will decisions be made in the future about a financial commitment to that facility? \p Ed Miliband: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and I am very happy to expand on what I said in my statement. We have worked—under the previous Government and under this Government, particularly in the last year—with the Brazilian Government on the design of the TFFF. Work was moved forward because a number of countries pledged investment in the TFFF. There were lots of discussions, at the side and indeed at the world leaders’ summit, on the TFFF and the innovative idea. We pledged both to keep under review our potential public financial contribution and to continue the work with the City of London on the TFFF. Obviously, that is a decision on the financial contribution. I know better than to speculate about these things, because they rely on the Treasury and other matters, but it is something we are going to look at over the coming months. \p Uma Kumaran: I, too, was on the cross-party delegation that attended COP, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes)—I take this opportunity to wish her a happy birthday. I welcome the Prime Minister’s global leadership on climate and his attendance at COP30 in Belém, and indeed the leading role played by the British cross-party contingent of MPs, Ministers, non-governmental organisations and our world-class scientists. My constituents sent me hundreds of messages ahead of my travel to COP30. Among them were asks about our plans for our clean energy transition. Will the Secretary of State outline to the House what Labour’s plans are for clean power by 2030, alongside our world-leading nationally determined contribution, and how we are encouraging other countries to act on the climate crisis? \p Ed Miliband: I welcome the fact—I should have done so earlier—that my hon. Friend and other Members from all parties were at COP30. British Government representation is important, but so is British parliamentary representation and the more cross-party it is, as far as I am concerned, the better. My hon. Friend’s point about the NDCs is important. Our NDC, our 81% reduction, is based on the carbon budget passed by Boris Johnson in the run-up to COP26. We have taken that target, in good cross-party tradition, and put it forward as part of the UN framework. On clean power by 2030, we are driving ahead with our plans on clean energy, with more than £50 billion-worth of investment in clean energy pledged. All of that is a crucial contribution. Britain’s leadership on these issues is recognised and gives us more power in these discussions and negotiations. \p Christopher Chope: Is it not a cruel confidence trick to suggest that 1.5°C is still achievable, when it manifestly is not? Earlier this month, the International Energy Agency confirmed 2.9°C by 2100 as its central scenario and that a 2.5°C increase by 2050 was totally unrealistic and unachievable. Would the Government not be better off spending our taxpayers’ money on adapting to the realities—increasing resilience and ensuring we improve our flood defences and so on—and preparing for the inevitable, instead of continuing to punish the British people? \p Ed Miliband: I have had this exchange with the hon. Gentleman before—he is too pessimistic. If we had taken that approach before, we would be heading for 4°C or 5°C of global warming. Yes, it is true that the central scenario is somewhere between 2.3°C and 2.5°C depending on which figures one looks at, but the whole point is to bring the numbers down. People talk about negative tipping points, and we are right to be worried about those, which is why, I am afraid, we cannot just let it happen—it would be a disaster. We should also think about positive tipping points. On solar energy in the past decade, for example, we have exceeded the forecasts that the IEA and others had. We need to move towards those positive tipping points.

I am not giving up on 1.5°C, but I make this point to the hon. Gentleman: every fraction of a degree that we reduce warming will save many lives across the globe, prevent many disasters and reduce the costs that future generations face. I agree with him about investing in adaptation, but we have got to do both. \p Rosie Wrighting: For a long time there has been a consensus on the need to take action against climate change in this House, so it is disappointing and saddening to see the Secretary of State, Members on the Government Benches and the Lib Dems having to come to this House to defend a position that used to be shared. I was proud to be at COP with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), who I wish a happy birthday, to see UK negotiators and Ministers taking a leading role in action to protect my generation and generations to come. Does the Secretary of State agree that Reform UK’s dangerous anti-climate politics show that with them our future is at risk? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend speaks incredibly well about this issue, and it is worth pausing and recognising what she has said. Since I have been involved in this issue, all the way back to David Cameron—I call him my nemesis—there has been a competition in this House for climate ambition. That was good, and it was recognised across the world—that was when the Conservative party won elections. My hon. Friend has said something really important; the sooner we can get back to that, the better. I do not think the British people want a culture war on climate. They do not want an imported US-style culture war, and the sooner the Conservative party recognises that, the better. \p Claire Young: Increasing the sustainability of agriculture is a vital part of action on climate change, and it was particularly relevant at a COP held in the rainforest, which is under pressure from farming. Can the Secretary of State outline the discussions he had at COP on agriculture, and will he work with his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to reverse this Government’s mistakes and provide UK farmers with the financial support they need to play their part? \p Ed Miliband: We are making big investments in farming and agriculture. In answering the hon. Lady’s question, I will take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), who are both with me on the Front Bench. They were part of the negotiations and discussions, including on agriculture and the question of methane. The UK produced its methane action plan in the run-up to COP; methane reduction is an area where we can make quick progress that can have real benefit in bridging the gap to 1.5°C. There were definitely extensive discussions on that; the world made progress on methane and it is something that we will keep working on in the months ahead. \p Polly Billington: I am sure the Secretary of State would not necessarily like me to remind him that it is 16 years since the first COP he attended with me, which was significantly less successful than the one this year. I commend him for his great effort over that time in managing to demonstrate the UK’s leadership on climate change. That cannot be underestimated, and despite what some on the Opposition  Benches think, we make a difference by demonstrating what is possible in climate actions here at home. Where we lead, others follow.

For that reason, the Secretary of State also knows how important nature is in contributing to tackling climate change, and how much our constituents value nature at home and abroad. In that light, financing is important, especially maintaining the amount of funding in the new international climate finance budget for nature projects. Will he confirm that a third of the new budget will be spent on nature projects, with half of that spent on protecting forests? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend reminds me how old I am, for which I am grateful! At various points in the middle of the night, Friday into Saturday, I could not help feeling a slight sense of Copenhagen post-traumatic stress disorder as I thought we were heading for no agreement. One of the things I consoled myself with was that the world is actually much further forward than it was when the Copenhagen summit foundered. On my hon. Friend’s important points about international finance and nature finance, despite the difficult fiscal circumstances, we have maintained funding of £11.6 billion over five years in the ICF. We will be making new announcements in the coming months, but the points that she makes about protecting nature and tackling the climate crisis going together are very well taken. \p Esther McVey: What commitments were secured at COP30 from the countries responsible for the highest carbon emissions—China, the US and India—to reduce their emissions, given that their leaders, Xi, Trump and Modi, could not even be bothered to attend? Or did those countries fail to commit to reducing their carbon emissions and to phasing out their use of fossil fuels, instead allowing the Secretary of State to walk his ideological path of net zero, which is destroying the UK’s industrial and manufacturing base and pushing our population into poverty with ever-higher energy bills? \p Ed Miliband: I definitely disagree with the last part of the right hon. Lady’s question, because net zero is actually the greatest economic opportunity that we have, which is why we are going to create 400,000 new clean energy jobs by 2030. On the first part of her question, which is really important, let me answer her directly: I would like China to go further, but for the first time it has announced an absolute reduction in its emissions. It is really important to understand that. I think it could go further, but this is a very significant moment. When I was at COP 15 years ago, the notion that China would have had an absolute emissions target—never mind that it would be cutting its emissions—was frankly fanciful.

I did an event with the Indian Minister. Again, India could go further, but it has reached its target to have 50% of its electricity supplied by non-fossil fuel sources five years early—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member is shaking her head. She asked a question, and I am answering it. The notion that no other country is acting is frankly wrong. \p Lizzi Collinge: The objections to global and national action on climate change frankly baffle me, not least because of the climate emergency, but also because of the opportunity it brings  to our country. My constituency has had good clean energy jobs for decades through Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations—I keep pushing for Heysham 3. Does the Secretary of State agree that the agreements at COP30 and the Government’s actions on climate change are an opportunity to not only fight climate change and create good jobs, but improve living standards in our country and across the globe? \p Ed Miliband: I agree 100%. For all that the Opposition say, according to the Confederation of British Industry the net zero economy is growing three times faster than the economy as a whole. There is a reason why China, India and all those other countries are driving into clean energy: they see it as a massive economic opportunity. The Opposition would say, “Let’s just rip up that economic opportunity.” Frankly, that would be a betrayal of not just young people, who will look at them and think, “What about our future?” but people today who want those good jobs. \p Graham Leadbitter: Right across the world, people’s day-to-day lives are being destroyed by the impacts of climate change and associated industrial activity, from the indigenous tribes of the Amazon seeing their rainforest home destroyed around them, to island peoples in the Pacific, whose nations will literally cease to exist as water levels rise. To many people looking at COP30, it feels like developed nations are taking a somewhat protectionist view at the expense of millions of people. In years to come, when the Secretary of State looks back at this COP, will he be able to say that he did absolutely everything he could for those people? From here, it does not look good for so many people who are on the brink. \p Ed Miliband: That is an absolutely fair question; it is one I ask myself a lot. Are we doing everything we can despite the global pressures and how difficult it is? I will tell the House this: as it looked like we were going to end up with no deal, I thought a lot about what signal that would send. At the same time, though, we wanted to have as robust an agreement as possible. My answer to the hon. Gentleman’s very legitimate question is yes; we are trying to do absolutely everything we can, but it is hard because 190-something countries are all wrestling with their own dilemmas and constraints. However, he is right to push us to do as much as we can, because we are the generation that both knows the scale of the crisis that confronts us and has the chance to do something about it. Future generations will have less opportunity to do anything about it because the pathway will be more set. He is absolutely right to push us. \p Toby Perkins: Meeting international colleagues at COP30, the extent to which the UK’s track record and the policy of this Government are hugely respected was absolutely clear. In fact, while many of the steps this Government have taken received huge support, there was also great respect for the steps that the previous Government had taken. I share my right hon. Friend’s despair that the current version of the Conservative party not only opposes his policies, but trashes its own history, which—in this area at least—should be a proud one.

While I absolutely believe that we would not have got the statement that we did get without his work and the work of his colleagues over there, does the Secretary of  State agree that it is disappointing that the road map towards the eradication of fossil fuels was not agreed? On that basis, what more will he be doing to try to bring that coalition together to get greater agreement when we get to Turkey next year, or even before that? \p Ed Miliband: First, I thank my hon. Friend, who is the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, for the really outstanding job they do. I think the observations from my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) on the Conservative party are right; I will not add to them because he put them well.

The transition away is the hardest part of the negotiations, as I said, and that is not surprising, because some countries are extremely reliant on fossil fuels and are very reluctant—I think, in retrospect, they are quite reluctant about what was agreed at COP28, which is part of the difficulties we have. I agree with my hon. Friend about continuing to push for this to be part of the negotiations, but I think we also have to accept, as I said in my statement, that part of what we did on coal—and, to be fair, what the previous Government did on coal—is work with others. We have to work as much as we can both inside and outside the formal negotiations with others to drive these issues forward. The lesson of COP history is that we keep pushing forward on these issues; it might be slightly three steps forward, two steps back, but we do make progress. \p Andrew Mitchell: If I may, I will focus on the international rather than domestic aspects. I welcome the Secretary of State’s ecumenical approach in respect of the work of the former Government. I have been going to COPs since Copenhagen in 2009, with the last one being COP28 in the UAE, and I do wonder whether, at least in their current form, they are worth continuing. They are hugely expensive jamborees; hydrocarbon interests are distorting the original aim of COP; the wealthy countries are increasingly in the dock, but have decreasing money available. On the wider aspect, it is the poorest people in the world who suffer first and hardest from climate change. There is no doubt that the appalling humanitarian crisis in Darfur is exacerbated by climate change, yet we are doing very little about that. \p Ed Miliband: I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman and his work under the previous Government on a whole range of development and climate issues, and I thank him for his question. I think my view of COP is a bit like the Churchill view of democracy: it is the least-worst system we have. For all the complaints and all the problems with it, we are bringing together 193 or 194 countries and, as he will know from his experience of COPs, there is an element of accountability: the smallest island states can confront the big emitters.

This is hard, and it is painful, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman cares passionately about these issues. We skated over it in these discussions, but I would just say to him that the agreement to treble adaptation finance within the new collective quantified goal that was agreed last year, which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) drew attention to, is a significant development. It is not as much as many of the developing countries want, and looking at the scale  of need—Hurricane Melissa, and so on—we can see the difficulties. I was involved in the £100 billion overall finance that Gordon Brown produced around the Copenhagen summit; again, it was hard, and developing countries complained about it being late, but it did set a bar of accountability for the developed world. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that I am sure the process could be better, but I do think it is an important mechanism of accountability and driving progress. \p Alex Sobel: It is great to see my right hon. Friend back at the Dispatch Box once more after taking a global leading role at COP. We could have no better Secretary of State in this area. Whatever the Opposition say, the Secretary of State in the global mainstream of climate leadership. As he knows, article 6 was operationalised at last at COP29 last year. The UK, and particularly the City of London, could have a global leading role in utilising article 6 to preserve nature to afforest and restore wetlands, peat bogs and marine environments. We know that countries around the world—not just in the global south, but countries including Ukraine—are putting article 6 into domestic law. What more could we do in the UK to ensure that our City of London, and our global finance money, is creating that natural capital through article 6 around the world? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend draws attention to something that is relatively obscure in the big scheme of things that we talk about in this House, but which is incredibly important none the less. Article 6 on carbon markets was agreed last year after, I think, a decade of effort. I want to pay tribute, by the way, to Rachel Kyte, our climate envoy, who was very much part of that, and indeed Ruth Davis, our nature envoy. Two things are interesting about this. The first is that the Brazilians launched what they call the open coalition on compliance carbon markets to drive work on carbon markets forward. I was part of those discussions. The second interesting thing that has happened is that the idea of the carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM, which has been called for by lots of Members of this House, has actually pushed forward some of the work on carbon markets. I think I am right in saying that 7% of the world was covered by carbon markets 15 years ago, and now it is 28%, so progress is moving forward. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the potential role of the City of London in this. \p Roz Savage: Like the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), I am a survivor of COP15 in Copenhagen. I have seen just what hard work it is, and I commend the cross-party delegation for representing our country so well in Belém. However, environmental campaigners have raised concerns over the carbon budget delivery and the growth plan’s reliance on unproven technologies such as sustainable aviation fuel and carbon capture and sequestration. How will the Government ensure that the UK is not simply offshoring ecological impacts, including deforestation, or relying on fantasy future technologies on our pathway to net zero? \p Ed Miliband: First, I thank the hon. Lady for her advocacy on these issues now and over a very long period, which is widely recognised. On CCS and SAF,  I think we will have to agree to disagree, based on all the evidence I have seen. For the real nerds present, among which I obviously count myself, I strongly recommend the IEA’s “World Energy Outlook”, which came out during the COP—I have slightly lost track of when—and which looks at how far we are from the net zero pathway. It actually shows that we have overachieved on renewables, but we need to go further on some other issues. All the experts I respect say that there is no route to decarbonisation without carbon sequestration technology in different forms. As well as that, CCS is a big jobs creator. CCS and SAF are an important part of the future, and technological development is part of what we need. We have existing technologies, such as solar, wind and batteries, and they can also help us. We have seen a driving down of the cost of those, and we need to do the same for these other technologies. \p Stella Creasy: I was not at COP, unlike some of my colleagues, but I am so glad that others were there and saw, in particular, the enduring leadership of the Secretary of State on this issue. I am glad that my right hon. Friend is not listening to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who said that we should be adapting to reality, because it is the poorest people in our societies, both at home and abroad, who often pay the ultimate price for our failure to tackle the climate crisis. It is also one of the biggest drags on growth.

It is because of the powerful leadership that the Secretary of State has shown at COP this weekend that I have to press him. He will know of the concerns many of us have that decisions at home around issues such as Jackdaw and Rosebank could undermine that leadership. Those developments could lead to nearly 300 million tonnes of carbon emissions and fatally attack our ability to stick to the 1.5°C increase in temperature. It would also not help the cost of living crisis. I know that there is a process ahead. Can he assure us that he will rethink the developments and that our global leadership as well as our local cost of living will be foremost in his mind when he makes a decision on Rosebank and Jackdaw? \p Ed Miliband: I am not going to comment on planning decisions. I will, however, make the overall point that this Government had two manifesto commitments: to keep existing oil and gas fields in the North sea open for their lifetime, and not to issue new licences to explore new fields. Those were important commitments. They are how we will combine the just transition in the North sea, including for North sea communities, and ensure that we have environmental leadership. We are committed to both those things. I thank my hon. Friend for her wider advocacy on all these issues. \p Kit Malthouse: I am grateful to learn from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) that I am not the only person who was not invited to COP30. But I followed it closely and was very pleased to see the emergence of the Belém 4X agreement, which committed its signatories to quadrupling the production and deployment of sustainable fuel molecules by 2035. That would include, most importantly for the United Kingdom, green hydrogen. Unfortunately, while I could find the names of India, Italy and, obviously, Brazil on the agreement, I could not find the United Kingdom’s name. Did I miss it? \p Ed Miliband: The right hon. Member did not miss it. Broadly, we are supporters of green hydrogen and many other things he mentions. Our issue is to do with whether the quadrupling of biofuels can be done in a sustainable way. We think that work now needs to be done to ensure that there are proper guardrails around this issue. The broader point he makes about diversification, green hydrogen and all those things is something we very much agree with. \p Barry Gardiner: I thank my right hon. Friend for the leadership he has shown internationally and nationally over the past 20 years—it has been quite remarkable. I thank him for his statement today. He will have seen over the time that has elapsed since COP26 in Glasgow the change in the language that is used. In Glasgow, when discussing the Glasgow climate pact, we talked about “phasing out” coal and fossil fuel subsidies. We then moved to “phasing down” and then to “transitioning away”. Now we have a “plan” or “pathway” to transitioning away. That, I am sure, causes alarm bells to ring in his head, as it does in mine. Can he tell us what he sees as the role of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance? He spoke about the need to work with other countries for a really ambitious future. How does he propose to do that? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend has enormous expertise on these issues, which he showed with his question. BOGA, as it is known, has played a really important role in assembling this coalition of more than 80 countries over the global north and global south. Indeed, I was proud to be part of an event and this precedent we set with the alliance on these issues.

My hon. Friend’s wider point is correct: this is hard. There are countries that are resistant to this change and think that previous agreements went too far. That is part of the dialogue being had at these COPs. I think we learn a lesson from what has happened on coal though. The progress the world has made on coal, including the UK, is partly reflected in the agreement at COP26, but it is also about the high-ambition coalitions that form together. As I said in response to an earlier question, we have to do both these things. We have to work in the context of the agreements—but, because they rely on unanimity, we cannot always get what we want—and then we have to work in these broader coalitions. \p Harpreet Uppal: It was disappointing to hear from the shadow Secretary of State that tackling climate change and attending COP is student politics. Clearly it is not; it is about grown-ups coming to the table. I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their commitment and work to get the agreement at COP. As we start looking towards COP31, how are we advancing and monitoring the domestic implementation of our nationally determined contributions? Can the Secretary of State also set out how global agreements at COP translate to practical support for communities and businesses in Huddersfield? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend made a very important point with her opening remarks, which I will let Members absorb. On her specific questions, we have a very important carbon budget monitoring system within Government. It is important to say that at the same time as the Conservatives are saying that they want to rip up the  Act that they supported, and that David Cameron even had a hand in helping to shape from opposition, so many countries around the world still ask us about it and want to work out how to emulate it. It is head-spinning really.

On my hon. Friend’s point about her constituents, she is absolutely right. In so many different ways, we want to support her constituents. This is about not just future generations but good jobs today, cutting bills, helping community organisations to put solar panels on their rooftops, schools and hospitals and all those things. It is about bringing the benefits of clean energy to her community and communities across Britain. \p Judith Cummins: Order. I will finish this statement in the next 10 to 15 minutes, so I would be grateful if Members and the Secretary of State could keep their answers short. \p Ellie Chowns: We are at a pivotal moment in the climate crisis. COP30 showed us the fossil fuel industry and its political cheerleaders doing their very best to de-rail action. I thank the Secretary of State for his work. I have two questions on points he raised in his statement. First, he said that ambition must be matched with finance, yet the UK has not contributed to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility or the just transition mechanism. Is it not time for the UK to put its money where its mouth is on this? Secondly, on the point of transitioning away from fossil fuels, the UK faces a defining test: Rosebank. Will he reject the Rosebank oilfield and fully back the just transition that our country needs? \p Ed Miliband: On the second point, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). On the first point, I think she is being a little unfair, to put it mildly, on the UK. We led the process of agreeing last year an ambitious NCQG on overall finance. We were part of an agreement that saw the trebling of adaptation finance by 2035, targeting those resources. She knows the fiscal situation that we face as a country. I say very clearly to her, and to all Members of this House who take an interest in these issues, that we absolutely have not ruled out contributing to the TFFF in the future. \p Tulip Siddiq: The Secretary of State will know my constituents well and will know that climate change is a huge concern for them. They are particularly concerned that the Government talk a lot about tackling climate change during COP, but all year round it falls off the agenda. Will he reassure my constituents that this is an ongoing commitment from the Government to tackle climate change and that the agreed road map for fossil fuels will not somehow become a loophole for climate inaction? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend asks a good and important question about keeping climate change on the agenda all year round. This is partly about international negotiations, but it is as much about the work that we do at home. Whether announcing new SMRs in north Wales, showing the jobs that come from tackling the climate crisis or putting solar panels on the roofs of schools and hospitals, that is all part of the argument for how this is the route to the right thing not just for future generations but for  today’s generations. On the fossil fuel road map, we will work with Brazil on that, and I assure her that it will not be the thing that she fears. \p Llinos Medi: I thank the Secretary of State for the recent decision on the small modular reactor at Wylfa. To stay committed to the goals of the Paris agreement, we need to speed up the roll-out of technologies such as marine energy. Ynys Môn is home to the world-leading, community-owned Morlais tidal stream project. However, developers require a strategic vision from the Government to develop at pace. Will he consider setting a £40 million tidal stream and a £7 million wave energy ringfence in the next renewable auctions, as advocated for by the UK Marine Energy Council? \p Ed Miliband: I thank the hon. Lady for her support for the SMR fleet in north Wales; the announcement that we made was a really important one. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, who is not in the Chamber, is very much involved with the Marine Energy Council. We have been proud in previous auctions to support tidal energy, which has a really important role. It is obviously a more expensive technology at the moment; we need to drive its costs down. I will pass her request on to him, and I am sure that he will get back to her. \p Joe Morris: I commend the Secretary of State for his ongoing commitment to fighting the scourge of climate change in the face of rising denialism. I was really pleased to hear him leave the door open to future contributions to the TFFF. Will he spell out the circumstances in which they might come to reassure me and my constituents, who are deeply concerned that that did not come forward at this COP? \p Ed Miliband: That would be telling. Those are the discussions that we need to have with colleagues across government, including in the Treasury, as we look at the ICF programme and others in the future. But I do want to reassure my hon. Friend. We are proud to have worked on the TFFF over all the time of this Government, and indeed part of the time under the previous Government, we think it is a very innovative financing mechanism, and we are absolutely serious about keeping a future UK contribution under review. \p Carla Lockhart: We all believe in keeping our planet sustainable and being good custodians of our environment. What most people do not agree with, however, is the madness of net zero, with its astronomical cost to the taxpayer for minimal impact on a global scale and the damage that unachievable targets are having on agriculture and manufacturing. Will the Energy Secretary tell us what he is doing to ensure sustainability, given the six tonnes of CO2 he is supposed to have emitted as a result of two flights to Brazil to be part of COP30 along with 56,000 others, the £1,250-a-night hotels and the estimated £22,000 on flight costs? It would appear to most of the general public to be a case of, “Do as I say and not as I do.” \p Ed Miliband: I could not disagree more with the hon. Lady. Honestly, this is a really important point: either we engage in international action on the global stage or  we do not. We are 1% of global emissions, and unless we engage with the countries that produce the other 99% of global emissions, we will never keep our country safe. Do not look into the crystal ball; look at the record. Thirty years of COPs have reduced global warming forecasts from 4°—indeed 5°—to something like 2.3° to 2.5°. It is about multilateralism and working with others; that is so important. This is about our view of Britain. Are we a small, shrivelled country that cannot have any sway, or are we a country that can engage and stand tall on the global stage? That is what I believe. \p Abtisam Mohamed: I thank the Secretary of State for his update and commend his continued leadership on this issue. I welcome the conference’s focus on strengthening multilateralism, including creating the Belém mechanism for a just global transition. But beyond the walls of the conference, here in the UK we need to be moving much faster away from oil and gas. The UK’s four biggest banks continue to finance polluters, and the drilling licence for Rosebank still has not been rejected. Does the Secretary of State agree that it should be the big polluters subsidising the taxpayer in our climate response and not the other way round? \p Ed Miliband: I will be brief. My hon. Friend raises the issue of the banks. I encourage her to contribute to our consultation on transition plans for financial institutions and large companies, because that is an important part of making sure that the investments being made are aligned with net zero and the wider argument on tackling the climate crisis. She makes an important point. \p Monica Harding: Other countries in straitened fiscal circumstances did pledge to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, so will the Secretary of State explain why the Government failed to commit a single penny, despite the fund being conceived and designed with British minds? There was even talk of it being headquartered here in the City, yet not a penny of official development assistance is being used. That damages our climate credibility as well as our relationship with Brazil and with our own future generations. What should I say to schoolchildren in my constituency who are involved in student politics and who asked me to go to Belém to help save the rainforest? \p Ed Miliband: The hon. Lady should tell her constituents that we played a big role in helping to devise the TFFF, that we have absolutely not ruled out contributing to it in the future and that we are determined that the fund succeeds. As I have said, we will obviously keep the question of a UK contribution under review. \p Olivia Blake: I thank the Secretary of State for his clear leadership, which is in stark contrast to the shadow Secretary of State. I was dismayed to hear her comments, which offered a complete dereliction of duty to future generations and followed others’ failures of leadership rather than showing leadership. I warmly welcome the role that the UK played under the Secretary of State’s leadership in championing the road map for fossil fuel phase out, but there is an elephant in the room. Will the Government continue that leadership by ruling out extraction at Rosebank? \p Ed Miliband: On that question, I refer to the answer I gave a few minutes ago. My hon. Friend made a really important wider point. All hon. Members should ask this: when people look back in 10 or 20 years, will they say, “Why were they going on about that climate change business? That all turned out to be a passing fad.” I do not think so. Or will they say, “They were the generation who had the opportunity to act—why weren’t they doing more?” I think the latter is much more likely than the former. \p Sammy Wilson: Does the Secretary of State not see the irony of 53,000 people—about 400 from each of the participating countries—flying to Brazil and landing on airfields cut out of the tropical forest to discuss, of all things, the reduction of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere? Of course, they reached the conclusion that to keep our homes warm and our economies ticking over, we will still need oil and gas.

The Secretary of State has talked about the UK’s vulnerability in depending on foreign sources of fuel. Why, then, does he resist and block the use of the plentiful gas and oil resources we have in our economy that could generate jobs, raise tax revenue, cut costs and reduce imports? \p Ed Miliband: I just do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman—he and I have been having this disagreement for 20 years. I will concentrate on his first question. The truth is—I say this to him in all honesty—if we disengage from the world, it will not serve Britain’s interests; it will harm our interests. When we think about all the problems that the world faces, including but not limited to the climate crisis, multilateralism and working with others is the only solution. The idea that we should not engage in COP because it involves travel seems very mistaken. \p Rachael Maskell: Leadership at home, leadership globally, and now we need leadership on the fossil fuels road map. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will play a pivotal role in setting the terms of reference, the scope and the ambition of that. It is also important to build the industrial strategy to ensure  that we can see a just transition for so many countries. How will he lead that opportunity for our country and others to ensure that fossil fuels are the focus leading into COP31? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I will concentrate on the first bit of her question. This is very much about the just transition. Seventy thousand jobs were lost in the North sea under the last Government and they did not put in place the alternatives. That is why our investments in carbon capture and storage, offshore wind, electricity networks and all those things are crucial to provide the jobs of the future, as well as having North sea oil and gas fields open for their lifetime. We need to do both those things, and that is what the Government are determined to do. \p John Slinger: During a stimulating discussion with the highly informed students of Ashlawn school in Rugby yesterday, I mentioned COP30 as an example of how global politics is highly relevant to them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that strong British leadership at multilateral negotiations is part of a rebalancing that is more important than ever; preferencing the interests of the younger and future generations and giving them meaningful agency in our world? \p Ed Miliband: That is a good point to end on. I congratulate the students at Ashlawn school for their interest. With the greatest of respect to all Members of this House, the young people at that school will have to live with the consequences of the decisions we make for much longer than us. I intend to live for a long time; nevertheless, they are the people who will have to deal with those consequences. We owe it to them to focus on doing everything we can to tackle this issue.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the only way we can do that is by working with other countries and by putting our faith not in letting each other sink or swim but in multilateralism. For all its flaws, that is what this COP was about and that is what the COP process is about. People should not despair because, actually, over 30 years, the world has made progress. \p James Cartlidge: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance about a piece of so-called ministerial correspondence that I have received, which is the worst I have ever had the displeasure to receive as a Member of Parliament. I am serious.

Mine is a rural constituency and the family farm tax is an extremely serious matter. It is an existential threat to many businesses in my constituency. Earlier this month, I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer setting out a serious, detailed argument about why it has such an impact. I spoke about mental health and the wider economic impact, and I expected a reasonable reply to my ask to reconsider the tax tomorrow.

I received yesterday a letter that states just this, and it is not a holding reply:

“I can confirm we have shared your letter with the relevant policy officials in the department.

Thank you again for taking the time to make me aware of your concerns.”

That is the letter signed by the correspondence and enquiries unit at HM Treasury, and not by a Minister.

Is it acceptable for us to have ministerial correspondence that is not from Ministers? Is it acceptable for it not even to go to a Minister but to the relevant policy officials? Is it acceptable, on such an important matter, to have all the points in it completely ignored? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. It is disappointing to hear that he has not received a more substantive response to the concerns raised by his constituents. Ministers themselves are responsible for their own correspondence, and the Government’s ministerial code states:

“Ministers should, where possible, provide full and timely responses”

to such correspondence. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his concerns, but he may also wish to raise his concerns with the Leader of the House. \p Richard Holden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At Transport questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) asked  the Transport Secretary whether a pay-per-mile charge would be introduced, as had been reported in the Financial Times. In response, the Transport Secretary said:

“There are no proposals to introduce a national pay-per-mile scheme.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 834.]

However, the Government then briefed the Daily Express, claiming that the Transport Secretary had misspoken in the Chamber. That directly contradicts what this House was told. I have checked Hansard and no correction has been made. This is especially concerning, given the guarantee made yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), that any important policy announcements would be made to this House. Can you therefore advise me how the Transport Secretary may be invited to return to clarify the Government’s true position? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He will have heard my previous response and will know that Ministers are responsible for the accuracy of their remarks in the House. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his concerns and if a correction is needed, I am sure one will be forthcoming.

On the issue of briefings to the media, as has been said on numerous occasions from the Chair in recent weeks, major announcements should be made in this House in the first instance and not to the media. We had an urgent question on this issue just yesterday. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has been conducting an inquiry into ministerial statements and the ministerial code, and I look forward to seeing its report in due course. \p Steve Darling: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A significant statement in respect of carer’s allowance was briefed out by Ministers overnight. This affects thousands of people up and down the United Kingdom, yet no oral statement has been given by a Minister. Do you agree that the Minister should come here and face questions, particularly with respect to those who may be subject to significant overpayments of carer’s allowance and could be hounded over the next few months? \p Caroline Nokes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I have not had any indication that a Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement, but he has put his point on the record and the Table Office can advise him on how to pursue the matter further. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Andrew Murrison: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the carrying out of construction work in respect of new waste incinerators, other than in cases where substantial construction has already begun; to make provision about the taxation of waste disposed of by way of incineration; to prohibit local authorities from entering into any contract for the incineration of waste which requires them to pay financial penalties if a minimum amount of waste is not delivered for incineration; and for connected purposes.

I begin by paying tribute to colleagues from across the House who have spoken out against waste incinerators. My commendations go too to the United Kingdom Without Incineration Network and local campaign groups, including Westbury Gasification Action Group, which have been a thorn in the side of the incinerator industry. For too long, too many of our constituents have lived in the shadow of waste burners that pollute the air that we breathe. This Bill puts the reduction, reuse and recycling principles of the waste hierarchy back into waste management.

Since the landfill tax was introduced in 1996, consecutive Administrations—Labour, coalition and Conservative—have encouraged incineration and discouraged landfill. They have been helped by the burner industry, which has greenwashed its operations as “energy from waste”. The generation of a few tepid calories and a feeble stream of electrons has convinced Whitehall that waste burners are part of a transition to a green future and to net zero. They are not.

We are allergic to putting waste in the ground, but happy to consign it to the landfill in the sky—out of sight, out of mind and straight into the lungs of those living downwind and on to the nation’s carbon ledger. Not only does the incineration of plastic produce 175 times as much CO2 as landfill, but the emissions per unit of energy produced from burning mixed waste is the same as coal and nearly double that of gas. It is the dirtiest way we generate electricity in this country by far. We have to change course.

We tax oil and gas, we have turned our back on coal entirely, we are turning off the taps in the North sea, we refrain from exploiting shale deposits while importing liquefied natural gas and our share of global emissions is less than 1% and falling. We are more than doing our bit, at considerable cost—in the short to medium term at least—to our economy and the people we serve, yet we do not tax incineration, which gives off the most world-warming, health-harming emissions, in return for a paltry amount of energy. A welcome inclusion of incineration in the UK emissions trading scheme is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The time has come to use the same infrastructure that raises the landfill tax to levy an incineration waste tax at rates that will promote the handling of rubbish in a way that puts it at the top of the waste hierarchy, not at the bottom.

Unfortunately, an incineration tax has not been among the kites flown in advance of the Budget, but I will gladly pull my Bill if the Chancellor pulls this rabbit out of the hat tomorrow. She knows that we have too many  waste incinerators already. The Government’s own analysis, published in December last year, confirms that. With the 50 waste burners already operational in England and Wales, we already have more capacity today than we will need in 2035. In other words, the 12 plants being built and the 41 that had been granted planning permission as of last December were already surplus to requirements. Why do we need to almost double our capacity to burn waste when the Government know that it is already excessive?

Where is the social justice in the way we consign the nation’s waste to the atmosphere? Unsurprisingly, incinerators are sited disproportionately in poorer, densely populated places with a heavy burden of ill health. The growing monster at Edmonton, for example, which already takes waste from leafier, more favoured districts to burn in the capital, is belching a cocktail of gases and ultrafine particles with uncertain health consequences across a huge swathe of north London.

Having too many incinerators for the residual waste available might be tolerable if it were not for the clauses in contracts between local authorities and incinerator operators that demand councils consign a minimum amount of waste for burning to avoid financial penalties—so-called “deliver or pay” contracts. What happens if a council that is reducing, reusing and recycling waste, as it should, turns out not to have enough waste to feed the monstrous burner that has been foisted on its community? Waste will be imported—of course it will—because the monster must be fed. Geneva, of all places, trucks in waste from Milan to keep running a burner that, once built, failed to secure enough rubbish locally.

The more households reduce their waste and local authorities recycle, the less waste councils will have to send for incineration. That triggers penalties under “deliver or pay” that they cannot afford. It is little wonder that recycling has stalled for the last 15 years, and that where incineration rates are higher, recycling rates are lower, as Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs figures have made abundantly clear. It gets worse. Transitional arrangements laid last year will allow 31 waste collection authorities, including Wiltshire, to defer the separate food waste collections required from March next year under the otherwise excellent Environment Act 2021, in some cases to the 2040s. This means sending compostable waste to the burner.

We have a ludicrous situation in which councils are being actively encouraged to recycle less and even import waste just to keep running a set of wholly unnecessary incinerators that pollute far more than they power. This Bill will outlaw the importation of waste for burning, terminate “deliver or pay” contracts and rescind the Environment Act 2021 (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2024. We must revoke planning permission for those 41 pending sites, including the monstrosity planned for Westbury in my constituency, where preliminary work has recently begun. We must immediately prohibit any more permissions and permits.

The last Government paused the issuing of environmental permits to new burners—the only attempt by any Government to alter course in the last three decades. My party’s manifesto last year contained a firm commitment to put a stop to them. The Welsh Labour Government wisely placed a moratorium on new burners in 2021. The Scottish Government did so the following  year after a review highlighted the risks that incineration posed to human health and the environment. The review went on to say:

“Scotland should not construct more capacity than it needs and only some of the currently planned capacity should be built.”

The Government’s in-principle acceptance of this Bill, perhaps by launching a consultation on the future of incineration like the 2022 Scottish review, might be enough, because it would signal to investors that the incineration game is up. It would say that if they want to be in the waste business, they must stop burning and start operating higher up the waste hierarchy.

My Bill calls time on one of our biggest polluters, one that is hidden in plain sight. It would begin to lower the curtain on a filthy enterprise cynically passing itself off as green because it generates a few calories, a trickle of electrons and the promise of carbon capture at some point in the distant future. As the Government’s own figures show, we are already at overcapacity. Without the measures in this Bill, the industry will almost double its capacity in the decade to 2035. That means the hierarchy of waste will be inverted to soak up the excess capacity. This Bill would end Whitehall’s obsession with incineration. It would direct the UK waste industry to start operating much higher up the waste hierarchy. We must tax incineration, ban “deliver or pay” contracts, outlaw waste imports and, above all, build no more incinerators.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Dr Andrew Murrison, Steve Barclay, Brian Mathew, John Glen, Danny Kruger, Euan Stainbank, Ben Obese-Jecty, Lee Barron, Lloyd Hatton and Robbie Moore present the Bill.

Dr Andrew Murrison accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 336). \p UNKNOWN: Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, The Funding and Sustainability of Local Government Finance, HC 514, and the Government response, HC 1355; Oral evidence taken before the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on 25 February and 28 January, on English Devolution, HC 600.] \p UNKNOWN: “(1) In section 100G (principal councils to publish additional information) of LGA 1972, in subsection (5), omit “, in relation to a principal council in Wales,”.

(2) The Localism Act 2011 is amended as follows.

(3) In section 29 (register of interests), in subsection (8), for “section 32(2)” substitute “sections 32(2) and 32A”.

(4) In section 31 (pecuniary interests in matters considered at meetings or by a single member), in subsection (2), for “section 32(3)” substitute “sections 32(3) and 32A(9)”.

(5) After section 32 (sensitive interests) insert—

“32A Residential addresses

(1) This section applies where a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority notifies the authority’s monitoring officer of a disclosable pecuniary interest that includes their usual residential address.

(2) Subject to subsections (3) to (7), the relevant authority’s public register must not include that address.

(3) The member or co-opted member may request that their usual residential address be included in that public register.

(4) The member or co-opted member may withdraw a request made under subsection (3).

(5) A request under subsection (3) or a withdrawal of a request under subsection (4) must be made by written notice to the relevant authority’s monitoring officer.

(6) Where the member or co-opted member withdraws a request under subsection (4), the monitoring officer must remove the member or co-opted member’s usual residential address from the public register.

(7) Withdrawal of a request under subsection (4) does not affect the power of the member or co-opted member to make another request under subsection (3).

(8) Where a member or co-opted member’s usual residential address is excluded from a public register under this section, that public register must state that the member or co-opted member has an interest the address of which is withheld under this section.

(9) If section 31(2) applies in relation to the interest, that provision is to be read as requiring the member or co-opted member to disclose not the interest but merely the fact that the member or co-opted member has a disclosable pecuniary interest in the matter concerned.

(10) For the purposes of this section, a person has no more than one usual residential address.

(11) In this section “public register”, in relation to a relevant authority, means—

(a) a copy of its register that is made available for inspection, and

(b) any published version of its register.””— (Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would stop the automatic publication of local government members’ and co-opted members’ home addresses. Members’ home addresses would no longer appear in published registers of interests unless a member explicitly requests inclusion in writing.

Brought up, and read the First time. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. \p Caroline Nokes: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 46—Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority.

Government new clause 49—“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”.

Government new clause 50—Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence.

Government new clause 51—Standards relating to the suspension or revocation of a regulated licence.

Government new clause 52—Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence.

Government new clause 53—Further provision about standards.

Government new clause 54—Guidance.

Government new clause 55—Relationship with existing licensing legislation.

Government new clause 56—Regulations.

Government new clause 57—Interpretation.

New clause 1—Consent for local government restructuring—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may only make an order or regulations to create, change, or dissolve a strategic authority with the consent of all 6 constituent councils.

(2) The “constituent councils” are any county council, district council, town council or parish council.’

This new clause would mean local government restructuring could not take place without the consent of the constituent councils.

New clause 6—Local authority oversight over management of land of community value—

‘(1) A local authority is responsible for overseeing the management of land of community value in their area.

(2) If the relevant local authority identifies deliberate neglect or mismanagement of land of community value by its owner, the authority may—

(a) exercise compulsory purchase powers, or

(b) refuse planning changes in relation to the land.’

This new clause would require local authorities to oversee the management of land of community value in their area and enable them to exercise compulsory purchase powers in instances of mismanagement.

New clause 10—Community ownership fund—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which establish a community ownership fund within six months of the passage of this Act.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative procedure.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for any strategic authority to apply for funding of up to £2 million to support any—

(a) voluntary and community organisation, or

(b) parish or town council,

to purchase of an assets of community value they determine is at risk in their area.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Community Ownership Fund to which strategic authorities may apply for funding.

Amendment (a) to new clause 10, at end insert—

‘(4) On the day on which regulations are first made under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(a) how a strategic authority can apply to the community ownership fund;

(b) how the community ownership fund is governed and administered;

(c) any other information which in the opinion of the Secretary of State assists strategic authorities and other persons in understanding the purposes of and application process for the community ownership fund; and

(d) a timetable for when applications to the fund may be submitted, and by when they should be responded to.’

New clause 11—Local public accounts committees—

‘(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment of a public accounts committee in each mayoral strategic authority area (“a local public accounts committee”).

(2) Regulations made under this section must—

(a) make provision relating to the membership of local public accounts committees, including appointment; tenure; and arrangements for chairing of committees;

(b) make provision about support for local public accounts committees by the relevant local audit services;

(c) empower local public accounts committees to require the provision of information from all providers of public services in the mayoral strategic authority area;

(d) make provision about the functions of local public accounts committees, including the power of the committees to report on—

(i) the effectiveness with which mayoral strategic authorities exercise any of their functions;

(ii) the effectiveness with which any local partners exercise functions on behalf of the strategic mayoral authority.

(iii) the effectiveness with which any local partners collaborate with the mayoral strategic authority.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “local partner” has the meaning given in section 17B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (as inserted by section 21 of this Act).”’

This new clause would require the introduction of Local Public Accounts Committees within one year of this Act coming into force. LPACs would ensure scrutiny and accountability across the whole of the local public service spending and activity.

New clause 12—Assets of negative community value—

‘In the Localism Act 2011, after section 92 insert—

“92A Assets of negative community value

(1) A building or other land in a local authority’s area is of negative community value if, in the opinion of the authority, the asset—

(a) has been the subject of a measurable and sustained increase in anti-social behaviour in the locality,

(b) has caused material disruption or harm to the amenity, cohesion, or wellbeing of the local community, or

(c) has been vacant or derelict for a continuous period of not less than three years, and during that period no meaningful attempt has been made by the owner of the asset to restore it to use.

(2) A local authority may maintain and publish a list of assets of negative community value in its area.

(3) Where a local authority has listed an asset of negative community value, the authority may—

(a) take such steps as may be prescribed by regulations to secure temporary management or community stewardship of the asset;

(b) invite community groups, charities, or other qualifying organisations to bring forward proposals for its use or stewardship;

(c) exercise such enforcement or compulsory acquisition powers as may be made available by regulations made pursuant to subsection (5).

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) make provision as to the procedure for listing an asset of negative community value;

(b) confer rights of appeal on owners or occupiers of listed assets;

(c) provide for safeguards to ensure proportionality and fairness in the designation and management of such assets;

(d) make further provision for the disposal, management, or transfer of listed assets to qualifying community groups.

(5) For the purposes of this paragraph “community group” has the same meaning as in section 86D of this Act (as inserted by schedule 19 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025).”’

This new clause would create a parallel category to “assets of community value” by enabling local authorities to designate “assets of negative community value” (ANCVs). Designation would trigger a framework for temporary community stewardship or pathways to transfer into community use. Further provision would be made via secondary legislation.

New clause 13—Duty relating to community empowerment—

‘(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, and each year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report assessing the effectiveness of Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 (Community empowerment).

(2) The report must—

(a) consider the effectiveness of the provisions in Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 against the criteria in subsection (3), and

(b) set out a plan for better meeting those criteria, including potential legislative provision.

(3) The criteria are, in relation to people in England—

(a) access to a clean and healthy environment;

(b) access to land or space to play, roam, and swim;

(c) access to land for food growing;

(d) the ability to contribute to and challenge decisions made at a local level;

(e) access to, use of, and ability to propose acquisition of assets of community value.

(4) Within the period of 21 days beginning on the day in which a Report under this section, a Minister of the Crown must move a motion in the House of Commons that the House has considered the Report.

(5) In reckoning any period of 21 days under subsection (4), no account is taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than four days.’

This new clause would require the Government to report annually on the effectiveness of community empowerment measures under the Localism Act 2011. It requires that Ministers assess how well communities can access land, green space, and local decision-making mechanisms. The report must include plans to strengthen these rights, including potential new legislation.

New clause 16—Funding for local authority governance reorganisation—

‘The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded for any purposes relating to the reorganisation of cabinet governance structures that are required or enabled by this Act.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure funding is available for any rearranging of councils’ governance models.

New clause 17—Resource and support for local authority implementation of the Act—

‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that relevant authorities are provided with the resources and support necessary in order to carry out any functions conferred on, or required of, them by virtue of this Act.

(2) Any resources and support provided by the Secretary of State must be sufficient to ensure that there is no delay to the holding of any future local elections resulting from the implementation of, or delay to the implementation of, this Act.’

This new clause would ensure local authorities are provided with the resources and support they need to deliver the content of this legislation with specific regard to preventing any further delays to future local elections.

New clause 18—Councillors: proportional representation vote system—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a proportional representation vote system in elections of local authority councillors.

(2) The regulations in subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.’

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to introduce a proportional representation voting system for local authority councillors.

New clause 19—Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners: alternative vote system—

‘(1) Within three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the use of the alternative vote system in elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners.

(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause would require the introduction of the Alternative Vote system for elections of mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections within three months.

New clause 20—Training for councillors—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require a strategic authority to provide training for councillors following the designation, creation, or merger of any class of strategic authority.

(2) Regulations under this section must—

(a) make provision for training within six months of any designation, creation or merger, and every four years thereafter.

(b) make provision for training to apply to all levels of local government within the area of the newly designated strategic authority,

(c) provide that training under addresses any changes to the strategic authority’s governance practice, and

(d) specify a period during which councillors must complete the training under subsection (2)(a).

(3) The Secretary of State may create guidance for strategic authorities regarding the content of the training in subsection (2)(a).’

This new clause would create a requirement for councillors to receive training following the designation, creation or merging of any class of strategic authority. It allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the content of this training.

New clause 26—Local authority acquisition of dormant assets—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument enable a local authority to carry out functions relating to compulsory acquisition of land under section 226A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by Schedule 15 of this Act) where the local authority is satisfied that any land of community value to be purchased within the authority area is dormant.

(2) Land of community value is considered dormant if—

(a) the land has been included in the authority’s list of assets of community value under section 86A for five years continuously,

(b) a notice of relevant disposal under section 86M was issued at least once during the five year period under sub-paragraph (a),

(c) there has been a preferred community buyer whose offer was rejected despite the buyer offering the value price determined under section 86T or an agreed price with the owner by the end of the negotiation period (see section 86S(4)), and

(d) the owner has not entered into a relevant disposal of the land with any other buyer during the permitted sale period under section 86M(6).

(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority to engage the compulsory acquisition function under Schedule 15 of this Act if the land is considered dormant.

New clause 27—Community right to challenge: duty to undertake joint reviews—

‘(1) In Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011, omit Chapter 2 and insert—

“80A Duty to undertake joint reviews

(1) A relevant authority must conduct a joint review if a request is submitted by a relevant body.

(2) A joint review under subsection (1) must—

(a) enable the relevant body to shape the provision, commissioning, or design of the service through a set period of consultation with the relevant authority;

(b) be concluded within a reasonable timeframe, as prescribed in statutory guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State following consultation with community organisations and public bodies;

(c) produce outcomes that, following the conclusion of the review, should be enacted by the relevant authority through any necessary changes to the provision, commissioning or design of the service.

(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the form and conduct of consultation under paragraph (2)(a), which must include measures to ensure that a relevant body can participate meaningfully in the decision-making process.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

“relevant authority” means any public body responsible for delivering a local service;

“relevant body” means—

(a) a voluntary or community body;

(b) a body, person, or trust which is established solely for a charitable purpose;

(c) a parish council;

(d) a group of at least ten users of a local service;

(e) two or more persons who are employed by a relevant authority;

(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause replaces the duty to consider an expression of interest in the Localism Act 2011 with a duty triggering a joint review and requiring local authorities to work collaboratively with communities and service users to shape local services.

New clause 34—Councillor standards—

‘(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to establish a recall process for councillors who have been found to have breached their council’s code of conduct.

(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a recall process for Councillors who have been found to have breached their council’s code of conduct.

New clause 35—Consideration of impact on local elections—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must take steps to ensure a relevant activity does not—

(a) delay,

(b) postpone, or

(c) lead to the cancellation of,

any election of members to any local authority affected by the relevant activity.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “relevant activity” means the making of an order or regulations, or any other exercise of power, relating to the reorganisation or restructuring of one or more local authorities under this Act.’

New clause 38—Land quality assessments—

‘(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to enable a local authority to facilitate an assessment of the quality of an area of land within its area where the conditions in subsection (2) apply.

(2) The conditions are that—

(a) an application has been made to a local planning authority for planning permission for development on the area of land,

(b) the area of land has not been allocated for development in a local plan or any Land Use Framework,

(c) the area of land has been used for agricultural purposes,

(d) two or more Agricultural Land Classification assessments have been undertaken in the last 10 years, and

(e) the planning applicant and the current owner of the area of land are in disagreement regarding the quality of the area of land.

(3) An assessment under subsection (1) must—

(a) be conducted by an independent surveying organisation, and

(b) determine the area of land’s suitability for development.

(4) The costs of an assessment under subsection (1) must be divided equally between the planning applicant and current owner of the area of land.

(5) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

New clause 42—Procedure relating to postponement of elections—

‘(1) Section 105 (Orders and regulations) of the Local Government Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (6), after “9N” insert “87”.’.

This new clause would require any order postponing a local election to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

New clause 47—Rutland: status as ceremonial county—

(1) The Lieutenancies Act 1997 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, in the Table, after “Nottingham” insert as a new row—

This new clause will preserve Rutland's lord lieutenancy and ceremonial county status.

New clause 59—Disclosure of members’/co-opted members’ addresses—

‘(1) In section 100G of LGA 1972, for subsection (5) substitute—

“(5) But the information open to inspection under subsection (4) must not include a member’s address included in the register maintained under subsection (1) unless, in relation to a principal council in England, that member gives their consent.”

(2) In section 29 of the Localism Act 2011, after subsection (8), insert—

“(8A) But the information open to inspection or published on the principal authority or parish council website under subsections (5) to (7) must not include the residential address of the member or co-opted member (“M”), or that of M’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom M is living as if they were a married couple or civil partners, where the address is the same as M’s, unless M requests that the address be published.

(8B) If an address is entered into the authority’s register which is being withheld under subsection (8A) from public versions of the register, the public register should state that the member or co-opted member has an interest, the details of which are withheld under subsection (8A).

(8C) If section 31(2) applies in relation to the interest, the provision is to be read as requiring the member or co-opted member to disclose not the interest but merely the fact that the member or co-opted member has a disclosable pecuniary interest in the matter concerned.”’

This new clause requires local authorities not to publish the address of member or coopted member or that of their spouse, civil partner or person with home they are living as partners on the registers of members and interests unless the member or coopted member requests that it be published.

New clause 63—Parishing of all areas of England—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to achieve the objective in subsection (2).

(2) The objective is that, within five years of the passage of this Act, there must be no part of England for which there is not a parish or town council.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision that is consequential on this section.

(4) In pursuance of subsection (3), the regulations may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under an Act passed—

(a) before this Act, or

(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.’

New clause 67—Private hire vehicle and taxi licensing national standards—

‘(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations set national minimum standards for the licensing by strategic authorities of operators of private hire vehicles and taxis whose operating address is located within the area of a strategic authority.

(2) The national minimum standards must include, but not be limited to, vetting, training and safety standards.

(3) The regulations must include provision for strategic authorities to deny licensing permissions to operators of private hire vehicles and taxis within their strategic authority who do not meet the national minimum standards.

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause ensures that locally licensed operators are subject to national minimum standards.

New clause 68—Private hire vehicle and taxi licensing regulations—

‘(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations meet the objective set out in subsection (2).

(2) Regulations made under this section must provide that a person licensed to operate a private hire vehicle or taxi whose operating address is located within the area of a strategic authority must only accept and fulfil bookings for journeys that either start or end within that area, with specific exceptions for NHS patient transport, school transport, and chauffeur services.

(3) The regulations must include provision for a regime by which strategic authorities can enforce the requirement set out in subsection (2).

(4) The regime must include provision for strategic authorities to impose sanctions on any licensed operator of a private hire vehicle or taxi who breaches this requirement.

(5) The regime must ensure that sanctions exercisable by a strategic authority include—

(a) financial penalties,

(b) suspension of licensing permissions, and

(c) revocation of licensing permissions.

(6) The regime must provide that money recouped by strategic authorities from any financial penalties is used by strategic authorities to fund future enforcement of this requirement.

(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause ensures that locally licensed operators only fulfil journeys that either start or end within their strategic authority area. It makes provision for sanctions for breaching this requirement.

New clause 69—Limitation on delay to elections resulting from local government reorganisation—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may not make any order or regulations to delay the ordinary elections of councillors of any specified authority if—

(a) the order or regulations result from any change to local government organisation under or by virtue of this Act,

(b) the effect of the order or regulations is to delay any such election by a period exceeding 53 weeks from the date on which it was originally scheduled to be held.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “any order or regulations” includes—

(a) an order under section 87 (Power to change years in which elections held) of the Local Government Act 2000;

(b) an order under sections 7 (Implementation of proposals by order), 10 (Implementation of recommendations by order of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007; or

(c) any other delegated power exercisable by order or by regulations in relation to the scheduling of ordinary elections of councillors.’

This new clause would prevent the Secretary of State from delaying by more than one year any local government election, if the delay results from local government reorganisation under this Act.

New clause 73—Duty of local public service partners to co-operate—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations designate certain persons or bodies as “local public service partners” for the purposes of this section.

(2) These regulations must include, at a minimum—

(a) NHS bodies;

(b) police and fire authorities; and

(c) any other public service providers exercising functions in the area of a Strategic Authority, in addition to the principal councils in that area.

(3) A local public service partner operating (in whole or in part) in the area of a Strategic Authority must, in exercising its functions so far as they affect that area, co-operate with—

(a) the Strategic Authority; and

(b) the principal councils for that area.

(4) The duty to co-operate under subsection (3) includes, in particular—

(a) a duty to attend any meeting reasonably convened by the mayor of the Strategic Authority under section 21 (or by the Strategic Authority acting collectively), when given due notice;

(b) a duty to provide information and assistance to the Strategic Authority and to principal councils, insofar as reasonably required to facilitate the exercise of their functions or any joint planning of services for that area; and

(c) a duty to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with the Strategic Authority and principal councils when formulating or implementing policies, plans and services that affect the area.

(5) In performing the duty in subsection (3), a local public service partner must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the implementation of whole-area public service collaboration.

(6) In this section, “principal councils” means the county, district or London borough councils (including the Common Council of the City of London) whose territories lie within the area of the Strategic Authority.’

This new clause introduces a statutory duty on local public service partners—such as NHS bodies, police, and fire authorities—to co-operate with Strategic Authorities and principal councils.

New clause 75—Duty to provide professional planning support—

‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to provide appropriate professional planning support to town and parish councils in accordance with this section.

(2) Support provided under subsection (1) is for the purposes of enabling a town or parish council to—

(a) involve communities within the authority area with development of a neighbourhood plan, and

(b) engage communities with the content and delivery of the plan following its development.

(3) For the purposes of this section “communities” means—

(a) any person or group of persons who live in the town or parish council area;

(b) any group who in the opinion of the town or parish council can reasonably demonstrate a connection to the area.’

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to provide professional planning support to town and parish councils for the purposes of developing, and involving communities in, neighbourhood plans.

New clause 79—Local accounting officers and local public accounts committees—

‘(1) Within one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment, in each mayoral strategic authority area, of—

(a) a local accounting officer; and

(b) a local public accounts committee.

(2) Regulations under this section must—

(a) make provision about the membership of local public accounts committees, including appointment, tenure and arrangements for chairing of committees;

(b) make provision for local public accounts committees to be supported by the relevant local audit services;

(c) empower local public accounts committees to require the provision of information from all providers of public services operating in the mayoral strategic authority area;

(d) specify the functions of local public accounts committees, including the power to report on—

(i) the effectiveness with which mayoral strategic authorities exercise any of their functions;

(ii) the effectiveness with which any local partners exercise functions on behalf of the mayoral strategic authority; and

(iii) the effectiveness with which any local partners collaborate with the mayoral strategic authority.

(e) provide that the Head of Paid Service of a mayoral strategic authority is the local accounting officer, responsible to the local public accounts committee for the value for money of the authority’s expenditure, including any monies provided by the Secretary of State.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “local partner” has the meaning given in section 17B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (as inserted by section 21 of this Act).’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State, within one year, to establish Local Public Accounts Committees in every mayoral strategic authority area. The clause also designates the Head of Paid Service in each mayoral strategic authority as the local accounting officer.

New clause 80—Consultation on publication of local authority resolutions and referendum proposals—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a consultation on updating requirements about the publication of notices under the following sections of the Local Government Act 2000—

(a) subsection (2) of section 9KC (resolution of local authority), and

(b) subsection (7) of section 9MA (referendum: proposals by local authority).

(2) The consultation must consider the impact of requirements for the publication of notices, and of proposed changes to arrangements for the publication of notices, on the following matters—

(a) the economic viability of local newspapers,

(b) access to information for local authority residents, and

(c) local democracy and accountability.

(3) The consultation must be opened within six months of the passage of this Act.’

New clause 81—Consideration of the cancellation of local elections—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to achieve the objective in subsection (2).

(2) The objective is that any local elections scheduled for 2025 which subsequently did not take place, are held no later than 53 weeks from the date for which they were originally scheduled.

(3) The regulations in subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause would ensure that the local elections scheduled for May 2025 take place no later than May 2026.

New clause 82—Public consultation on the provisions of this Act—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on the provisions of this Act.

(2) The consultation must seek the public’s view on the measures set out in each Part of the Act.

(3) The consultation must seek views on the impact on—

(a) combined authorities;

(b) combined county authorities;

(c) local authorities; and

(d) town and parish councils.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out the findings of the consultation.’

New clause 83—Private hire vehicle licensing—

‘(1) The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 55A (sub-contracting by operators), in subsection (1)(b), after “in that district” insert “except where section 55AB applies”.

(3) After section 55A (sub-contracting by operators), insert—

“55AB Restrictions on licensing under section 55

(1) A person (“A”) licensed under section 55 who has accepted a booking for a private hire vehicle in a controlled district may only arrange for a person licensed outside of the same controlled district (“B”) to provide a vehicle to carry out the booking where the following conditions apply.

(2) The first condition is that B is licenced in a controlled district within the same strategic authority area.

(3) The second condition is that the booking is for a journey that—

(a) starts, or

(b) ends,

within the strategic authority area.

(4) The third condition is that an order under section 55C is in effect.”

(4) After section 55B (Sub-contracting by operators: criminal liability), insert—

“55C Mayoral strategic authority power to regulate bookings

(1) A mayoral strategic authority may make an order to provide that only a person licenced under section 55 whose operating address is located within its area may accept and fulfil bookings for journeys that both start and end within that same area.

(2) An order under subsection (1) may only be made if the relevant mayoral strategic authority —

(a) has consulted—

(i) any district council—

(A) within the mayoral strategic authority area, or

(B) that shares a border with the mayoral strategic authority area,

which grants licences under section 55;

(ii) such persons licenced under—

(A) section 55, or

(B) section 51,

as the mayoral strategic authority considers appropriate;

(iii) people living or working within the mayoral strategic authority area; and

(b) has had regard to any response received to consultation under paragraph (a).

(3) An order under this section must include such transitional arrangements and conditions about licensing as the mayoral strategic authority considers are appropriate.

(4) When an order is made under this section, the relevant mayoral strategic authority must—

(a) publish the order,

(b) publish such information relating to the content and application of the order as the mayoral strategic authority considers appropriate;

(c) notify the Secretary of State that the order has been made.

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision as to the procedure to be followed in connection with the making of an order under this section.

(6) In this section, an “operating address” is the address at which a person licensed under section 55 is registered with the district council for the purposes of that licence.”

(5) In section 80 (Interpretation of Part II), after the definition of “London cab”, insert—

““mayoral strategic authority” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025.’

This new clause would provide an optional “license where you operate” model, by giving strategic authorities power to require that journeys that start and end within their strategic authority area are fulfilled by locally licensed operators.

New clause 84—Information sharing for health improvement and reduction in health inequalities purposes—

‘(1) A local authority must share information where it considers that the sharing of the information will contribute to the improvement of health and a reduction in health inequalities within the local authority area.

(2) Information which the authority must share includes information about the stability of healthcare providers within the area.

(3) The duty under subsection (1) does not apply to any sharing of personal data.’

New clause 85—Alignment of Essex county borders—

‘(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide that the boundaries of the ceremonial county of Essex correspond with the boundaries of the historic county of Essex.

(2) Regulations made under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made—

(a) in or by virtue of the Lieutenancies Act 1997, and

(b) in or by virtue of any other Act passed before this Act,

where the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the purposes of this section.

(3) In this section—

“ceremonial county of Essex” has the meaning given in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Lieutenancies Act 1997;

“historic county of Essex” means an area which in the opinion of the Secretary of State was commonly understood to be Essex, prior to the enactment of the Local Government Act 1888.’

This new clause would require that the boundaries of the ceremonial county of Essex align with the historical boundaries of Essex.

New clause 86—London Borough of Havering: Referendum on joining Greater Essex—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for a referendum for residents of the London Borough of Havering to opt to—

(a) cease to be an area under any jurisdiction of the Greater London Authority, and

(b) form part of the area of a Greater Essex Combined County Authority.

(2) Arrangements made under this section must include provision—

(a) for any referendum to be held in sufficient time to enable the London Borough of Havering to form part of the area of a Greater Essex Combined County Authority at the moment of its establishment;

(b) about the administration of the referendum;

(c) for the London Borough of Havering to form part of the area of the authority only where a simple majority of participants in the referendum have voted accordingly.

(3) Arrangements under this section may be made by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to enable residents of Havering to participate in a referendum on joining the Greater Essex Combined County Authority Area.

New clause 87—Alignment with boundaries of historic counties—

‘(1) The area of a strategic authority must be coterminous with the area of a historic county, save as where provided for by exceptions in subsection (2).

(2) Exceptions from subsection (1) are where—

(a) the Secretary of State intends to create a strategic authority for a metropolitan area which would otherwise—

(i) be located wholly within a historic county, or

(ii) be located across the boundary of two or more historic counties;

(b) there is no existing equivalent local authority for the area which in the opinion of the Secretary of State may be reasonably identified with a historic county.

(3) A single strategic authority may not cover the area of more than one historic county, save as provided for by subsection (2)(a).

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) define—

“equivalent existing local authority”,

”historic county”, and

”metropolitan area”,

for the purposes of this section, and

(b) make further provision about exceptions to this section.

(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause requires that strategic authorities should correspond with historic counties. It provides exceptions for cities and other built-up areas, and for historic counties for which no equivalent current local authority exists.

Amendment 1, page 60, line 6, leave out clause 55

Amendment 3, page 60, line 27, leave out clause 57

Amendment 42, in clause 58, page 60, line 33, at end insert—

‘(1A) It is a duty of a local authority to specify the description of a neighbourhood area that will apply within the local authority’s area for the purposes of subsection (1).’

This amendment assigns the power to define “neighbourhood area” to the affected local authority.

Amendment 150, in clause 58, page 61, line 2, at end insert—

‘(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) must include provision to ensure that appropriate governance arrangements for a neighbourhood area are related to the preparation and implementation of—

(a) local plans, and

(b) spatial development strategies and other strategic planning frameworks.’

This amendment would require regulations made under subsection (2) to include provision for a clear link between neighbourhood governance structures and the preparation and implementation of local plans, spatial development strategies and other relevant strategic planning frameworks.

Amendment 70, page 61, line 14 , at end insert—

‘(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure local authorities receive adequate funding to implement the “appropriate arrangements” in subsection (1) which relate to neighbourhood planning functions.’

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to deliver neighbourhood planning functions.

Amendment 41, page 61, line 18, at end insert—

‘(4A) But regulations may not—

(a) alter—

(i) any function exercised by, or

(ii) any power available by or under any Act of Parliament to,

a parish or town council, or

(b) make provision for the abolition of any parish or town council.’

This amendment would ensure that the Bill’s provision for effective neighbourhood governance does not alter any functions performed by a parish or town council or lead to the abolition of a parish or town council.

Amendment 43, in clause 58, page 61, line 18, at end insert—

‘(4A) Regulations under this section may not include power for the Secretary of State to specify the description of any neighbourhood area.’

This amendment precludes the Secretary of State from exercising any power to define a neighbourhood area.

Amendment 5, page 61, line 27, leave out clause 59

Amendment 44, in clause 62, page 66, line 17, leave out from “acting” to end, and insert

“who—

“(a) are wholly independent of the Local Audit Office, and

(b) possess appropriate expertise.”

(2) The Secretary of State must approve any appointment made for the purposes of subsection (2), and may only do so when they are satisfied that the person to be appointed satisfies the criteria specified in that subsection.”

This amendment makes provision about the independence of persons appointed to scrutinise local authority audits.

Amendment 46, in clause 66, page 71, line 28, after line 28 insert—

‘(4A) A Local Audit Office may make arrangements about—

(a) the membership of an audit committee;

(b) the appointment of the members; and

(c) the conduct and practices of the committee.’

This amendment removes the role of the Secretary of State in appointing audit committees and provides LAOs with the ability to oversee the membership and work of audit committees.

Amendment 45, page 71, leave out from beginning of line 29 to end of line 7 on page 72.

This amendment removes the role of the Secretary of State in overseeing the membership of audit committees.

Government amendment 119.

Amendment 78, page 71, line 31, at end insert—

‘(c) the training of members newly appointed to an audit committee.’

This amendment would require the provision of training for all new members of an audit committee.

Government amendment 120.

Amendment 103, page 71, line 38, at end insert—

“(7A) The Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for the establishment of audit committees for parish councils.

(7B) Regulations under subsection (9A) are subject to the negative procedure.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations which make provision for the establishment of audit committees for parish councils.

Government amendment 121.

Amendment 7, page 74, line 18, leave out clause 72.

This amendment removes the ban on upward only rent review clauses.

Government amendment 158.

Amendment 182, in clause 79, page 78, line 15, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—

‘(2) The provisions that come into force in accordance with subsection (1)(b) are the provisions set out in section [Public consultation on the provisions of this Act].

(3) This Act comes into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint (if, and to the extent that, it does not come into force in accordance with subsection (1) or (2)).

(4) The Secretary of State may not appoint regulations under subsection (3) until the Secretary of State has laid before each House of Parliament a report under section [Public consultation on the provisions of this Act].’

Government amendments 114 and 115.

Amendment 168, in clause 79, page 79, line 12, at end insert—

‘(z2) Section (Private hire vehicle and taxi licensing national standards);

(z3) Section (Private hire vehicle and taxi licensing regulations).’

This amendment provides for the coming into force of NC67 and NC68 as soon as the Act is passed.

Government amendment 157.

Government new schedule 3—Extension of the general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority.

Amendment 2, page 261, line 14, leave out schedule 24

This amendment removes the direction powers on unitarisation.

Amendment 38, in schedule 24, page 262, line 14, after “government” insert—

‘having particular regard to the need for the new single tier of local government, or new unitary council, to—

(a) be of an appropriate geographical size, giving consideration to—

(i) economic zones,

(ii) physical geography,

(iii) public service provision, including health, transport, and emergency services; and

(b) preserve community identity, cohesion and pride.’

This amendment mandates that the Secretary of State must have particular regard to certain criteria when creating or merging SAs to ensure their suitability in terms of economic, geographical, service, and community considerations.

Amendment 4, page 265, line 33, leave out schedule 25.

This amendment removes the power to allow the Secretary of State to abolish the committee system.

Government amendment 152.

Amendment 94, in schedule 25, page 266, line 24, leave out “Duty to move” and insert “Moving”.

This amendment, alongside Amendments 95 to 102, makes the Bill’s provision for legacy committee systems match the provisions for legacy mayor and cabinet executive systems, while maintaining the prohibition on new systems other than leader and cabinet executive.

Government amendment 153.

Amendment 96, page 266, leave out from line 33 to line 4 on page 267.

This amendment is related to Amendment 94.

Amendment 95, page 266, line 33, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

This amendment is related to Amendment 94.

Amendment 97, page 267, leave out lines 12 and 13.

This amendment is related to Amendment 94.

Government amendment 154.

Amendment 98, page 267, leave out lines 18 to 32.

This amendment is related to Amendment 94.

Government amendment 155.

Amendment 99, page 267, line 33, at end insert “or committee systems”.

This amendment is related to Amendment 94.

Amendment 100, page 267, line 37, after “executive” insert “or committee system”.

This amendment is related to Amendment 94.

Amendment 101, page 267, line 39, after “executive” insert “or committee system”.

This amendment is related to Amendment 94.

Amendment 102, page 268, line 3, after “executive” insert “or committee system”.

This amendment is related to Amendment 94.

Amendment 28, page 269, leave out lines 26 to 35.

This amendment retains the statutory requirement for public notices to be published in printed local newspapers.

Amendment 29, page 269, line 29, at end insert—

‘(aa) after subsection (2)(b), insert—

“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), at least one of the newspapers must—

(a) have paid-for of free distribution in the relevant local area, and

(b) be published at regular intervals.”’

This amendment ensures that at least one of the newspapers in which a public notice is printed is a local newspaper.

Government amendment 156.

Amendment 6, page 271, line 19, leave out schedule 26.

Amendment 109, in schedule 26, page 275, line 18, at beginning insert

‘For any elections on or after 1 May 2026,’.

This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in local authorities.

Amendment 110, page 277, line 10, at beginning insert

‘For any elections on or after 1 May 2026,’.

This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in combined authorities.

Amendment 111, page 278, line 28, at beginning insert

‘For any elections on or after 1 May 2026,’.

This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in combined county authorities.

Amendment 30, in schedule 27, page 280, leave out lines 21 to 28.

This amendment would remove the provision for assets of community value to be removed from the list of assets of community value after five years.

Amendment 32, page 280, leave out lines 29 to 32.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.

Amendment 31, page 280, leave out from “value” in line 30 to “the” in line 31.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.

Amendment 57, page 281, line 26, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.

This amendment would require environmental interests to be considered as a criterion for establishing a local authority’s area as land of community value.

Amendment 107, page 281, line 26, leave out “, and” and insert

“or furthers the environmental wellbeing of the local communities, as long as the land is not allocated in the local development plan, and”.

This amendment and Amendment 108 extend the community right to buy to include assets that further the environmental wellbeing of local communities, alongside economic and social benefits; provided that the land is not allocated local development plan.

Amendment 108, page 281, line 29, leave out “or social” and insert “, social or environmental”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 107.

Amendment 58, page 281, line 30, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 57.

Amendment 59, page 281, line 38, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 57.

Amendment 60, page 282, line 2, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 57.

Amendment 82, page 283, line 8, at end insert—

‘(1A) Where a local authority is responsible for assessing whether land in its area is a sporting asset of community value, the Secretary of State must ensure the authority receives adequate funding to make the assessment.’

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to assess whether land in their area is a sporting asset of community value.

Amendment 34, page 295, line 8, at end insert—

‘(2A) The local authority must also arrange with the owner of the land for the preferred community buyer to have had the opportunity to view the land prior to a meeting under subsection (2).’

This amendment would ensure that there is an early opportunity for a preferred community buyer to undertake a proper viewing of an asset of community value that has been listed for disposal, prior to committing to make a purchase of the land.

Amendment 64, page 295, line 8, at end insert—

‘(2A) The relevant local authority must as far as reasonably practicable support the preferred community buyer in securing the purchase land of community value.’

This amendment would require local authorities to provide support for the preferred community buyer in agreeing and meeting an offer to buy land of community value.

Amendment 63, in schedule 27, page 296, line 20, at end insert—

‘(9A) The Secretary of State must ensure local authorities are adequately funded to meet the expenses of a valuation under this section.’.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to meet the expense of land valuations in their area.

Amendment 33, page 299, line 12, at end insert—

‘(f) matters relating to requirements about special consideration for land of community value in planning applications affecting an area of land of community value.’

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about special consideration for land of community value in planning applications affecting an area of land of community value. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: It is my pleasure to open the debate on day two of Report on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Today we are concerned with parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill, which cover provisions relating to local government, community right to buy, local audit and the ending of upward-only rent review clauses in commercial leases. As with yesterday’s debate, I will focus on the substantive changes made in Committee and those we have brought forward on Report.

Before I turn to the amendments, I would like to address some of the comments made in yesterday’s debate. Opposition Members suggested that this Government have not taken on board any of their suggestions. Today I am delighted to demonstrate that the Government have been listening to the points raised by Members in the House and by our mayors. We have today announced the next big step in our path to devolution. Mayors will be given the power to raise revenue locally through a new overnight visitor levy. We are consulting on whether to also grant this power to leaders of foundation strategic authorities. This is a groundbreaking step for the future of devolution, with transformative investment potential for England’s tourism sector and the wider economy.

Mayors have already proven what is possible when they are given the tools to deliver, from the Mayor of London using business rate supplements to deliver the Elizabeth line to the Mayor of Greater Manchester using his mayoral precept on council tax to provide far improved bus services. Making places more attractive to visit, live and work in will attract further investment and improve the visitor experience, so I am proposing that constituent authorities within a strategic authority that implement a levy should be eligible for a share of the revenue raised for growth-related spending. Tomorrow, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will publish a consultation with the details of the proposed levy. We recognise that businesses and potential visitors may have concerns about the effects of a new levy, and we will take those concerns seriously. I expect mayors to engage constructively with businesses and their communities to hear those concerns throughout the consultation period and beyond \p Caroline Voaden: I am interested in this proposal, but I wonder whether it will be applicable to council areas that do not yet have a mayor and may not have a mayor for some time. Will they still have the power to impose an overnight visitor levy? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We will consult on whether that power should be extended to foundational strategic authorities that do not have a mayor, and we will see the responses to that consultation.

I said yesterday that the Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of this Government’s ambition. Today’s announcement shows just how seriously we take the mayor’s right to request new powers, and our commitment to give them the tools they need to drive growth for the area. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for raising that issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for his contribution to yesterday’s debate.

I turn now to the changes made in Committee. The Government recognise how much communities value their local sports grounds as spaces that foster local pride, belonging and identity. The Bill will automatically designate grounds across England as sporting assets of community value, ensuring that those essential local spaces are protected. We have introduced a new 16-week review period for communities seeking to purchase a sporting asset of community value accommodating more than 10,000 spectators. That amendment is about putting processes in place to safeguard the long-term sustainability of larger sports grounds, ensuring communities have the capability and readiness to manage them effectively.

The Bill delivers fully on our commitment to fix the broken local audit system that we inherited, and will set local government on a firmer financial footing. In Committee, we inserted new provisions relating to financial penalties, sanctions and criminal offences. They will ensure that the local audit system has the right levers in place to deter and sanction improper behaviour. The new local audit office will be established as the regulatory authority for that system, and will be given further powers to conduct assurance reviews.

The Bill will ban upwards-only rent review clauses in new and renewed commercial leases. Such reviews create an imbalance of supply and demand, contributing to the blight of empty properties, from high street shops to empty office floors. Our amendment will close loopholes in the ban, ensuring that tenants who vacate or have not occupied properties are still caught by the ban. It will allow tenants to trigger a rent review in all leases, preventing landlords from avoiding rent reviews during times of rental decline

I turn now to the amendments tabled on Report. New clause 46 will confer the general power of competence on England’s national park authorities and the Broads Authority. The legislation underpinning our national parks currently limits their powers to activities directly related to their statutory functions, creating uncertainty and stifling their ability to innovate. Providing them with the general power of competence will enable them to be more innovative and agile in delivering their statutory functions, and to contribute towards the Government’s wider agenda. \p Martin Wrigley: In addition to that very welcome general power of competence for the national park authorities, will the Minister consider tabling amendments to ensure that the new unitary authorities surrounding those park authorities do not dominate the membership of the board with a majority? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I thank the hon. Member for raising that point and for advocating for our national park authorities. We are clear that, as we go through the process of reforming local government, we want strong and effective collaboration between all the institutions that need to drive services for local people. We will look to ensure that we are strengthening those partnerships and collaborations as local government reforms and the general power of competence for those authorities bed in.

I turn to taxi and private hire vehicles. Let me be clear: the current legislative framework for regulating the taxi and private hire vehicle trades across England is complex, fragmented and archaic; some legislation dates  back to Victorian times. The Government recognise the challenges that the current licensing framework can cause, including the inconsistency of licensing standards throughout the country and the practice of out-of-area working, where drivers choose to license in one authority area but work wholly or predominantly in a different authority area.

We know that out-of-area working creates concerns in some authorities about the safeguarding standards applied to some of the drivers operating in their area. That problem was highlighted by Baroness Casey in her recent national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. By taking a power for the Secretary of State to set national minimum standards for the licensing of drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles, we can begin to tackle some of these inconsistencies. The powers sought are necessarily broad, so that we can make sure that they catch all the complexities of the current legislative framework.

National minimum standards will set a high but proportionate standard for licensing that is focused on safeguarding passengers and improving the accessibility of services for everyone. That means that people—particularly those who rely on these services the most, such as women, girls and people with disabilities—can be reassured that the drivers of such services have undergone rigorous vetting wherever they are in the country. This is an important first step to tackling some of the issues that have arisen from the practice of out-of-area working.

In addition, we will consult shortly on making local transport authorities responsible for taxi and private hire vehicles, further strengthening the regulation of the sector. We will continue to build on these reforms in the weeks and months ahead, and I know that the Minister for Local Transport is looking forward to meeting Unite, other unions and our mayors to discuss options for wider reforms. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Frith) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for their engagement on this issue, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) for her work with the Mayor of Greater Manchester to push forward this important issue.

I turn to safeguards for local government. Local government members should be able to perform their duties without fear for their own safety or that of their families. Intimidation, harassment and abuse have no place in our democracy, and I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for raising this important issue in Committee. The Government agree that making a change to ensure the safety of local government members is timely and necessary. We have listened and responded.

New clause 45 makes this important change. The amendment puts it beyond doubt that a member or co-opted member’s home address should not be published by default. Our provisions will ensure that when a member or co-opted member’s home address is entered in an authority’s register of interests, public copies of the register must not include those details, unless the member requests it in writing.

Our provisions to protect local government members go further. They will also prevent the disclosure of home addresses when they are declared as interests at public meetings. These provisions consider the need to balance the safety of members with requirements for high standards and transparency. Local authorities will continue to have access to full address details, to prevent conflicts of interest, and these interests will remain openly listed to the public, with the detail of a member’s home address withheld.

In Committee, I committed to reflect on the Government’s policy on local authority governance and executives. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) for the constructive and thoughtful way in which they have engaged with the Government, in particular on how our policy applies to councils such as Sheffield city council.

Following careful consideration of the issue, the Government have brought forward their own amendments to schedule 25 to the Bill, which in turn amends relevant sections of the Local Government Act 2000. These amendments will affect those councils that have adopted the committee system more recently, following either a council resolution or a public referendum. Those councils will be permitted to continue to operate that governance model until the end of their existing moratorium period. \p Sarah Olney: My constituency covers two local authorities: the Royal borough of Kingston upon Thames and the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. For a number of years, they have both operated a committee system that works extremely well; it is well accepted by the local community and both local authorities function extremely well. Why are the Government proposing to put in place additional hurdles for both my local authorities to continue to operate effectively and efficiently in this way? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We are clear that our strong preference remains for executive models of government, because we believe that that model provides clearer and more easily understood governance structures, and leads to more efficient decision making. However, we recognise the genuine concerns held in particular constituencies where committee systems have been adopted recently, particularly where public referendums have been held. That is why we are moving forward with this amendment.

We believe that we are striking the right balance between encouraging a more consistent local authority governance model across England that will ensure better decision making, while also respecting recent local democratic mandates and voter expectations, as well as reducing disruptions where councils are operating a committee system and are within their moratorium periods. If a council is within its moratorium period, we will allow the transition, but our strong preference is to move towards the cabinet system. \p Sarah Olney: On that point, will the Minister give way? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I will make some progress.

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

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

The Bill will help to build and rebuild local government, fix our broken local audit system and truly empower communities. Our amendments build on these ambitions and ensure that the Bill works as we intended. I commend them to the House. \p David Simmonds: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I know that this issue has been exercising Mr Speaker. Yesterday, at topical questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) about a tourism tax, we were told by the Secretary of State:

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

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

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

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

“the single biggest reason why growth has flatlined”.

You will therefore be concerned, as the Conservatives are, that a short while ago the Government put out a press release on their website saying that mayors will be given these new powers, before that was briefed to the House and after repeated comments to the House that Ministers would not answer that question. What further measures are open to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker to ensure that these kinds of damaging leaks, which are undermining our economy and particularly hitting our tourism and hospitality businesses hard, can stop? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I am inclined to the view that there are two separate issues here. He will have heard my earlier comments about statements being made to this House first and how deeply regrettable it is when statements are made to the media ahead of being announced to the House. However, with specific reference to the Minister’s comments yesterday, I believe they would far better be addressed as a point of debate. I am sure the shadow Minister will want to raise that later on in this afternoon’s debate.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Zöe Franklin: Today I will continue to highlight our concerns on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The Labour Government spend a great deal of time telling the country that they are putting power back into the hands of communities and say they are on the side of local leaders and delivering locally led renewal, but when we examine the powers that the Bill actually grants, it is clear very quickly that they risk doing the opposite.

Through this Bill, power is being snatched upwards and away from local voices. It strengthens combined authorities and concentrates power with a statutory authority mayor at the expense of constituent, unitary, parish and town councils. It enables key planning decisions to bypass local authorities and gives Ministers sweeping powers to redraw governance arrangements without genuine local engagement. Local leaders, parish councillors and residents see that, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches certainly see that.

If we are to empower our communities, as this Government promise, this legislation needs to be improved. That is what we seek to do with the amendments we bring forward today, just as we did yesterday. Let me begin with our primary measure, new clause 17. The Government really cannot keep coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that they want locally led delivery while creating legislation that puts responsibilities on councils without giving them money or support to do the job. That just does not add up. The truth is that without even considering devolution, councils are currently not funded properly. Every single one, regardless of political leadership, is under unprecedented strain, and many are on the brink of effective bankruptcy. Some have declared section 114 notices, and others are warning that they may not last the financial year. Even more are raiding reserves, cutting services to the bone and desperately firefighting rising demand in social care, temporary accommodation and children’s services.

Instead of addressing this crisis with the urgent, national level of investment for which local government was calling out for years under the Conservatives and now this Government, the Government seem committed to perpetuating this problem, albeit now with a different approach of giving to one council by taking from another. We see that clearly in the rather inaptly named fair funding review, which does not increase funding from central Government, but simply redistributes an already insufficient pot. It is a winless exercise dressed up as equality.

Council leaders from across the political spectrum are all deeply worried that this Bill is a continuation of that same approach. It asks councils to do more, take on more and deliver more, all without serious new funding models, and nowhere is that clearer than in  west Surrey. This Government have imposed a new local governance model that local leaders have warned will be financially unstable and structurally incoherent. Instead of listening to local authority leaders and residents, the Government pressed ahead with a structure that groups multiple councils facing extreme financial pressure—the legacy of current and former Conservative Administrations—leaving the new West Surrey council with roughly five times the debt of neighbouring East Surrey council.

What is the Government’s answer to the question of how West Surrey council is to manage its significant debt and financial instability? Their answer is that West Surrey should pool its budgets, sell its assets and harmonise council tax. They may as well have suggested tackling the debt with hopes and prayers. We simply cannot redistribute a crisis. We cannot create a strong structure on foundations that are already breaking under debt, demand and chronic underfunding, and that is exactly why our new clause 17 is so vital. If we ignore local leaders and refuse to fund local government properly, we do not empower councils; we set them up to fail. I call on MPs from across this House to back new clause 17 and back our local councils.

Funding alone is not enough; devolution relies on democratic legitimacy. That brings me to new clause 35, which would safeguard the integrity of local democracy by ensuring that residents could hold their leaders to account at the ballot box. Our new clause would ensure that when Government restructure local governance, shift power or redraw boundaries, they must explicitly consider the impact on local elections.

In Surrey this year, as in many places, we have seen clearly what happens when elections are cancelled or postponed. The failing Conservative Administration has been allowed to remain in office not because residents have endorsed them, but because the Government and the local Conservative leadership came together to deny residents their chance to remove them. Based on local by-election results, it is clear that the Administration would have been removed, had the elections taken place in May.

In a Bill that hands new powers to mayors and enables large strategic authorities to override local processes, the risk of democratic disruption grows unless protections are built into this legislation. That is why new clause 35 is essential. It would ensure that no restructured devolution deal or ministerial directive can deny residents the right to vote and choose their representatives.

New clause 18 would introduce the alternative vote system for relevant local elections. The mayoral election results this year highlighted the need for a fairer voting system, with one mayor winning on just 25% of the vote. We no longer work in a two-party system. The supplementary vote system, as proposed in the Bill, is designed to force people to vote for one of the two biggest local parties. People want real choice, and AV provides real choice and real representation. If first past the post is not fit for mayoral elections, why should it be fit for any other kind of election? It is time for the Government to finally introduce fair votes via proportional representation for electing MPs and local councillors in England. We will be watching closely as the Government bring forward the forthcoming elections Bill.

I hope that everyone here will recognise that democracy only works when people who are elected have the tools, training and support to govern effectively. This Bill expands duties for councillors. It reshapes scrutiny. It places heavier burdens on local oversight and it strengthens audit requirements significantly, yet nowhere in this Bill does it guarantee that councillors or auditors will be given the skills training they need to carry out these responsibilities. That is why we have tabled new clause 20, which would ensure training for councillors, which is the foundation of good governance. Ministers claim that they want stronger, more capable local government, so supporting new clause 20 is a test of whether they really mean it. \p Martin Wrigley: There is another aspect in which this Bill is lacking. In Devon, where we have a county and district system, the city of Exeter is ruled by a district council, which will be absorbed into the unitary council, leaving Exeter—unlike the rest of Devon—without a town or parish council. The same thing would happen in Torbay, should Torbay unitary be changed and moved to cover a wider area. That would leave Torquay and Paignton without town councils, while Brixham has one. Does my hon. Friend agree that my new clause 63, which would require re-parishing or the introduction of town or parish councils in those areas that lose them in this way, is a good thing that would prevent far-off unitary councils being overwhelmed by the minutiae and issues of an individual city? \p Caroline Nokes: Order. We have a lot of speakers this afternoon. If Members make long interventions, we will simply not get through everybody. \p Zöe Franklin: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of our fantastic parish and town councils, and I hope that Members from all parts of this House will support that new clause.

We have tabled new clause 70 because neighbourhood planning only works if communities can afford to take part. Without support, neighbourhood planning becomes a slogan. With support, it becomes genuine grassroots devolution. We believe that new clause 70 would plug that gap and ensure that real community voices are heard.

Finally, the Liberal Democrats are seeking to plug yet another gap that the Bill sadly leaves wide open, and we return to the theme of parish and town councils. Under the Bill, those could be sidelined, merged or absorbed without proper public consultation. New clause 41 closes that loophole by protecting parish and town councils from being swept aside in the rush to build bigger, centralised combined authorities. If the Government claim to trust communities, they must protect the governance closest to those communities, and new clause 41 delivers just that. \p Andrew Rosindell: I like a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying, because I believe in communities, towns and villages being properly represented. However, names are important, too. Does she, as a Surrey MP, agree that instead of east Surrey and west Surrey, perhaps west Surrey and south Middlesex would be the correct name for the new authority, because of the area that is traditionally part of the county of Middlesex? \p Zöe Franklin: The hon. Member raises an interesting point, which returns us to the theme that we need to allow local communities a say in their own destinies. I will leave it to my wonderful colleagues in local government to continue that thought.

We Liberal Democrats remain concerned about the many gaps that we see in the Bill, and they are what our new clauses attempt to plug. Every single one is designed to strengthen the democratic, localist, community-led principles that Ministers say they support. With our new clauses, this English devolution Bill might finally seem to provide the devolution that the Government keep promising us. I urge Members across the House to support these vital amendments, and to give local democracy the respect, the voice and the power that it deserves. \p Elsie Blundell: I rise to speak to new clause 83, which stands in my name. I thank colleagues for their support for the new clause. I also sincerely thank the Minister and her team for their consistent engagement with me on this landmark piece of legislation—a Bill that will be game-changing for my constituents.

Before I speak to my new clause, which would forge a fairer, safer and better regulated private hire vehicle sector, I want to express my full support for the steps that the Government are taking by introducing national minimum standards. We need to rebuild confidence in a system that so many view as broken. This is about giving local leaders power to decide which drivers operate in their areas, and, most crucially, it is about the safety and wellbeing of passengers and drivers.

Let me deal first with the problem we face. Many Members will have heard from constituents who have raised legitimate concerns that the taxis or private hire vehicles that they see operating in their local areas are actually licensed hundreds of miles away. That is because since 2015 operators have been permitted to contract bookings to another vehicle that could be licensed in a different area. It has coincided with the meteoric rise of national operators such as Uber and Bolt, which are permitted to be licensed in multiple areas. The stark absence of any regulation has led to certain local authorities becoming, as the GMB union has put it,

“a licence factory…creaking at the seams”.

No example underscores that more vividly than the activities of City of Wolverhampton Council. In the first five months of last year alone, the council granted more than 8,500 new taxi licences, which is 30 times more than any other licensing authority in the midlands. This has a real and tangible impact across the whole country. Indeed, in Greater Manchester nearly half of all private hire vehicles are now licensed by local authorities outside its 10 councils, and the city region’s “out of area” figure of more than 12,000 has risen sharply from just under 7,000 in 2023. In my own borough of Rochdale, about 40% of private hire vehicles and taxis are licensed out of area.

This is not just an issue of public perception; it is also about safety and enforcement. For as long as the status quo persists and scores of vehicles are operating out of area, far from the authority that licensed them in the first instance, there will remain a deficit in terms of accountability when incidents take place.

Let me add a caveat by saying, unequivocally, that the vast majority of drivers are law-abiding people. They are integral to our economy and to our society as a whole, and I have been delighted to engage with a great number of them since being elected to this place. However, situations arise in which enforcement becomes necessary, and at present licensing authorities such as my own are unable to take action because of the proliferation of out-of-area operation. \p Peter Lamb: Does my hon. Friend agree that while it is good news that the Government have now proposed national minimum standards, her new clause represents the other part of the Casey review’s recommendations, without which the House would have failed to act on the licensing requirements specified in the review? \p Elsie Blundell: I truly support and welcome the Government’s commitment to national minimum standards, but I believe that they must be complemented by a restriction on out-of-area operations so that they can be enforced locally where necessary.

At a recent meeting of the Transport Committee, which is currently holding an inquiry on the private hire vehicle sector, we heard from a licensing officer from Blackpool council. When I asked whether his authority was able to keep track of the drivers operating within it, he stated:

“We are now at a stage where provisions on where an operator can operate vehicles do not seem to matter. We are not even in a position where an operator has to have a licence everywhere it operates; it does not.”

He went on to say:

“I know the limitations of my operational enforcement resource…chasing vehicles all over the country is not something we could deal or cope with.”

I know from conversations with Rochdale borough council’s licensing department that those sentiments are shared there, too. Standards are one thing, but without proper means of enforcement, they will not have the maximum impact on public safety.

I will now move to the substance of my new clause 83. Under the new clause, strategic authorities would have the power to require that journeys that start and end there are fulfilled by locally licensed operators. It would give local leaders power and the choice to adopt that as a solution. Considered together, new clause 83 and the Government amendments would encourage drivers to license locally and would ensure that if things go wrong, both drivers and passengers have the confidence that enforcement measures will be swift, considered and legitimate in the eyes of local authorities and local people. If reinforced by implementing national minimum standards, these two changes could revitalise the sector, and give both drivers and passengers the confidence and certainty they deserve.

I believe that there are no Members present today, no corner of society and, indeed, no drivers out there in the sector who believe the system as it stands is working well. It is oversaturated, with a lack of local accountability and an erosion of the ties between drivers and the communities they serve. The private hire and taxi sector is critical to our economy and for filling gaps in the  local transport network, but for too long the safety of passengers and the ability of licensing authorities to do their job have been undermined for the sake of a model that is unfit for purpose. We must bring an end to out-of-area licensing and offer the sector the change for which it has been calling out for decades.

The Bill is about granting power to local people to make their own decisions that will change their communities for the better. This is one such a decision—one that we can no longer afford to avoid. \p Andrew Rosindell: I rise to speak in support of my new clauses 85 and 86. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) for supporting both new clauses.

New clause 85 seeks to ensure that the boundaries of the ceremonial county of Essex are once again aligned with the historic county, as they were for many hundreds of years—in fact, for well over a millennium. It was only in 1965, under the London Government Act 1963, that that changed. The entire history of the constituency that I represent has, except for in the past few decades, been a part of the historic county of Essex. New clause 85 would combine the historic Essex with the ceremonial Essex, which I believe would end the confusion and allow the people of my fine county to once again fully celebrate the rich heritage of the county in its entirety.

Let me explain a little further. Across the entire country, the identity of each county is very important to all our constituents. People are proud of their historic county identity, and it is reflected in so many ways—whether it is through sport, social activities, church or the local regiment. Whatever it may be, we are proud of our county identity, and it should not be muddled up with administrative councils, which chop and change, as we are now seeing again today. Historic and ceremonial counties are for cultural celebration and for historic purposes, so the lord lieutenants of the different historic counties and ceremonial counties really should be as one. That would end the confusion.

In my borough, which is the so-called London borough of Havering—everyone who comes to Havering knows that it is really Essex, not London at all—we are constantly confused about where we are. The people of my borough are tired of this, and they want the muddle and confusion, which was caused by bureaucrats in the 1960s, to end. It is a very simple thing to resolve. I say to the Minister that it would not affect any of the local government changes the Government are proposing. It is nothing to do with local government; this is purely ceremonial and historical.

We cannot have three definitions of counties—administrative, ceremonial and historic. The muddle is a nonsense, and we have to end that muddle. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider this matter seriously. I have raised it with Ministers over and over again in my  25 years as a Member of this House. She should consider putting the historic counties and the ceremonial counties together. That would deal with the historical and ceremonial side of things, which is part of our identity, and it would be completely divorced from any local government boundaries, which may change from time to time.

Essex was founded way back in AD 527 by the East Saxons, so there have been one and a half millennia of Essex. Members can therefore understand why people in Romford in Havering—and, indeed, in other boroughs to the east of the River Lea—frankly do not understand why their identity has been taken away from them. That does need to be resolved, and I really hope that the Government will use this opportunity to deal with the ceremonial and historical boundaries, which would mean that the lieutenancies were reconfigured to make sense, and to give people back their local identity, especially, as my new clause 85 says, in Essex. Essex could lead the way, so that other counties can do the same.

My second amendment, new clause 86, is completely separate. It is about local government, not about identity, counties or anything I spoke about in relation to new clause 85. It is purely about local and regional government, so it is administrative. In the 1960s—once again, because of the Local Government Act 1963—without the consent of my borough, we were taken out of the Essex county council area and placed under what was called Greater London.

As I have said, we are not really London; we are Essex. We are close to London, we travel to London and we go to London for lots of reasons, but our identity and our heritage are really Essex. I have to say that the mayoralty of London in the last period has not worked for boroughs such as Havering. It may work for inner London, but it really does not work for boroughs on the very edge of Greater London, which pay in colossal sums of money and do not get the services that we are funding.

If Members come to my constituency, they will not see the police stations we used to have. Indeed, they will barely see a policeman. They will pay the ultra low emission zone charge, even though we have clean air quality. We have the freedom pass for our pensioners, and rightly so, but we pay extra for it. We do not get it free from the Mayor of London. My borough pays into the scheme, so we buy into that system. To address that issue, I have a Bill about Transport for London concessionary schemes before Parliament at the moment.

With new clause 86, I propose to give a right to the people of Havering. We believe in democracy and devolution, so will the Minister please give the residents of my borough of Havering the right to decide in a referendum whether they would like to withdraw from the Greater London Authority, and instead have the option of joining the new Greater Essex combined county authority? I do not deny that this needs negotiation and would mean reconfiguration, but it is a serious prospect. We cannot be part of Essex for hundreds and hundreds of years, and suddenly be taken out of it without repercussions, particularly given that, as I have explained, it appears that my borough is in effect subsidising inner London. We have had enough, and we want the choice.

If we truly believe in democracy and if this Government are genuine about devolution, my borough could easily change and become part of the Greater Essex combined county authority. All I am asking is for us to have that debate, and to be given a choice. There are differences  of opinion: some people think we are better off in Greater London, and others would prefer to be part of an Essex authority. Surely every Member of this House believes in democracy—I hope they do—and every Member of this House should allow boroughs such as mine, right on the extremities of Greater London, to at least have that choice. I am asking for a referendum to be considered, and I am asking for my constituents to have the democratic right to make the decision about where we truly belong and what best suits our local borough. \p Ben Spencer: My constituency is on the outskirts of London—we are not in London; we are very much in Surrey—but we suffer from the fact that many decisions that affect my constituents on a daily basis are made in London, often to our detriment, and we have absolutely no control over them. I recognise the strong point my hon. Friend is making, but even if he is able to withdraw from the administrative unit of London, he will not escape negative decision making by the current Mayor of London. \p Andrew Rosindell: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is why fundamental reform of the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London needs to take place. Personally, I do not believe that we need the GLA. I believe we should transfer powers back to local boroughs, towns and communities. If we have some form of authority for London, it should deal purely with the capital—the central part of London. Frankly, do we need a GLA that goes all the way from Hampton Wick up to Havering-atte-Bower, and from Ruislip down to Biggin Hill? We do not; it is an unnecessary layer of government. I would prefer the authority, power and funding to go directly to our towns, villages and boroughs that are controlled locally by elected councillors, not a huge bureaucracy in City Hall that is unaccountable, undemocratic and has very little support among anyone I speak to. \p Alison Bennett: I am interested in how far the hon. Gentleman would propose to go. Would he advocate the abolition for the Mayor of London? \p Andrew Rosindell: Yes I would, personally. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will undoubtedly recall that our former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, abolished the Greater London Council. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will remember that very well, because he sat on the GLC at the time. In 1986, the GLC was abolished and what happened? The power went back to each borough across London. We did not have to pay a huge precept. We paid our way for policing and the fire brigade and so on, but generally speaking the powers truly returned—as I hope the Liberal Democrats believe in—to local communities. We did not have an overarching bureaucracy interfering in everything we do, from planning to transport to policing. I would hope that the Liberal Democrats believe that powers should be held as locally as possible.

The overarching bureaucracy in City Hall, which is so unaccountable, really needs to go. No, I do not believe we need a Mayor of London. I believe we need to have local authorities working together where there are strategic matters to be discussed—transport, planning or infrastructure—but we do not need to create a monstrous bureaucracy. Margaret Thatcher was right to abolish the  GLC and Tony Blair was absolutely wrong to bring back the GLA, with all its paraphernalia, bureaucracy and huge costs to the council tax payers of the Greater London area. On that note, I ask Members to please support new clauses 85 and 86 to restore our Essex identity and to give us the democratic right to decide our own future. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: I think some of those points might have been stretching my patience on scope somewhat. I do not intend to put on a fixed time limit. However, Members might like to consider whether they can stay within the bounds of about six minutes, so that I can get everyone in. \p John Martin McDonnell: I want to argue the case for Wessex. [Laughter.] No, I don’t.

I originally came in to support new clauses 67 and 68, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), on the licensing of cabs and others. Unfortunately, he had problems printing out his speech and arrived late, so he is unable to speak directly to them, but I am sure he will intervene on the subject.

Things have moved on since we first drafted new clauses 67 and 68, and I am really grateful. The Government have brought forward a series of amendments—new clauses 49 to 54, I believe—that deal with national licensing. That is a huge step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) eloquently put the arguments for why those provisions are needed, and moved the argument on as well, because out-of-borough licensing is the big issue that is hitting us at the moment.

I declare an interest as a member of Unite—it is in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The genesis of our involvement is that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and I convened a meeting of cab drivers who were all members of Unite. The GMB has taken an important role in this as well. It is the first time I had seen a united front of cab drivers, with black cab drivers and other drivers representing all areas of this sector of the economy united in this one demand on proper national licensing and out-of-area provision. \p Peter Lamb: I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts to move these provisions forward. I will relay the key points of our agreement on this issue. The key challenge is that since the Deregulation Act 2015, we have a system in which councils no longer know who is operating in their area, on what basis they are operating, and what standards they are operating on. I am directly familiar with how the system has shifted as I was a member of the licensing committee from 2010 onwards. Most significantly, councils have no power to enforce or investigate when things go wrong. City of Wolverhampton council really needs to go and investigate the entire country because of the way in which the systems are operating.

If we are not going to have a national system, the only way we can get back to a system where someone has the confidence that if their daughter gets into an Uber tonight, the council will know who she is, can intervene if she is in danger and will investigate if  something goes wrong, is by returning to national standards, and by having a situation where local licensing authorities can once again control who is starting or ending in their patch—not having people coasting in from out of area. \p John Martin McDonnell: My hon. Friend got a good part of his speech in anyway. That is exactly what came out of the meeting with the cab drivers themselves. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North, they put an emphasis on the Casey report and raised their concerns.

My understanding of the Government’s intention is that, having inserted national licensing into the Bill, there will be a rapid consultation on how it will work—that will be excellent—and, with regard to the out-of-location measures, there will be further discussions about the whole licensing regime for cabs. As the Minister said, the legislation is that old that it goes back to the horse-drawn Hackney carriage in the 19th century.

The one point I want to make is that this is a matter of urgency. Everyone I have spoken to feels that it is a matter of urgency because of the vulnerability of passengers. As has been said, the vast majority of people who work in the sector want to provide a good service, which is why they are lobbying so hard for national standards, but there are some rogue operators and they are putting people at risk. We are only as good as the last serious case of abuse in the system. That is why I emphasise to the Government that this is a matter of urgency. If it requires a separate piece of legislation, as I am advised it probably will, we need to ensure that we have spoken to the Leader of the House. I think that, on a cross-party basis, we would give that legislation time and priority, as the dangers are so hefty.

New clause 13, which some of my hon. Friends will talk about, reflects what is happening outside this House: a movement in local communities to have more control of their local community, particularly through local environmental controls. For the life of me, I do not understand why the Government are resisting new clause 13, but maybe the spirit of it will go into the other place. All it is asking for is a review of how the Localism Act 2011 has worked.

I supported the 2011 Act—it was about empowering local communities. The movement that is building for people to assert control over their local areas is significant, and the Government need to take that into account. Perhaps, as the debate moves forward, the Government will look more appreciatively on an amendment like new clause 13 in the other place. \p Munira Wilson: I rise primarily to speak to new clause 26 and amendment 82, tabled in my name, which are related to the changes the Government propose to the assets of community value system.

Members across the House will know from their own communities that playing field space is at a premium, and my constituency is no different. We have fantastic local grassroots sports clubs run by dedicated local volunteers, including our local football clubs, the Cygnets—which has more than 300 girls on its books regularly playing football, and now adult women, too—the Twickenham Tigers and the Hearts of Teddlothians, as well as Thamesians rugby club, among others, all of which are desperate for pitch space. These groups are struggling  to meet growing demand because they simply cannot find the space to train and play matches. At a time when we face the twin public health crises of obesity and poor mental health, we must do everything we can to promote and support young people, in particular, and adults to play sport for the immense physical and mental health benefits that it brings.

Yet sitting in my constituency are the much-loved Udney Park playing fields—a 13-acre war memorial playing field—which have, scandalously, lain derelict for more than a decade. Sadly, I do not have the time to bore the House with the long and sorry tale of how we ended up with prime playing field space, which was donated in 1919 under a covenant for the playing of amateur sport, going to rack and ruin. However, since Imperial College decided to sell the site in 2015, successive developers have purchased it at overinflated prices and have, quite rightly, been unable to develop the site due to the various important protections afforded to it. The site has been designated an asset of community value, and despite huge efforts by the local community to buy the land whenever it has been put up for sale by its owners, the two successive owners have refused to agree a price and sell to the community, meaning that the precious playing fields and pavilion have degraded over time.

I warmly welcome the new community right-to-buy provision in the Bill, but it does not go far enough in actually empowering communities to buy precious sites such as Udney Park. New clause 26 would further strengthen the proposed powers where dormant assets are concerned. While the Bill introduces a mechanism for independent valuation where a price cannot be agreed between the seller and a community group buyer, it remains silent on both how that valuation is achieved and what can be done if the seller repeatedly refuses to sell at what is determined to be market value. On the point of independent valuation, I would like to have seen written into the Bill an explicit clause that removed hope value where an existing playing field has been purchased by a community group to continue using it as playing field space; alas, I was told by the Clerks that this was firmly out of scope, and the Government refused to back a similar amendment that I tabled to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

New clause 26, however, provides a mechanism to enable a local authority to engage the compulsory purchase function in the event of an asset of community value lying dormant for five years or more and a market value offer—as determined through independent valuation as set out in proposed new section 86T to the Localism Act 2011—from a community group being rejected, and if the seller has been unable to agree a sale with an alternative buyer.

Extending the right-to-buy power in this way would prevent developers from land banking in the hope of a change in legislation and prevent precious, desperately needed sites like Udney Park playing fields from lying derelict and unused when hundreds, if not thousands, of local residents, young and old, could benefit from them. It would focus minds and encourage the owner to sell when it gets a fair market value offer from a community group.

Together with amendment 82, new clause 26 would help to boost access to more green spaces and grassroots sports facilities at a time when demand is growing, not least following the amazing successes of the Lionesses  and the Red Roses this summer. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have been concerned by the Government’s removal of Sport England’s role in national policy. Amendment 82 would support local authorities by ensuring that they have the funding necessary to assess land in their area for eligibility as a sporting asset of community value. As I said at the outset, sport is such an important tool in the fight against the mental and physical health crises facing our young people and adults, and amendment 82 would simply ensure that lack of funding will not be an obstacle to protecting what will be vital sporting assets of community value. I hope that Ministers will take these measures seriously, and I look forward to hearing their response.

Finally, I will touch briefly on amendment 94 tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and consequential amendments to it, as well as amendment 4 tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). They both seek to achieve the same objective.

My council in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames is run through the committee system, and it has been run extremely effectively in this way since 2019, in line with its commitment to democracy and transparency. I completely refute the Minister’s earlier comments that a committee system means that a council will not be run efficiently or transparently. Not once in the last six years that we have had a Liberal Democrat council running on a committee system have I ever heard a member of the public say to me, “I don’t understand how decisions are made.” We are actually running so efficiently that the Government have decided to punish our council by cutting its core Government funding in a devastating way that will have a massive impact on services. So I completely refute her suggestion that a cabinet executive model is the way to go.

All elected councillors in Richmond are involved in the decision-making process. Our council does not have the cabinet executive and back-bench structure that the Government feel is their prerogative to dictate out from Whitehall, overriding democratically elected councils. It is a blatant misuse of Ministers’ authority to do that. I hope that this Government will think again on this, if not today when the Bill goes to the other place, because it is absolutely outrageous to override local authorities in this way. They should be given the power and freedom necessary to shape and provide local services the way that they choose to. After all, that is what they were elected by our residents to do. \p Sadik Al-Hassan: I would like to speak to new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), who rightly raises the issue of councillor standards and whose new clause calls for regulations to establish a recall process for councillors who breach their codes of conduct. Although a poignant point, having served as a town councillor and deputy mayor myself before being elected to this House, I believe that we must go further.

I strongly support this Bill’s aim to standardise the structure of local government. In particular, I welcome the reform of our local audit system, as outlined in the provisions. I also commend the Government’s recent announcement regarding new powers to suspend councillors for up to six months for serious misconduct and the introduction of a mandatory code of conduct across all  types of local authority in England. These are essential first steps that I wholeheartedly welcome and know from my experience are much needed.

However, I urge us to go further by introducing a dedicated local council standards Bill that addresses the full breadth of the accountability challenges that residents face with town and parish councils—known as very local councils. The Localism Act 2011 created a legislative vacuum by abolishing the standards boards for England and repealing powers to suspend councillors who breach standards. As very local councils are to play an increasingly larger role in the devolution of local services, it is essential that councils are held to the same high standards and that this critical issue receives the detailed parliamentary scrutiny it deserves.

As one of my constituents and a former parish councillor put it, councillors have “little incentive” and “no mandatory training requirements”. Having witnessed at first hand these challenges in local and very local councils, I believe that we must robustly tackle those who bring the reputations of councils into disrepute, undermining the already fragile trust in local politics and doing a profound disservice to the overwhelming majority of councillors who serve their communities with integrity and dedication.

The ongoing recruitment crisis for both town and parish clerks and potential councillors is directly linked to the lack of effective recourse against unacceptable behaviour. There are councils that have gained a local, in some cases national, reputation for dysfunction. The result is that some councils are resorting to offering wildly increased salaries, representing what amounts to danger money for staff for having to deal with toxic behaviours. Experienced, qualified clerks who serve as impartial legal advisers tasked with ensuring that councils operate lawfully are subjected to behaviour that would not be tolerated in any professional environment. The loss of those valuable professionals weakens governance and standards across the entire sector.

To that end, I propose that we should create a dedicated local standards Bill that establishes a comprehensive framework for local council accountability. It should include professional regulation for councillors, with robust oversight mechanisms beyond the mandatory code of conduct. It should establish a properly funded model for monitoring officers through professional regulation fees paid by councils, similar to the current mandatory external audit fees, ensuring that those vital guardians of standards have the capacity to perform their function effectively and consistently across all local authorities.

A compliance scoring system would provide the public with transparent indicators about whether their elected representatives are undertaking best practice and demonstrating financial competence with taxpayers’ money. National internal audit parameters, building on the audit reforms outlined in the Bill, would ensure transparency and consistency of Government standards across all very local councils, regardless of their size or location.

Additionally, the annual governance and accountability statement should include a proper officer declaration confirming where councils have chosen to ignore or disregard professional legal advice, particularly where   that represents a breach of their legal obligations. Such accountability made visible and measurable would help to restore public confidence in local governance.

Although the announced reforms begin to address that issue, the complexity and importance of comprehensively rebuilding the standards infrastructure merits dedicated legislation. We cannot allow the minority who tarnish the sector’s reputation to continue creating disparities in community benefit or to drive experienced professionals from their roles.

I emphasise that many local councils across the country and in North Somerset are governed extremely well and genuinely enrich their communities, but as we move forward with devolution we must ensure that town and parish councils are functioning effectively, operating in line with legislation, delivering value for money for their residents and taking heed of legal advice given to them by their proper officers.

We have the opportunity to rebuild trust in local and very local politics, ensuring impeccable standards and levels of accountability. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Government on developing such legislation so that the standards in our very local councils mean a better deal for residents. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Dr Ben Spencer. \p Ben Spencer: Yesterday, my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), asked the Minister whether Surrey will get a mayor. He did not get much of an answer—we can only imagine what has led the Government over the past year to get cold feet on the election of mayors going forwards. I want to talk about new clause 1 and amendment 2, on consent for change, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on behalf of the official Opposition.

Surrey and others have been working with the Government to maximise the opportunities of devolution locally. As part of that, there has been quite a debate over the unitary model and whether there should be two, three or one unitary authorities. On the face of it, ideally, going for one unitary would mean savings, but the Government have decided that is not possible, so, through various processes, the decision has been made to have two unitaries. That has all been done in pursuit of a mayor.

A mayor would make a big difference in ensuring that Surrey can, as the Government put it, unlock devolution. It is frustrating that we have got to this stage—all this work has been done—but there has still been no firm commitment that Surrey will get a mayor, particularly when a unitary model is being adopted purely to seek a mayor when, actually, a better model locally would be a single unitary. I see the Minister nodding; I am sure she can see that conundrum and how there is frustration about the fact that a mayor has not yet been announced.

A mayor would bring huge benefits in leading on strategic projects such as the River Thames scheme that I have been trying to push to be built as soon as possible. It would also bring benefits in health, with accountability  for integrated care boards—again, I have been calling for that—and on transport locally. I have been calling for a duty to co-ordinate, which I think a mayor with powers would also be able to deliver for Surrey. In housing, I am calling for the prevention of inappropriate local development, which is blighting areas across Runnymede and Weybridge and which will affect both the east and west unitaries when they are set up. In policing, given that the Government have announced that they will wrap up the police and crime commissioners, we need a mayor to take on the role at the cut-off date of 2028.

I beg the Minister to announce, either in winding up, via a written ministerial statement or otherwise the confirmation of a mayor for Surrey and a guarantee that next year’s elections will go ahead. Will she also explain how my constituents can be shielded from other councils’ debt as part of the unitary reforms that are going ahead? \p Sam Carling: I strongly support this Bill and was proud to serve on the Committee. The Bill will deliver an enormous transfer of power out of this place and into our local communities. As a former councillor, I know that trusting local representatives to make decisions about local services and issues leads to much stronger outcomes.

I want to speak strongly in favour of the Government’s new clauses 49 to 57, which provide for the introduction of national minimum standards for taxi licensing. I am delighted to see the Government bringing forward those measures, which I and others, many of whom have spoken today, have proposed to tackle the huge problem with cross-border licensing, which is an issue for both taxi drivers and passengers. Right now, local councils have significant flexibility around taxi licensing policy, without a baseline, which means there is huge variance between councils. Yet drivers can operate anywhere once licensed. Unsurprisingly, that creates huge demand for licensing from councils with laxer standards.

Wolverhampton has become the UK’s taxi licensing hub. In the first five months of last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) mentioned, the council issued over 8,500 licences, which is more than 30 times any other council in the midlands. From April 2023 to March 2024, 96% of licences went to people living elsewhere. Wolverhampton-licensed taxis now operate nationwide, and a third of taxis in Manchester are registered in Wolverhampton, 80 miles away. That is not the drivers’ fault, as seeking out the best deal possible is understandable, particularly if it is cheaper or if processing times are faster. However, there are several problems.

First, drivers who do the right thing and register locally are undercut by those going to councils with weaker standards, creating a race to the bottom that harms both drivers and passengers. We must emphasise that drivers want this to be fixed too, so that rogue operators can be dealt with. There is a real democratic deficit: local authorities cannot regulate their own standards effectively and they lose control, as seen in Peterborough in my area, where plans for CCTV in taxis had to be dropped because locally licensed drivers would pay more while others would avoid the cost by licensing elsewhere.

Secondly, climate and emissions aims are undermined too. Peterborough city council will not license a vehicle that is over nine years old, but Wolverhampton allows cars up to 12 years old. There is a lot of variance on that. \p John Martin McDonnell: We have all had a go at giving Wolverhampton a bashing. The council has not advertised this licensing; it just deals with it efficiently, so drivers have gone there—but it was not the council’s fault. \p Sam Carling: I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said. In fact, I carefully drafted this speech to avoid attacking Wolverhampton in any way, because I recognise that the reasons for this situation are complex. That goes to my next point: overstretched councils cannot monitor conditions, let alone enforce them, for drivers operating hundreds of miles away. If there is an incident in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire involving a driver who is licensed halfway across the country, there is no way that their licensing council can properly investigate and do something about it. It would be like asking Police Scotland to investigate something in Cornwall; it just does not make sense.

Thirdly, there is a huge safety issue. Some councils have less stringent Disclosure and Barring Service checking requirements, they are cheaper, or they have no requirement for CCTV or emission-compliant vehicles, so both passengers and drivers are left without adequate protection when there are incidents. That was a key point of the recent Casey audit on child sexual exploitation and abuse, which identified that some councils go beyond statutory guidance as a means of tackling sexual exploitation, but were hindered by a lack of stringency from other authorities.

That problem was also raised in the 2014 Jay inquiry into child sexual abuse in Rotherham. That rings true with calls from all sectors, including from trade unions such as Unite and the GMB—I declare that I am a GMB member—in their long-running campaigns around this matter, to which I pay tribute. I am delighted that the Government have listened to me and others and adopted the proposals that were brought forward in Committee. I look forward to seeing the detail of what the Government propose for national minimum standards, and I will continue to engage closely.

At this point, I was going to talk about the importance of considering raising the licensing authority level to strategic authorities and transport authorities, so it was brilliant to hear the Minister say just now that we will be consulting on that, because that is the other key part of this story. Together, those two measures could have a profound impact on dealing with the issues in this sector.

Turning briefly to other amendments, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s new clause 45, which will remove the requirement for local councillors’ home addresses to be published. Given the security environment, this is excellent news. I am aware of more than one incident in my region over the past few years of councillors’ home addresses being publicised maliciously online by bad faith actors, encouraging people to intimidate councillors in their homes. Indeed, that has happened in my region on several occasions, so this provision will have a tangible impact on keeping safe those dedicated volunteers from our communities who are trying to do what is best.

New clause 79, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), talks about establishing local accounting officers and public accounts committees in each mayoral strategic area. The Government have been talking about this for some time, and there is a lot of support for these committees to hold local spending to account and provide some real oversight, so I would appreciate some thoughts from the Minister on why the Government are not bringing that forward at this time, and whether they are considering doing so more broadly.

To conclude, I really welcome the Bill. We went through it line by line in Committee, so I know what a difference it will make, transforming local government, pushing power out of this place and empowering communities to make decisions that make sense for their areas. As with the last Labour Government, we are spearheading the devolution we need to unlock the growth and opportunities that have for too long been overlooked. \p Alison Bennett: My amendment 34 is simple but vital. It would strengthen the ability of all our communities not only to bid for assets of community value but to make informed, responsible decisions when doing so. At present, communities have a right to bid, yet, absurdly, no guaranteed right to view. We ask our town and parish councils to act as prudent stewards of public money, to conduct surveys, to secure financing and to follow proper decision-making processes, yet we deny them the basic opportunity to inspect the very asset they may be committing taxpayer funds to purchase. This is impractical, illogical and unreasonable.

A recent case in my constituency of Mid Sussex illustrates the problem well. Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common parish council sought to bid for a former church building listed as an asset of community value. I can attest to the value that this building had for the community, because when my children were tiny, they went there during the week. It served as their pre-school and I must say that Cottis pre-school was and still is a wonderful facility, led by Sam. I am still grateful to the staff there for their support and the best start they gave my children.

Throughout the six-month moratorium, despite repeated requests, the parish council was refused access to the building. Only after the moratorium ended, when the property was placed in an auction, did the auction house permit inspections. This left the council with just two weeks to carry out surveys, complete its internal procedures and secure public works loan board financing. No responsible authority could compress such due diligence into that timeframe. Predictably, the parish council was unable to bid, and the building—an asset that it could have afforded, based on the eventual sale price—has now passed into private ownership and been converted into flats, removing a much-needed community venue from village ownership.

My amendment 34 would correct that oversight. It would simply guarantee that community buyers had an early and fair opportunity to view an asset so that they could undertake proper due diligence. It would impose no unreasonable burden on vendors. It would merely ensure a level playing field. If we believe in empowering communities, and if we believe that assets of community  value should genuinely remain available to those communities, we must give them the practical tools to act. A right to bid without a right to view is a hollow promise. I urge the Minister to support this amendment and give our councils and the communities they serve a fair chance to preserve the places that matter most to them. \p Beccy Cooper: I very much welcome this devolution Bill, and today I speak in support of Government new clause 45 and amendments 153 and 107 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher).

New clause 45 and amendment 153 relate to the essential role of our local councillors. As a recent councillor and leader of Worthing borough council, I can attest to how hard my fellow councillors work for very little remuneration—contrary to public perception—and how much they contribute to the health and wellbeing of our local communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) alluded to, as the temperature has risen in politics in recent years, these local residents who have put themselves forward with the aim of contributing positively to their communities have increasingly found themselves the target of online and in-person abuse. While it is no more acceptable for them than it is for us in national politics, we must do all we can to ensure that they and their families are safe. It is therefore good to see that recognised in new clause 45 proposing that council members’ home addresses will no longer appear in published registers of interests.

Amendment 153 acknowledges the different forms of council structure, and there has already been some debate on this matter today. My constituency of Worthing West houses two councils—Worthing borough council is a leader and cabinet system; Arun district council is a committee system. Again, as a former council leader, my preference and experience tells me that the leader and cabinet system is highly effective, but I acknowledge that the committee system can potentially allow greater involvement in decision making across the councillor groupings. With that in mind, I am supportive of the intent stated in amendment 153 that if the local authority’s committee system is protected, a review should be undertaken to see whether it is in the best interests of that local authority to move to the leader and cabinet system.

For my constituency, which is also undergoing local government reform alongside moving to a devolution model, our councillors in Worthing and Arun will need to consider the best option for the area as part of our new unitary authority when these footprints are agreed.

Amendment 107 asks that environmental interests be considered as criteria for community right to buy, provided that the land is not allocated in the local development plan. It is positive to hear already from the Minister today about the protections for local sports grounds. The environmental wellbeing of local communities, alongside economic and social benefits, is an area close to my heart as a public health consultant living on the south coast. Worthing has the smallest amount of green land per head of population in the UK—less than a snooker table per person. We have limited green land left in our constituency’s urban areas, and even though we are undoubtedly blessed with the English channel to  the south and the south downs to the north, people do not live in the sea and very few of us live in our national park. Our wellbeing is therefore determined by our densely populated urban strip bordering the coastline.

Our remaining green spaces in this area are incredibly precious for our mental and physical health, air quality and climate mitigation measures. Green spaces can help to reduce our ever-increasing flood risk. I therefore would welcome any additional guidance from the Minister in this area for our current and soon-to-be devolved regions, such as my own in Sussex. The health of our population should be our No. 1 priority, and devolved government is ideally placed to help deliver those much-needed protections and improvements for our communities. \p John Milne: I will speak to new clause 10(a) in my name. Devolution may be in the title of the Bill, but not everything in it lives up to that name. In many respects, the Bill actually takes power further away from the people back towards the centre.

When I look at my constituency, which will be affected by both devolution and local government reorganisation, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), I am particularly concerned about the fate of key community assets. Across Horsham district, parish councils run much-loved services including parks, village halls, allotments and sports fields. For the town itself, the jewels in the crown are the council-run Capitol theatre and Horsham park. Why do we still have a theatre when so many others have closed down? It is because Horsham’s theatre is owned and run by the Horsham people and their local council.

The two-tier local government system was never designed as a means of protecting community assets, but in practice, that is how it worked out, because as a side effect it separated and saved at least some local services from the bottomless pit that is the adult social care and special educational needs and disabilities budgets. Upper-tier authorities’ un-ringfenced budgets, such as those for leisure and culture, have been put to the sword over the years. If Horsham had been run entirely out of West Sussex county council for the past decade, with no district council, we would surely have lost our theatre years ago—it would have been sold off to plug ever-growing holes in the county budget. That sacrifice would have been for nothing, because in reality the SEND and social care deficits can never be met by council tax contributions alone. One day soon, the Government will have to recognise that.

How can we protect our much-loved community assets in this devolved new world? Access to secure funding will always be a key part of it. The Bill is a key opportunity to ensure that town and parish councils can access a simplified funding pipeline at a time when community assets most need protection. Smaller councils have not had ready access to Government growth funds such as the community renewal fund, the levelling-up fund, the towns fund, the UK shared prosperity fund or the community ownership fund. There is no clear replacement now.

As it stands, town and parish councils have their hands tied when it comes to supporting community assets. Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 gives a power of last resort for councils to act when no other statutory power applies. However, there are strict  controls around it, including a spending cap of just £11.10 per elector—a serious limit on councils’ ability to intervene usefully. I am delighted that Horsham people and councillors have just voted to set up a new town council, ready to take on and protect community assets, but they will have to do so with a much smaller tax base than currently, which is a challenge.

A community asset could be a pub, a community hall, an allotment or a village green. Only local people know what really matters to them, and only local people can be trusted to keep the faith. The democratic gap that has been opened up between town and parish councils and unitary councils is vast. The new unitary system will leave English people with arguably the lowest percentage of local representatives per head of any western European country. That is the opposite of devolution. I therefore urge the Minister to support new clause 10, to strengthen access to community ownership funds. That needs active thought, or we will see much-loved assets vanish as mere collateral damage of wider reform. It takes decades to create those oases of local culture, but just a few short years to destroy them. \p Abtisam Mohamed: I will address Government amendments 152 and 153. I thank the Minister and her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for responding to our concerns at the outset of proceedings on the Bill.

As we reach the end of debate on the Bill, I am struck by how significant this moment is for local democracy and for communities like mine in Sheffield, where residents won a referendum on how the city will be run. They chose to adopt the committee system of governance, and secured a democratic mandate to change the culture of the council. When the Bill was introduced, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), along with the leaders of Sheffield council and grassroots campaigners, made the case for our constituents’ decision to be respected through the inclusion of Sheffield’s example in legislation. As a result, Government amendments 152 and 153 now provide the legal basis for what Sheffield has decided, and will, in turn, protect the democratic process.

Amendment 152 clarifies that the committee system can operate where it already exists, while amendment 153 sets out how a council such as Sheffield can continue that operation through a review and a resolution to confirm that it should remain. Those amendments mean that our system of governance is both recognised and protected. For Sheffield, it means confirming that our referendum result was not just symbolic but an expression of democratic choice. It also means that that choice is honoured, not overwritten, and recognised in law.

I acknowledge the collaborative work that has brought us here. We have spoken constructively for many months with campaigners from It’s Our City Sheffield, which has been instrumental in ensuring that Sheffield’s voice was heard; with local government leaders who have taken on the mantle of embedding a culture of inclusivity and opening up decision making; and with Ministers, to ensure that the Bill protects the system chosen by our residents, and offers the legal clarity needed to support effective local government. For Sheffield, that is the right outcome.

Finally, I would like to express my support for new clauses 67 and 68 and amendment 168, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), and new clause 83 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), on the issue of cross-border taxi licensing. I declare my interest, as a member of two unions—GMB and Unite—that have been actively campaigning on this issue.

Those amendments would strengthen the Government’s new clauses 49 to 57 on setting national minimum standards for private hire, but they go further in explicitly ending out-of-area taxi licensing—an issue that is repeatedly raised by my constituents and has been raised by the Transport Committee, as well as Baroness Casey’s recent review. However, constituents have contacted me to urge slight caution on some of the wording in new clause 83, especially in proposed new section 55C of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, to ensure that it does not lead to the prevention of legitimate cross-border journeys such as airport journeys. To echo the words of Sheffield residents, this is a decisive moment with the potential to resolve a problem that has undermined public safety and the integrity of our licence system for far too long. \p Manuela Perteghella: I am pleased to speak to several amendments, tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues, that relate to community assets, planning and local democratic engagement. These are practical proposals designed to strengthen the community empowerment provisions in the Bill and make them work in our communities.

The Bill removes the long-standing duty for councils to publish notices in printed local newspapers. In a constituency like Stratford-on-Avon, that is a serious concern. Not everyone is online, especially in our rural villages, where digital connectivity is still patchy, and many older residents rely on the local newspaper for essential information. Printed notices remain one of the clearest ways that residents hear about planning applications, road closures, licensing changes and council decisions that affect their daily lives. They also support a local press sector that has played a vital role in maintaining transparency and scrutiny and informing citizens. I have tabled amendment 28 to keep that requirement in place. It is a simple safeguard to ensure that residents are not excluded from the democratic process because they happen to live in an area with poor broadband or simply prefer print.

Turning to community assets, I have tabled amendments 30 and 32 because the current system contains a glaring flaw. Once listed, an asset of community value drops off the register automatically after five years, regardless of whether it is still important to the community. For many villages and towns, the asset might be the local pub, the village green, the village hall or a community shop. These remain part of the fabric of local life for decades, yet community groups often discover only after the fact that the listing has expired, and they have lost the right to bid.

Amendments 30 and 32 would remove the automatic expiry so that protection does not vanish simply because a bureaucratic deadline has passed. It shifts the burden  away from volunteers and neighbourhood groups and ensures continuity for assets that people rely on. It is exactly what the community value regime was meant to achieve.

Linked to that is amendment 33, which concerns planning decisions affecting assets of community value. At present, even if an asset is listed, there is no obligation for planning authorities to give that status special weight. Communities see treasured buildings or spaces demolished or redeveloped despite having taken the trouble to secure recognition. Amendment 33 would allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance requiring planning authorities to consider community value properly and give this weight when determining applications.

New clause 6 goes one step further in safeguarding these community assets once listed. It gives local councils a clear duty to oversee how land of community value is managed. If an owner lets the land fall into neglect or deliberately runs it down to justify redevelopment, councils would have the tools to intervene, including compulsory purchase where necessary. It creates real accountability for absentee owners and ensures that assets meant for community benefit remain so in practice.

Taken together, these amendments reflect a simple principle: devolution cannot just be about shifting powers upwards to remote large combined authorities; it must also strengthen the tools available to people and places at the most local level. Communities know best what matters in their area. They should not have to fight to keep their village hall or their community green space because of arbitrary deadlines or loopholes in planning policy.

Local people have the ability to revive and strengthen the places that they call home, but they can only do that if power is shared with them, rather than concentrated in the hands of a few distant mayors. If Ministers are committed to meaningful community empowerment, they should take these proposals seriously and accept them, along with the wider set of amendments tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues. \p Caroline Nokes: With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Olivia Blake. \p Olivia Blake: I place on record my sincere thanks to the Secretary of State and Ministers for the constructive, open and thoughtful way in which they have engaged with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), as well as local leaders from the council in Sheffield, throughout the passage of the Bill, to solve an issue of great importance to my constituents.

More broadly, the Bill and the amendment before us today mark a significant step forward for local democracy in Sheffield and beyond. The Bill strengthens community voice, empowers local leaders and brings decisions closer to the people that they affect. We can all celebrate its commitment to clearer, more responsive pathways for devolution. It also tackles big issues, such as the national standards that we need in taxi licensing. I declare an interest as a member of the GMB, which has been campaigning on the issue for many years. I am glad that the Minister has grasped the nettle on the tricky issues relating to local government audit, which those of us who have served on the Public Accounts Committee know has been an issue for many years.

I am especially pleased that the Government have tabled amendments 152 and 153, which will allow Sheffield to retain its committee system, and not just for a protected period but beyond that. The amendments reflect a core principle of effective devolution: to enable local areas to shape the governance structures that best suit their needs and democratic traditions, especially when there has been a referendum, as in Sheffield. I pay tribute to the residents who tirelessly advocated for that and worked alongside us to find the best possible outcome.

For Sheffield, the committee system, agreed to by referendum, is rooted in transparency, co-operation and collective decision making, and embodies the values that our residents strongly support. This is a particularly important moment as it highlights the positive partnership that can be built between central Government and local people. It shows what meaningful devolution can achieve, focusing on shared goals and delivering the best outcomes for communities, and that the Government have listened and Sheffield’s voice has been heard.

The Bill is transformational and I am confident that it will help local leaders to deliver our values and priorities, and the aspirations of the people that they serve. I thank all the campaigners, including those involved in It’s Our City, for campaigning on the issue for many years, including in response to the Bill. \p Siân Berry: I want to talk first about public engagement. Fellow members of the Bill Committee know that I am not convinced that the Bill delivers the public involvement and community empowerment stated in its title, as that is not properly facilitated by the proposed measures set out in the Bill.

In Committee, I gave the Government many options to consider, including citizens assemblies, community wealth building strategies and a national public engagement commission. France has had its “Commission nationale du débat public” for 30 years, which makes real its citizens’ rights to be involved in decisions that affect their environment. It links together the environment and human rights, as set out in the excellent Aarhus convention. At this stage, I am happy to support the new option put forward by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) in relation to community empowerment. It asks the Government to undertake a review and come up with a better plan of the Government’s own choosing, which is quite reasonable and I support it.

I do not have time to go through the many other amendments that I support, but I feel like consensus around many issues is breaking out in the Chamber, as it sometimes did in Committee. However, I want to single out new clause 10, in the name of the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), which proposes a community ownership fund, and new clause 19, which asks for the alternative vote system to be used for mayoral elections, not the supplementary vote. In single member elections, the alternative vote gives real choice: people simply choose their candidate and rank them, so there is no second guessing about who might be in the second round. It means a guaranteed consensus-driven majority for the winning candidate, so the Government should consider that.

More broadly, as some Members have noted, I have talked many times about being a member of the London Assembly and holding the Mayor of London to account  with a dedicated, funded scrutiny body. The Government should pay much more attention to scrutiny in this Bill at the next stage. \p Gareth Bacon: Hear, hear! \p Siân Berry: I thank my former colleague for his “Hear, hear!”

Let me talk about governance systems and the committee system. My No. 1 goal in all this has been to try to keep the committee systems, as the Conservatives’ amendment 4 would do. My amendments 94 to 102 mirror amendments that I tabled in Committee and seek to protect existing committee systems, particularly those chosen by people in a petition and referendum process, as happened in Sheffield. That was driven by people power.

I know that the hon. Members for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) have put forward the strong cross-party views of Sheffield’s councillors, who approve of and accept the committee system. In their evidence to the Bill Committee and the House, they talked about how much they value it. I am very pleased that Government amendments 152 to 155 do the same; they are grouped with my amendments for debate.

The case for protecting committee systems is so clear, and the Local Government Association stood up for them in its statements too. I am pleased that the Government have accepted that councils operating committee systems now and those that resolve to renew or maintain them in the period before the Bill commences can keep the model for good. That is a very big change, and I am happy to voice good appreciation when good scrutiny leads to good outcomes on things such as this. \p Simon Opher: I thank the Minister, who is not in her place, for taking the time to meet me to discuss my amendments 107 and 108, which concern the community right to buy.

This Bill is one of the most exciting and empowering pieces of legislation to come from this Government. For the first time, communities will be given a genuine first opportunity to buy and own the places that matter most to them. Instead of seeing valued community assets sold off to the highest bidder, residents will be able to step in, organise and take ownership for themselves. That is truly transformative.

In Stroud, community ownership is essential for maintaining services and the environment for rural villages and towns. Community-owned village shops, such as those in Horsley and Coaley—and, indeed, my favourite shop in the world, which is in my village of Uley and is run by fabulous volunteers—keep the villages alive and provide access for older people and those without transport.

Village pubs are dying off. There are campaigns in my area to keep the Rose & Crown in Nympsfield open and, in fact, people have succeeded in making a community pub at the Red Lion in Arlingham. There are also community rooms such as the Trinity Rooms in Stroud, which the community is fundraising to buy, hopefully by Christmas. That is all very exciting. Land in Stroud aptly named the Heavens is being purchased  by the community, as is Rodborough fields. This Bill will finally give legal backing to those campaigns, but I believe that we can make one important improvement.

As drafted, the Bill refers to “economic or social interests” when defining assets of community value, but it leaves out environmental interests. That means that wildlife-rich spaces cannot be protected, even when they provide major community benefits, including access to nature and improvements to wellbeing.

My amendments simply would extend the community right to buy to include assets that further the environmental wellbeing of local communities, granting them the ability to buy and, importantly, safeguard nature-rich areas if they come up for sale. I am a GP, and I use social prescribing extensively. Walking in nature is a proven way of getting better without using pills, so I very much urge the Minister to listen to what we are saying. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) quite rightly said that this is about public health.

I know some Members are concerned that these powers could block the house building that we all want so much. That is why my amendments provide a safeguard in restricting the eligibility to land that has not been allocated for development in the local plan.

This Bill represents the biggest transfer of power out of Westminster for a century. It will give communities the right to shape, to buy and to rebuild. In Stroud, we are ready to embrace that opportunity, but we must ensure that the law properly recognises environmental value alongside social and economic wellbeing. That is why I urge the Government to support my amendments to ensure that the Bill delivers the fullest possible benefits for communities up and down the country. \p Caroline Voaden: New clause 10, which I tabled, would require the Secretary of State to re-establish the community ownership fund, to which strategic authorities can apply for funding. We have heard from lots of Members in the House today about the value of their local community-owned businesses.

Community-owned spaces are of immense economic and social value to their local area. Businesses across the country under the community ownership model are defying the odds, when small businesses in retail and hospitality in particular are struggling to survive. According to Plunkett UK—I commend its work in this area—business survival rates for community businesses remain exceptional, with a five-year survival rate of 97%. That is radically higher than the 39% survival rate of private small and medium enterprises over the same period. These thriving local enterprises reinvest back into their communities, creating a positive cycle. They also provide exponential benefits to local areas and the people who live there. They tend to source goods and services locally, creating a circular economy in the places where they exist. They support charitable activity, provide fundraising for local causes and improve the aesthetics of our towns and villages through gardening initiatives, improving the quality of our green spaces, encouraging more people to get outdoors and improving arts and culture.

From pubs and shops to community centres and hubs, these spaces are the pillars of their communities, bringing people together and nurturing a shared pride  in their town or village. They are the difference between a bunch of houses and a genuine community. At a time when community cohesion is frayed, division is commonplace and we are being pulled apart by dangerous individuals seeking to widen the cracks that are showing in our society, these community spaces offer a way to reunite communities. Through something as simple as providing a place for people to meet and talk to each other, community spaces combat this increase in division with social interaction, enabling communities to come together to celebrate where they live.

Community-owned spaces provide a wide array of volunteering opportunities, employing more than 20,000 volunteers across this country, from young people right through to older people. In a recent survey by Plunkett, 58% of these businesses stated that older people benefit most from their presence. In rural areas such as South Devon, that is especially important. Isolation can happen when people live far from neighbours in rural areas, and in many ways these places help to strengthen the very fabric of rural life for those people.

It is not easy for a community to buy a building or space that is at risk of closure or has been left unused. That is why the community ownership fund is vital, as Government funding is desperately needed to enable a sustained increase in community ownership. A community ownership fund would develop a larger pipeline of start-up groups and build the capacity and confidence of those groups to progress to the trading stage. If it were reopened, it would have a transformational impact by enabling the spread of community spaces and the extensive benefits they bring.

In the three years that the community ownership fund was in place, it saved thousands of cherished community sites at risk of closure. Thanks to the fund, community groups could generate income, build financial sustainability and strengthen community ties. It is the Government’s mission to double the size of the co-operative sector, as set out in their manifesto. It is time, therefore, for them to correct their mistake, to fulfil their promise and to seize the opportunity that this Bill presents by backing my new clause 10 and reopening the community ownership fund. \p Maya Ellis: I come once more to this discussion with a huge passion for devolving power to local areas. The northern powerhouse promise encouraged me to move back home to the north from London in my 20s, and I am so proud to have spent most of my career since then working to grow the local economies in Manchester and Lancashire. The city of Preston, part of which is in my constituency, has the telltale cranes all over the sky and grade-A office space being built at pace. Growth is best when it has local inputs and local impact, and with a two-hour train journey to London, there is no reason that Preston and cities like it should not become a key and critical spoke in our national growth story.

I am hugely grateful for the incredible energy of the Minister and for that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), who poured himself into this Bill for the past year, ensuring that areas such as Lancashire can get the powers they need to turbocharge their growth in the way that only Lancastrians know how.

Today, I will speak about new clauses 63 and amendments 42 and 150, which pertain to neighbourhood governance. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in the Bill Committee, during which I sat through lengthy debates on all these clauses. I have not directly supported the range of amendments concerning neighbourhood governance arrangements and parish and town councils, and on the whole I understand and largely support the Government’s argument against them—namely, that if we are intent on devolving power, we should allow local areas to manage that power as well, rather than dictating from Westminster how it must be managed. However, I wish to mention a number of instances in which I agree with the intent behind the amendments and to say something about the issues that they raise, in the hope that the Government can add helpful secondary legislation or strong guidance to help local areas make these changes a success.

As I observed during the development of plans for devolution in Lancashire, too many residents and organisations told me that their part in the consultation on the process felt tokenistic at best, if it was there at all. I think there is still a broad question for the Government to answer: how will we ensure that the interests of all residents and local groups have been properly fed into local changes, and how will we continue to hold local areas to account for maintaining that engagement?

My constituency contains many parished areas, while in other parts of it local community groups come together ad hoc, so I see the strengths of both formal and informal community leadership. I have been a proud member of my local parish council for many years, and it is often the place where I feel most connected to my community. The Minister has made clear throughout the Bill’s development that town and parish councils will not be affected, and indeed will have every right and opportunity to take on more responsibilities through the Bill. I commend that, and I thank her for protecting this vital part of our democracy.

While I recognise that there is plenty of public sentiment against mandating areas to become parished—which is why I cannot support new clause 63 directly—there is certainly public support for simplified, easily understood structures of government that the public can more clearly hold to account. Indeed, the Government’s own White Paper on the Bill said that its aim was to simplify local government and make it more consistent. We need only look around us to see what happens when people do not understand how our governing structures work and do not feel connected to them. People are increasingly disillusioned, and at a time when our economy is relying on people to come together with new ideas to create growth, despondency is our biggest enemy. While we need to allow flexibility, might the Government be able to show a clear preference for a town or parish council structure in their guidance, and/or ensure or require that any proposed solution involves clear democratic accountability?

I am so grateful to this Labour Government for being brave enough to push this Bill as one of their first priorities. Done is better than perfect for sure, and any devolution is better than none. However, in my decades of working with all types of communities, often hearing things that challenge some of my progressive dreams for and assumptions about this country I love, I have learned that progress and tradition can work hand in  hand if we take the best from both. I therefore urge the Government to make the most of the powerful structures we have—town and parish councils, which already run 90% of this great country—part of our future, and to ensure that we truly have accountable democracy at every level so that every person has a voice, as has always been the Labour way. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. The time limit for speeches is now three minutes. \p Rachel Gilmour: I will speak in favour of new clause 38, which I tabled. It seeks to introduce measures to prevent developers from using their own surveyors who have a vested interest in downgrading agricultural land in order to secure planning permission—particularly for solar farms—to build all over our countryside, taking farmers’ land and livelihoods.

The new clause was born out of a specific issue that was raised with me in my constituency. In Washford, a farmer called Mr Dibble—no kidding—has a farm in his family’s name. They have been there for generations. Some time ago, developers came to see him with a plan for development on the farm, and he refused. His lease is guaranteed for another generation, but the solar farm developers did not seem to care. He reached out to me because of the unfairness of the situation. I was shocked to find out that the developers had organised a surveyor to visit his property, who had deemed it sub-par agricultural land. Anyone with eyes can see that that is not the case. Farmer Dibble would not have been able to grow the crops that he has on that land had it been of the quality that the developers claimed it was. His land is grade 1 or 2 at the very least, yet surveyors are coming in, paid for by the developers, to say that—surprise, surprise—it is grade 3 at best.

At present, local authorities’ hands are tied. They have no powers to order independent assessments of land quality, nor the ability to pass judgment on the assessments made by others. My new clause seeks to give them that power. It also seeks to enshrine the employment of a land use framework for planning and development decisions. Along with many others in this place, I am sure, I am still waiting to hear the results of the land use framework consultation from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I hope that it follows the principles set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). If a development is proposed for agricultural land that falls outside the land use framework and there are competing assessments of the agricultural grade of that land, then new clause 38 would give local authorities the power to demand that a new, independent assessment of land quality be undertaken. That would stop the railroading of farmers and help to preserve good agricultural land, rather than seeing it built over.

Our farmers are our future. I call on hon. Members to back new clause 38 and new clause 17, which has been tabled in the name of my party. \p Chris Hinchliff: I have tabled new clause 13 to address a slight oversight in this Bill—namely, that despite its title, it does not give communities any substantially new powers.  The strengthening of the tools that local people have at their disposal to purchase assets of community value is certainly very welcome—yes, it is progress—but it is not fundamentally new. New clause 13 is intended to fill in this minor, accidental absence with a requirement on the Secretary of State to report on progress towards, and set out plans to deliver, a new charter of community rights containing seven key elements: a right to a clean and healthy environment; a right to a healthy home; a right to play; a right to grow food on public sector land; a right to roam and swim; a right to participate in decisions shaping communities; and a right to challenge local decisions.

Designed to put power back in the hands of ordinary people, the charter offers a starting point to restore popular agency in our democracy. Each of the seven rights contained within it is based on clear legal proposals, and each builds on long-standing demands that stretch back into England’s history. I will briefly take them in turn. After years of scandals, with ordinary people powerless to stop sewage being pumped into local rivers or their children being poisoned by the air they breathe, the right to a clean environment would give every community the power to challenge proposals that threaten to impose pollution on them.

Similarly, the right to a healthy home would put an end to an era in which permitted development rights have been used to create the slums of the future by housing the most vulnerable in society without adequate space, security, fire safety or proper ventilation. With this right, communities could require that new housing delivers the basics of a happy, healthy life, with plenty of natural light, access to green space and comfort in all weathers. \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: Does my hon. Friend agree that housing is a key determinant of public health, and that we should see a right to decent housing as a crucial part of any civilised society? \p Chris Hinchliff: I absolutely agree.

The freedom to go out the front door and play in the street or near home is no longer part of many children’s lives, as it used to be. The right to play would reverse the trend of estates being full of signs shouting, “No” and “Do not”, with more space given to car parking than to playgrounds for kids. It would empower communities to ensure that streets are designed to be safe for children, so that they are no longer stuck indoors.

Ever since landowners in the 18th and 19th centuries privatised 7 million hectares of common land that was once shared by ordinary people, the ability to grow one’s own healthy food has been a distant dream for the millions. The right to grow food on public land would unleash the power of grassroots growers, who are currently held back by bureaucracy, to turn parcels of unloved land across our communities into oases of food and wildlife.

Similarly, while most of England is still owned by a handful of aristocrats, oligarchs and corporations, the vast majority of people are prevented from enjoying the glories of vast swathes of England’s countryside. The right to roam and swim would finally recognise that this land is our land, and give everyone the confidence to reconnect with nature by enjoying a responsible ramble or a dip in their local river.

Finally, the right to participate in and challenge decisions would level the playing field between communities, who care deeply about their local area, and the interests of profit-seeking developers. This right would ensure that the voices of ordinary people are properly heard and that they can appeal decisions, just as developers can, so that local councils always listen seriously to both sides, rather than acceding to the whims of overmighty corporations.

I hope the Minister will see that new clause 13 would help ensure that this Bill goes as far as possible in restoring power, hope and optimism to our communities. I look forward to hearing her response. \p Ruth Cadbury: When people get in a taxi or a cab, they want to know that they will be safe, that the vehicle is safe, that the driver has had training in a range of different situations, that their specific access needs or disabilities will be recognised and supported, and that they will be treated with respect. Of course, the vast majority of drivers treat their passengers with respect and their vehicles are safe, but passengers want to know that should they have any concerns or complaints, there is a transparent and accountable method for these to be dealt with, and that they know the name and unique number of the taxi operator and the driver, should they need it. \p Sam Carling: Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that cross-border licensing is causing huge enforcement problems, because authorities that are miles away cannot properly investigate such issues? \p Ruth Cadbury: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is another issue that has come up in our inquiry, and I do hope that the Government are addressing the cross-border issue. I will come back briefly to that shortly.

Passengers want to know that the same standards apply across the country, but there are no common standards. In fact, in England there are 270 different licensing offices and the more than 300,000 drivers operate under about 230 different sets of conditions and standards. The Transport Committee is in the middle of an inquiry on taxis and private hire vehicles. We have heard from drivers, their unions, operators, licensing officers, the Local Government Association, disability organisations, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and others. The single most common message we have heard in our inquiry is the need for common standards across England, and not basic minimum standards, but high and absolute standards.

That is why I am delighted that the Government have brought forward new clauses 49 to 57 to be added to part 3 of the Bill. This will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe standards for granting, renewing, suspending and revoking driver and operator licences. It enables actions such as on what is included in driver training, what requires the installation of specific equipment such as CCTV and what level of background checks on drivers is used. By the way, such actions, particularly CCTV, protect drivers as well as passengers.

I welcome the fact that the Government are responding to the calls of many, and not least to the issues raised in Baroness Casey’s report. The last Government set up a task and finish group, but they only published guidance on a set of standards for taxis and private hire vehicles, and they ignored the recommendations of the group,  saying only that licensing authorities should “have regard to” standards. That Government ignored the calls, but this Government are delivering.

One of the main issues raised during our Committee’s inquiry is that the current variation in standards encourages licence shopping, which refers to drivers or operators choosing to be licensed in local authorities that have the least onerous standards or the cheapest or fastest processes, even if most, if not all, of their work takes place elsewhere. That happens thanks to the 2015 deregulation brought in by the Conservative Government. According to one taxi firm that submitted evidence:

“The lack of a national standard undermines passenger safety, fair competition and public confidence in the industry.”

On the role of councillors in licensing decisions, we have been told that the councillors responsible for individual decisions on who gets, retains or loses their licence may be put under pressure to make a decision contrary to the recommendations of officers. \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: I welcome the opportunity this debate offers to lift our eyes to the bigger picture of what a better, fairer country might look like. New clause 13 on the charter for community rights, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), does exactly that, and it represents the sort of change my constituents in Poole are crying out for. It rests on two simple, but transformative principles: first, that communities in England deserve a real say in the places where they live, with a legally enshrined right to challenge local decisions that shape their lives; and, secondly, that people should enjoy basic rights, including the right to a clean, healthy environment and the right to a decent home.

A legal right to a quality home in a healthy environment may not sound like a lot to ask in the sixth richest country in the world, but it is a million miles from the lived reality of so many of our constituents. Poor housing, alongside access to decent healthcare, stable incomes and healthy food, is one of the core social determinants of ill health. Enshrining the rights to a healthy environment and a quality home in law would support the kind of cross-government approach we urgently need to reduce health inequalities. Those rights can be seen in the same vein as the long-awaited socioeconomic duty, which requires public authorities to consider how their policies and decisions can reduce inequalities. Properly implemented, it could help address structured, avoidable disparities in housing and health. I urge the Government to introduce that duty as a matter of urgency.

A Labour Government must raise the bar: not simply building more housing, but building better homes in decent communities at a price that people can afford. That should be our legacy to future generations and it can start now. \p Nusrat Ghani: Colleagues who have contributed to the debate should be here for the wind-ups. That is a notice. I call the shadow Minister. \p David Simmonds: I open by drawing the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I hold some voluntary roles in local government. I place on record my particular thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who served with such distinction on the Bill Committee.

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

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

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

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

Let me be clear that it is the position of the Opposition that those local elections should go ahead, and we will support our colleagues in doing the very best they can for their local constituents with the mess that has been created by this Government. On statutory notices, we continue to support the existence of a vigorous and democratic local media that is able to hold local authorities to account and ask the right questions.

Those are just a few among the many provisions that we could seek to press to a vote this evening. Even if all of the amendments were accepted, the Bill would still fall very far short of a vision for the renewal of local democracy in England. It is a Bill that undermines local leadership and opens the door for Ministers to foist tax rises on local taxpayers to bail out their failures on things such as asylum and housing. The Bill fails to grasp the many opportunities to unleash house building and growth led by local people, who know their areas best.

I turn briefly to the issue of the tourist levy, which has been the subject of a point of order. It is a serious question for this House, as we are seeking to rely on the information that we are presented with on matters that are relevant to the Bill. It had been raised in debate on the Bill on the Floor of the House yesterday, and we were told by both the Secretary of State and the Minister that they could not answer questions on it—they could not tell this House what the Government’s policy is, because it had to be left for the Chancellor. We then discover a whole set of Labour mayors who appear to have been briefed in advance that the policy was to be announced, and who then go on the record saying what a wonderful idea it is.

As with local elections, where what the Government actually did is quite different from what they promised, on the issue of the tourist tax—where the Minister at the time said that he did not support it because he felt that the sector was already over taxed—the Government are now implementing it without even having the courtesy to tell the House it was coming. It is a policy that is even supported by Reform Members, and businesses in the hospitality and tourism sector will doubtless be looking to see which if any party in this Chamber is willing to stand up for their businesses. \p Siân Berry: The Minister failed to tell us how the tourist tax would be brought forward in legislation. With the announcement coming yesterday, and after all the opportunities they had in Committee and in debates on the Floor of the House, does the hon. Gentleman think that this was merely a case of failing to get the Chancellor’s attention? \p David Simmonds: The hon. Member puts to me whether it was simply a failure to get the Chancellor’s attention, but clearly the Chancellor has been busy at every possible opportunity briefing the press about things that may or may not be in the upcoming Budget. We have seen the impact that that has had: driving up Government borrowing costs; driving down business confidence; and driving unemployment up, every single month since this Government took office. Those political briefings have real-world consequences for our constituents’ livelihoods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the key question of funding our strategic authorities, we absolutely recognise the vital role that strategic authorities and mayors can play. We are seeing this across the country—that is why we support devolution to mayors and strategic authorities.

On the point about Surrey made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), we want to see strategic authorities and mayors across the country, including in Surrey. However, we are also clear that if we want them to drive the change that we believe they can drive, we must equip them with the resources and powers to do the job that is required of them.

I have a lot of sympathy for the intention behind new clause 17. However, as I said yesterday, there is a new burdens assessment, which will always apply. When new responsibilities are placed on strategic authorities and mayors, the new burdens assessment will be applied to ensure that they are funded appropriately. Indeed, for the priority areas in which we are moving forward with devolution, we are providing capacity funding up front to make sure that they have the capability and resources to do the job at hand. This basic principle will always hold: when we give out responsibility, we will ensure that the resources are there to take on that responsibility well.

Members spoke eloquently about the need to ensure that we are providing strong neighbourhood governance, and we share that ambition. Some Members talked about town and parish councils, and others talked about neighbourhood committees. We are clear that it is down to communities to decide the form and function of neighbourhood governance. We want to see neighbourhood governance in every part of the country, and we will provide regulations that set out the principle of neighbourhood governance and what it should look like. In addition, we will provide non-statutory guidance to support communities as they embark on neighbourhood guidance. \p James Naish: Will the Minister give way? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I will make progress.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) that we must have strong community engagement is one that we absolutely believe in. We will continue to learn from what we see on the ground and draw on insights as to how we can strengthen community engagement as we move forward.

My hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and for Stroud (Dr Opher) raised points about assets of community value and the environment. I thank them for speaking so knowledgably and eloquently about the value that environmental assets can provide. I can reassure them that environmental assets will be  captured within assets of community value. Green spaces, parks, woodlands and community parks will all be captured within assets of community value. We will set this out in guidance, as we share the determination that environmental assets are captured within the provision.

More broadly, in terms of community right to buy, we have heard the argument that it is an absolute right. There is a huge opportunity with it, and we will continue to learn from insights on the ground about how it is working and how well communities are able to exercise the power. We will look to strengthen it as we move forward.

Let me address the points raised about local media. We completely agree with Opposition parties that we need transparency and public engagement when it comes to local governance changes, and we are committed to the cornerstone role that the local press plays in our democracy. The Bill makes a small, proportionate change to the publication of local authority governance changes, which is to be communicated to give local authorities flexibility and to allow them to use a range of different mechanisms. The change does not apply to wider publications on subjects such as planning. It is a very specific change to bring about greater flexibility.

Finally, I turn to the point that was made over and over again by Members across the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), for Crawley (Peter Lamb), for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). I recognise their contribution to the debate and their advocacy on the important issue of how we regulate our taxi and private hire vehicle system. I am glad to see that Members welcome the steps we are taking to put in place minimum standards. The minimum standards are an important first step, and we will build on them. We will consult on licensing becoming the responsibility of local transport authorities in order to improve regulation, and we are committed to engaging with our unions, including Unite, and with local authorities and operators to discuss how we can build on this step. We absolutely hear the point that this is urgent and we need to act.

I urge the House to support the Government’s amendments so that we can drive forward the biggest transfer of power in a generation. This is an exciting moment for the Government. We believe that we need to drive change, but in order to do that we must equip every level—from our regions to our local authorities and communities—to drive the change that they want to see in their places. We believe that this Bill is an important first step. We will continue to engage with Members from across the House to ensure that the regulations and provisions in the Bill are matched by tangible change on the ground. I know that hon. Members across the House support our endeavour. We must drive the change that we want to see in our places. [Interruption.] I will keep going. We will continue to engage constructively to ensure that we are playing our part. I hope hon. Members can see that we have engaged with the Bill constructively. \p Anna Dixon: I commend the Minister on her fantastic closing remarks. I emphasise the points made by my hon. Friends—[Interruption.] \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I thank my hon. Friend—

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 24 November).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

New clause 45 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E). \p UNKNOWN: “Schedule (Extension of the general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority) amends the Localism Act 2011 to extend the general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would introduce the new Schedule in NS3 which would amend the Localism Act 2011 to confer the general power of competence on English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority. This new Clause is intended to form a new Chapter 4 of Part of the Bill.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) A “national minimum standard” is a standard prescribed by the Secretary of State under any of sections (Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence) to (Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence).

(2) A licence is “regulated” if—

(a) the licence is—

(i) a taxi driver licence,

(ii) a taxi vehicle licence,

(iii) a PHV driver licence,

(iv) a PHV vehicle licence, or

a PHV operator licence, and

(b) the licensing authority is in England.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This amendment would define the terms “national minimum standards” and “regulated licence” used in new Sections NC50 to NC57. This new section and new Sections NC50 to NC57 are intended to form a new Chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Bill.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, prescribe standards which are relevant to whether it is appropriate for a regulated licence to be granted.

(2) For each national minimum standard prescribed under this section, the Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide for whether the licensing authority—

(a) is required to refuse to grant the licence, or

(b) has a power to refuse to grant the licence,

if the licensing authority is not satisfied that the standard is met.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) which relate to a standard may include provision—

(a) for the licensing authority—

(i) to be required to give an opportunity to remedy the failure to meet the standard, or

(ii) to have a power to give such an opportunity, and

(b) for the requirement or power to refuse the grant of the licence to cease to apply if the failure is remedied.

(4) Regulations under this section may, in particular, provide for an existing power of refusal to be extended so that the existing power is used, or is treated as being used, to refuse the grant of a licence where the licensing authority is not satisfied that a national minimum standard is met.

(5) In this section “existing power of refusal” means a power to refuse to grant a licence (whenever conferred) which arises otherwise than under regulations under this section.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe standards which are relevant to whether it is appropriate for a “regulated licence” to be granted.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, prescribe standards which are relevant to whether it is appropriate for a regulated licence to continue in force.

(2) For each national minimum standard prescribed under this section, the Secretary of State may, by regulations—

(a) provide for when, or the circumstances in which, a licensing authority must determine whether the standard is met;

(b) provide for which permitted response or responses will be available if the licensing authority is not satisfied that the standard is met;

(c) provide, if both permitted responses are available, for the circumstances in which a particular permitted response is to be made;

(d) provide for whether the licensing authority—

(i) is required to make a permitted response, or

(ii) has a power to make a permitted response,

if the licensing authority is not satisfied that the standard is met;

(e) provide for when, or the circumstances in which, the suspension of a regulated licence is to end, including provision under which the licensing authority has a discretion.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) which relate to a standard may include provision—

(a) for the licensing authority—

(i) to be required to give an opportunity to remedy the failure to meet the standard, or

(ii) to have a power to give such an opportunity, and

(b) for the requirement or power to make a permitted response to cease to apply if the failure is remedied.

(4) Regulations under this section may, in particular, provide for an existing power of suspension or revocation to be extended so that the existing power is used, or is treated as being used, to suspend or revoke a licence where the licensing authority is not satisfied that a national minimum standard is met.

(5) In this section—

“existing power of suspension or revocation” means a power to suspend or revoke a licence (whenever conferred) which arises otherwise than under regulations under this section;

“permitted response” means—

(a) suspending a regulated licence, or

(b) revoking a regulated licence;

and a reference to making a permitted response is to be read accordingly.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe standards which are relevant to whether it is appropriate for a “regulated licence” to continue in force.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, prescribe standards which are relevant to whether it is appropriate for a regulated licence to be renewed.

(2) For each national minimum standard prescribed under this section, the Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide for whether the licensing authority—

(a) is required to refuse to renew the licence, or

(b) has a power to refuse to renew the licence,

if the licensing authority is not satisfied that the standard is met.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) which relate to a standard may include provision—

(a) for the licensing authority—

(i) to be required to give an opportunity to remedy the failure to meet the standard, or

(ii) to have a power to give such an opportunity, and

(b) for the requirement or power to refuse the renewal of the licence to cease to apply if the failure is remedied.

(4) Regulations under this section may, in particular, provide for an existing power of refusal to be extended so that the existing power is used, or is treated as being used, to refuse the renewal of a licence where the licensing authority is not satisfied that a national minimum standard is met.

(5) In this section “existing power of refusal” means a power to refuse to renew a licence (whenever conferred) which arises otherwise than under regulations under this section.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe standards which are relevant to whether it is appropriate for a “regulated licence” to be renewed.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) National minimum standards may relate to any of the following—

(a) persons applying for or holding regulated licences;

(b) other persons;

(c) vehicles;

(d) the types of services provided using taxis or private hire vehicles;

(e) premises;

(f) any other matters which appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.

(2) National minimum standards may require action to be taken (for example undertaking training, or installing or using equipment, technology or services).

(3) National minimum standards prescribed under section (Standards relating to the suspension or revocation of a regulated licence) or (Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence) may (in particular) relate to regulated licences granted before the regulations come into force.

(4) This section does not limit the kinds of national minimum standards that may be prescribed.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would make further provision about the sorts of standards that can be prescribed under new Sections NC50 to NC52.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to licensing authorities in connection with the exercise of their functions in accordance with this Chapter.

(2) The Secretary of State may revise or revoke guidance issued under this section.

(3) The Secretary of State must arrange for guidance under this section, and any revision of it, to be published.

(4) A licensing authority must have regard to guidance issued under this section.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would enable the Secretary of State to issue guidance to licensing authorities in connection with the exercise of their functions in accordance with new Sections NC49 to NC57.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) Sections (Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence) to (Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence) do not prevent the exercise of any other power or duty of a licensing authority to—

(a) grant,

(b) suspend,

(c) revoke, or

(d) renew,

a regulated licence in a way that is consistent with provision made by regulations under those sections (which includes refusing to grant, suspending, revoking, or refusing to renew a licence when not required or authorised to do so by that provision).

(2) Before section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 insert—

“36A National minimum standards for licensing

The provisions of this Act relating to the licensing of hackney carriages are subject to sections (“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”) to (Interpretation) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (national minimum standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing).”

(3) After section 45 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 insert—

“45A National minimum standards for licensing

This Part is subject to sections (“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”) to (Interpretation) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (national minimum standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing).”

(4) After section 2 of the London Hackney Carriages Act 1843 insert—

“2A National minimum standards for licensing

This Act is subject to sections (“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”) to (Interpretation) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (national minimum standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing).”

(5) After section 2 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 insert—

“2A National minimum standards for licensing

This Act is subject to sections (“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”) to (Interpretation) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (national minimum standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing).”

(6) After section 1 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 insert—

“1A National minimum standards for licensing

This Act is subject to sections (“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”) to (Interpretation) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (national minimum standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing).”

(7) After section 1 of the Plymouth City Council Act 1975 insert—

“1A National minimum standards for licensing

This Act is subject to sections (“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”) to (Interpretation) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (national minimum standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing).””—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would make provision about the relationship between new Sections NC49 to NC57 and existing legislation.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) Before making regulations under sections (Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence) to (Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(2) Regulations under this Chapter may amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament (whenever passed).

(3) The first regulations under sections (Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence) to (Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

(4) Regulations under this Chapter which amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament (whether or not they also contain other provision) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

(5) Any other regulations under this Chapter are subject to negative resolution procedure.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would make provision about regulations under new Sections NC49 to NC57.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “In this Chapter—

“licensing authority” , in relation to a regulated licence, means a public authority which has licensing functions under—

(a) sections 37 to 68 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847;

(b) the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869;

(c) the Plymouth City Council Act 1975;

(d) Part 2 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976;

(e) the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998;

“national minimum standards” has the meaning given in section (“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”);

“PHV driver licence” is a licence under—

(a) section 51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976,

(b) section 13 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, or

(c) section 9 of the Plymouth City Council Act 1975;

“PHV operator licence” is a licence under—

(a) section 55 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976,

(b) section 3 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, or

(c) section 13 of the Plymouth City Council Act 1975;

“PHV vehicle licence” is a licence under—

(a) section 48 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976,

(b) section 7 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, or

(c) section 5 of the Plymouth City Council Act 1975;

“regulated licence” has the meaning given in section (“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”);

“standard” includes—

(a) a requirement, and

(b) a condition;

“taxi driver licence” is a licence under—

(a) section 46 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, or

(b) section 8 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869;

“taxi vehicle licence” is a licence under—

(a) section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, or

(b) section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869.”

This would define certain expressions used in new Sections NC49 to NC57.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that relevant authorities are provided with the resources and support necessary in order to carry out any functions conferred on, or required of, them by virtue of this Act.

(2) Any resources and support provided by the Secretary of State must be sufficient to ensure that there is no delay to the holding of any future local elections resulting from the implementation of, or delay to the implementation of, this Act.”—(Zöe Franklin.)

This new clause would ensure local authorities are provided with the resources and support they need to deliver the content of this legislation with specific regard to preventing any further delays to future local elections.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 321.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State may not make any order or regulations to delay the ordinary elections of councillors of any specified authority if—

(a) the order or regulations result from any change to local government organisation under or by virtue of this Act,

(b) the effect of the order or regulations is to delay any such election by a period exceeding 53 weeks from the date on which it was originally scheduled to be held.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “any order or regulations” includes—

(a) an order under section 87 (Power to change years in which elections held) of the Local Government Act 2000;

(b) an order under sections 7 (Implementation of proposals by order), 10 (Implementation of recommendations by order of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007; or

(c) any other delegated power exercisable by order or by regulations in relation to the scheduling of ordinary elections of councillors.”—(David Simmonds.)

This new clause would prevent the Secretary of State from delaying by more than one year any local government election, if the delay results from local government reorganisation under this Act.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 320.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a consultation on updating requirements about the publication of notices under the following sections of the Local Government Act 2000—

(a) subsection (2) of section 9KC (resolution of local authority), and

(b) subsection (7) of section 9MA (referendum: proposals by local authority).

(2) The consultation must consider the impact of requirements for the publication of notices, and of proposed changes to arrangements for the publication of notices, on the following matters—

(a) the economic viability of local newspapers,

(b) access to information for local authority residents, and

(c) local democracy and accountability.

(3) The consultation must be opened within six months of the passage of this Act.”—(David Simmonds.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The Committee divided: Ayes 187, Noes 320.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 119, page 71, line 31, at end insert—

“(c) payment to the members of allowances, expenses, gratuities or pensions.”

This amendment and Amendment 120 would give the Secretary of State a broader power to make regulations about allowances and other sums payable to audit committee members, in place of the current power limited to combined authorities and combined county authorities.

Amendment 120, page 71, line 35, leave out subsections (7) and (8) and insert—

“(7) Regulations under subsection (5)(c) may, in particular, make provision applying provision made, or corresponding to any provision that could be made, under section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 or section 100 of the Local Government Act 2000.

(7A) Subsection (5)(c) does not affect the application of the enactments referred to in subsection (7), or provision made under them, in relation to members of an audit committee.

(7B) In the case of a relevant authority within subsection (2)(a), the powers of the authority in relation to its committees are to be taken to include (so far as they would otherwise not)—

(a) the powers necessary to give effect to regulations under subsection (5), and

(b) the power to appoint to its audit committee persons who are not members of the authority (even where not required by regulations under subsection (5)).”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 119. This amendment would also clarify that audit committee regulations can make provision different from that applicable to other committees of a relevant authority, and that audit committees can always include independent members.

Amendment 121, page 72, line 12, leave out subsection (11).—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This amendment would make the Mayor of London alone responsible for appointing an audit committee for the Greater London Authority. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 112, page 78, line 14, at end insert—

“(1A) Section (Charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways) (and Schedule (Charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways)) do not come into force in accordance with subsection (1)(c).”

This would exclude new Clause NC43 and new Schedule NS1 from the scope of clause 79(1)(c) (which provides for royal assent commencement for provisions which confer powers to make subordinate legislation. As a result the Clause and Schedule would come into force by commencement regulations, in accordance with clause 79(5).

Amendment 158, page 78, line 14, at end insert—

“(1A) No provision of sections (“National minimum standards” and “regulated licences”) to (Interpretation) comes into force in accordance with subsection (1)(c).”.

This would exclude new Clauses NC49 to NC57 from the scope of clause 79(1)(c) (which provides for royal assent commencement for provisions which confer powers to make subordinate legislation. As a result, the Clauses would come into force by commencement regulations, in accordance with clause 79(5).

Amendment 135, page 78, line 33, after “authorities)” insert

“so far as they relate to mayoral combined authorities and mayoral CCAs”.

This would limit the royal assent commencement of section 20 and Schedule 4 to those provisions so far as they relate to mayoral combined authorities/CCAs. Those provisions would commence otherwise 2 months after royal assent (see Amendment 136).

Amendment 114, page 79, line 12, at end insert—

“(z2) section (publication of addresses of members etc in authority registers).”.

This would provide for Amendment NC45 to come into force two months after Royal Assent.

Amendment 115, page 79, line 12, at end insert—

“(z2) section (Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority) (and Schedule (Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority)) (extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority).”.

This would provide for Amendment NC46 and Amendment NS3 to come into force two months after Royal Assent.

Amendment 136, page 79, line 28, at end insert—

“(ga) section 20 (and Schedule 4) (extension of general power of competence to strategic authorities), except so far as they relate to mayoral combined authorities and mayoral CCAs;”.

This would provide for section 20 and Schedule 4 to commence 2 months after royal assent so far as they do not relate to mayoral combined authorities/CCAs. Those provisions would commence on royal assent so far as they relate to such authorities (see Amendment 135).

Amendment 113, page 79, line 36, at end insert—

“(oa) section (Licensing functions of the Mayor of London) (licensing functions of the Mayor of London);”.

This provides for new clause NC44 to come into force two months after Royal Assent.

Amendment 157, page 80, line 5, leave out from beginning to “(local” in line 6 and insert

“section 57 (and Schedule 25)”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would be consequential on Amendment 156. \p UNKNOWN: “Introduction

1 The Localism Act 2011 is amended in accordance with this Schedule.

Amendment of section 1

2 In section 1 (local authority’s general power of competence), in subsection (1), after “CCA” (inserted by Schedule 4) insert “, or English National Park authority, and the Broads Authority,”.

Amendment of section 2

3 (1) Section 2 (boundaries of the general power) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2B) (inserted by Schedule 4) insert—

“(2C) If exercise of a pre-commencement power of an English National Park authority, or of the Broads Authority, is subject to restrictions, those restrictions apply also to exercise of the general power so far as it is overlapped by the pre-commencement power.

(2D) The general power does not enable an English National Park authority, or the Broads Authority, to do—

(a) anything which the authority is unable to do by virtue of a pre-commencement limitation, or

(b) anything which the authority is unable to do by virtue of a post-commencement limitation which is expressed to apply—

(i) to the general power,

(ii) to all of the authority's powers, or

(iii) to all of the authority's powers but with exceptions that do not include the general power.”.

(3) After subsection (5) (inserted by Schedule 4) insert—

“(6) In this section, in relation to an English National Park authority or the Broads Authority—

“post-commencement limitation” means a prohibition, restriction or other limitation expressly imposed by a statutory provision that—

(a) is contained in an Act passed after the end of the Session in which the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 is passed, or

(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force on or after the commencement of section (Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025;

“pre-commencement limitation” means a prohibition, restriction or other limitation expressly imposed by a statutory provision that—

(a) is contained in this Act, or in any other Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 is passed, or

(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section (Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025;

“pre-commencement power” means power conferred by a statutory provision that—

(a) is contained in this Act, or in any other Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 is passed, or

(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section (Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025.”

Amendment of section 3

4 In section 3 (limits on charging in exercise of general power), in subsection (1)(a), after “CCA” (inserted by Schedule 4) insert “, or English National Park authority, or the Broads Authority,”.

Amendment of section 4

5 (1) Section 4 (limits on doing things for commercial purpose in exercise of general power) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.

(2) In subsections (1), (2) and (3), after “CCA” (inserted by Schedule 4) insert “, or English National Park authority, or the Broads Authority,”.

Amendment of section 5

6 (1) Section 5 (powers to make supplemental provision) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.

(2) In subsections (1), (3) and (4) after “CCAs” (inserted by Schedule 4) insert “, or English National Park authorities, or the Broads Authority,”.

(3) In subsections (5)(a) and (b) and (7)(a) after “CCAs” (inserted by Schedule 4) insert “, or English National Park authorities”.

(4) In subsection (5)(c), after “CCA” (inserted by Schedule 4) insert “, or English National Park authority”.

(5) After subsection (7) insert—

“(7A) Before making an order under subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4) in relation to the Broads Authority, the Secretary of State must consult the Authority if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate.”

Amendment of section 8

7 In section 8 (interpretation), after the definition of “combined authority” (inserted by Schedule 4) insert—

““English National Park authority” means a National Park authority for a National Park in England;”.”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would amend the Localism Act 2011 to confer the general power of competence on English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 152, page 266, line 2, after “But” insert “—

(a) a local authority may operate a committee system only—

(i) if it is operating a committee system immediately before section 57 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 comes into force, and

(ii) for as long as the operation of a committee system is consistent with the provisions of section 9K; and

(b)”.

This would amend section 9B LGA 2000 to make clear that a committee system can only be operated by a local authority that is already operating that system and where the new section 9K (in Amendment 153) allows it to continue to operate it.

Amendment 153, page 266, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—

“(2) For section 9K (changing from one form of governance to another) substitute—

“9K Committee system: change to leader and cabinet executive (England)

Introduction

(1) This section sets out the circumstances in which a local authority that is operating a committee system must or may move to a leader and cabinet executive.

Committee system not protected

(2) If the local authority’s committee system is not protected, it must move to a leader and cabinet executive; and no resolution is needed and no referendum is to be held (despite any other provision of this Chapter which would otherwise require or authorise a resolution or referendum).

The local authority must comply with that duty so that it moves to a leader and cabinet executive before the end of the period of one year beginning with the commencement day.

Protected committee system

(3) If the local authority’s committee system is protected, it must undertake and publish a review of whether the local authority should move to a leader and cabinet executive.

(4) The review—

(a) must be undertaken and published before the end of the 1 year decision period;

(b) must have regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government for the area of the local authority;

(c) if it concludes that the local authority should not move to a leader and cabinet executive, must include the reasons why the committee system is an appropriate form of governance for the local authority.

(5) After the review is published, the local authority must act in accordance with subsection (6), (7) or (8).

The local authority must have regard to the review when choosing how to act.

(6) The local authority may pass a resolution to continue to operate the committee system.

Any such resolution must be passed before the end of the 1 year decision period.

(7) The local authority may act in accordance with this Chapter to hold a referendum on moving to a leader and cabinet executive (and then, following the referendum, must act in accordance with this Chapter).

Any such action must be taken so that—

(a) the referendum is held before the end of the 1 year decision period, and

(b) if the result of the referendum approves the move, the local authority moves to a leader and cabinet executive before the end of the period of 1 year beginning with the day of the referendum.

(8) The local authority may act in accordance with this Chapter to move to a leader and cabinet executive without holding a referendum (despite any other provision of this Chapter which would otherwise require a referendum).

Any such action must be taken so that—

(a) the resolution to move to a leader and cabinet executive is passed before the end of the 1 year decision period, and

(b) the local authority moves to a leader and cabinet executive before the end of the period of one year beginning with the date of the resolution.

(9) If a local authority’s committee system is protected, a petition cannot require a local authority to hold a referendum in accordance with regulations under section 9MC until both—

(a) the relevant protection period has ended, and

(b) the local authority has—

(i) passed a resolution in accordance with subsection (6),

(ii) acted in accordance with subsection (7) by holding a referendum which does not approve the move to a leader and cabinet executive, or

(iii) acted in accordance with subsection (7) or (8) by completing the move to a leader and cabinet executive.

Subsequent move to leader and cabinet executive

(10) If the local authority’s committee system is protected, and it retains the committee system after acting in accordance with subsections (3) to (8), it may subsequently move to a leader and cabinet executive in accordance with this Chapter.

Local authority subject to dissolution

(11) This section—

(a) does not apply to a local authority if a dissolution order has been made in relation to the local authority before the commencement day;

(b) ceases to apply to a local authority if a dissolution order is made in relation to the local authority on or after the commencement day.

Accordingly the local authority is not to move to a leader and cabinet executive in accordance with any provision of this section after the commencement day or (as the case may be) on or after the day when the dissolution order is made.

Interpretation

(12) For the purposes of this section, a local authority’s committee system is “protected” if the committee system—

(a) became or remained the local authority’s governance arrangements following a referendum, and the 10 year referendum protection period has not ended on the commencement day, or

(b) became or remained the local authority’s governance arrangements by virtue of a resolution (but not following a referendum), and the 5 year resolution protection period has not ended on the commencement day.

(13) In this section—

“commencement day” means the day on which section 57 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 comes into force;

“dissolution order” means an order under section 7 or 10 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 providing for the dissolution of a local authority;

“move to a leader and cabinet executive” means—

(a) cease to operate the committee system, and

(b) start to operate a leader and cabinet executive (England);

and related expressions are to be construed accordingly;

“protected” has the meaning given in subsection (12);

“relevant protection period” , in relation to a local authority whose committee system is protected, means whichever of the—

(a) 5 year resolution protection period, and

(b) 10 year referendum protection period,

applies to the local authority;

“1 year decision period” means the period of one year beginning with the day immediately after the last day of the relevant protection period;

“5 year resolution protection period” , in relation to a resolution by virtue of which the committee system became or remained the local authority’s governance arrangements, means the period of 5 years beginning with the day on which the resolution was passed;

“10 year referendum protection period” , in relation to a referendum following which the committee system became or remained the local authority’s governance arrangements, means the period of 10 years beginning with the day on which the referendum was held.””.

This would enable a local authority to continue to operate the committee system if it has been adopted by resolution within the five years before commencement, or following a referendum within the 10 years before commencement.

Amendment 154, page 267, line 17, at end insert—

“(2A) In section 9KC (resolution of local authority), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) Subsection (4) also applies if a local authority passes a resolution to continue to operate the committee system in accordance with section 9K(6); and, in such a case, “Resolution A” means the resolution to continue to operate the committee system.””.

This would ensure that a resolution under new section 9K(6) LGA 2000 (in Amendment 153) would trigger the application of section 9KC(4) LGA 2000.

Amendment 155, page 267, line 21, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 22 and insert

““(Committee system: change to leader and cabinet executive (England))””.

This is consequential on Amendment 153.

Amendment 156, page 270, line 4, leave out paragraph 7.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

Amendment 153 would enable certain local authorities to continue to operate the committee system and so paragraph 7 (which repeals legislation about the committee system) is no longer needed.

Third Reading

King’s consent signified. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am privileged to be able to open this Third Reading debate following constructive debates on Report. Let me first reiterate my thanks to Members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful contributions during the Bill’s passage.

The Bill cements the Government’s commitment to powering up our regions, rebuilding local government and empowering our communities, which is fundamental to achieving the changes that our constituents expect and deserve: better living standards, improved public services and politics being done with communities, not to them. This Government’s ambition is to bring power and decision making closer to the people who know their areas best. The Bill will truly empower residents to shape the places where they live and work, and from fixing our broken local audit system to empowering mayors to unlock the economic potential of their places, it will set local government on a firmer footing and enable local leaders to deliver a decade of national renewal. These changes are long overdue, and we are now taking ambitious action where previous Governments have failed.

I extend my thanks to everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for his dedication and commitment to this agenda. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) for his leadership, and for the huge amount of work that he put into developing this impressive piece of legislation. I thank the Members on both sides of the House who scrutinised the Bill in such detail in Committee, and I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for his constructive and, for the most part, collaborative approach.

Let me also put on record my thanks to representatives of the wider local government sector, especially those who gave evidence earlier this year. They are critical actors in providing the frontline services that residents need and deserve, and, whether they are councillors, mayors, police and crime commissioners or third sector representatives, the House thanks them for their service. I hope that colleagues in the other place continue to take the same collaborative approach that has been  taken in this House, and I wish Baroness Taylor of Stevenage the best with moving the Bill forward. I commend it to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p David Simmonds: I will speak briefly. There is a high degree of consensus on some of the objectives that the Government have set out. We share the ambition to deliver more homes, and we share the ambition on economic growth and devolution. However, the alternative stimulants that the Government have chosen essentially involve more bureaucracy, more centralisation and new taxes, all of which will stand in the way of the delivery of those ambitions.

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

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 179.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed. \p Ellie Chowns: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister said something that was inaccurate during his statement on the G20 summit and Ukraine, when he wrongly said:

“The Green party…says that we should pull out of NATO”.

That is not correct. Our party policy explicitly says that we recognise that NATO, while imperfect and in need of reform, has an important role in ensuring the ability of member states to respond to threats to their security. We support the principle of international solidarity, whereby nations support one another through mutual defence alliances and multilateral security frameworks. Madam Deputy Speaker, what advice can you provide on the Prime Minister correcting the record? \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. It is not a point of order for the Chair, but she has most definitely put her point on the record. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Extension to Unconnected Multiple Employer Schemes and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 23 October, be approved.—(Lilian Greenwood.)

Question agreed to. \p Bradley Thomas: The Government’s housing targets are forcing a city template on to rural communities against the will of locals and with minimal consideration for infrastructure or environmental impact. That is why my “Save Our Greenbelt” petition has so far received 5,936 signatures. Bromsgrove and the villages, a 79% rural constituency composed of 89% green belt land, has been burdened by an 85% housing target increase, while our neighbouring city, Birmingham, has had its targets slashed by over 30%.

The petition states:

“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to justify the flawed formula used to calculate the local housing need for Bromsgrove District, reverse the planned reduction in Birmingham's housing target to ensure the burden is shared in a fair and proportionate way and only allow new houses to be built when the accompanying infrastructure is provided.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of Bromsgrove District,

Declares that it is wrong for rural Bromsgrove District’s housing targets to be increased by 82% while neighbouring urban Birmingham's targets are reduced by 31%; while noting that Bromsgrove District is 89% green belt and 79% rural and that at least 140 hectares of brownfield land in the south of Birmingham are already available for development.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to justify the flawed formula used to calculate the local housing need for Bromsgrove District, reverse the planned reduction in Birmingham's housing target to ensure the burden is shared in a fair and proportionate way and only allow new houses to be built when the accompanying infrastructure is provided.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003130] \p Tonia Antoniazzi: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents regarding pornography. On International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and day one of the United Nations’ 16 days of activism, the reach and influence of online pornography is bigger than ever. We know that sexual coercion is inherent to its production, and violence against women is mainstream within its content. Its use is fuelling misogyny and sexual violence, conditioning generations that abuse is a normal part of sexual encounters.

The petition states:

“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online”

and

“to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time”.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Gower,

Declares that pornography use is fuelling sexual violence; violence against women is prolific in mainstream pornography; and sexual coercion is inherent to the commercial production of pornography.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform – and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003135] \p Rachael Maskell: I rise to present a petition on the two-child benefit cap. Tomorrow we all trust will be a turning point for children living in poverty, as the third child and subsequent children in a family have been denied vital support since 2017 unless proved to be conceived by rape. To lift 540,000 children out of poverty with the removal of the two-child limit and a further 80,000 with the removal of the benefit cap is something 578 of my constituents have called for through a paper and digital petition against the hardship which they endure.

The petition states:

“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the impact of the two-child benefit cap in developing a strategy to end child poverty.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition states:

The petition of residents of the constituency of York Central,

Declares that the Two Child Benefit Cap results in parents of families with three or more children born after April 2017 can only claim benefit for the first two children, unless they prove that further children have been conceived by rape; and further that this is a major reason for child poverty, causing larger families hardship, and that this has impacted on 1.6m children since its introduction.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the impact of the two-child benefit cap in developing a strategy to end child poverty.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003137] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Deirdre Costigan.) \p Nusrat Ghani: I call my constituency neighbour, Mims Davies. \p Mims Davies: I start by thanking, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate. I know that it is unusual to allocate Adjournment debates to members of the shadow Cabinet, so I am grateful. I am delighted to be raising this important matter on behalf of my constituents. I appreciate it, and I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as my constituency neighbour, will appreciate it too.

Since July 2024, Uckfield community hospital has been entrusted to me as part of my changed constituency. It is one of two small but vital community hospitals in my area, the other being the award-winning Queen Victoria hospital in East Grinstead, which is going from strength to strength. We look forward to the completion of the community diagnostic centre in 2026. It is a buzzing, specialist community facility with great ratings and a vibrantly bright future. I thank all NHS staff in the various hospitals that cover my area, and the wider frontline staff who are there for us in times of need. As we approach the festive season, we are especially grateful to them.

So why do we have what feels like a fragile moment for the Uckfield community hospital? It has the same caring NHS staff and high ratings, but services have been taken from the site, including the formal site manager. Those removals give a sense of great unease. I will give a little history of the site, which, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will already know. A local benefactor back in the 1980s—Mr Arthur Hughes, a generous local farmer—gave the land and £1 million. The League of Friends then raised a further £1 million, which was matched by the NHS, for the people of Uckfield and the surrounding villages to see the facility delivered. The hospital was officially opened in 1993 by Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret. The bequest has the vital inclusion of an operating theatre. This can be found in the associated covenants, and it was especially for the small surgical aspects of local day care.

I have visited this fairly new, fresh-feeling, beautifully set and well-maintained community hospital on several occasions, and the welcome has always been warm and caring—local NHS staff taking great pride in their roles to support and administer to the local community. The League of Friends has long played an active part, and frankly a huge financial part, and has been a practical supporter of Uckfield hospital and the resident trust over the past years. Two examples recently include funding X-ray equipment to the tune of £186,000, and ultrasound machines at £60,000. It has not only supported the hospital, but offered extra funding to local GP surgeries, as it is the League of Friends’ philosophy that such funding benefits all local people.

The League of Friends has delivered plans to help upgrade the busy minor injuries unit on site. However, with the surgical unit now mothballed—in reality, it feels  like it is closing—the uncertainty is just too much for the Friends. That is reflected in the emails that I have received in the past few weeks and months—even today, ahead of this debate. Local people are worried about the site. I hope that their fears will be allayed tonight.

The wonderful Linda Kenwood, the secretary of the League of Friends, has said poignantly:

“To be treated in this way is very upsetting.” \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. I spoke to her beforehand, and I share her concerns. We have similar concerns in my constituency, where the minor injuries unit closed. The unit was crucial for constituents, and its closure meant that they had to travel further—for almost an hour—to get to the nearest urgent care centre. Does the hon. Lady agree that any future decisions on any unit across this nation should be grounded in the needs of patients, the benefits of local access and the essential role that community hospitals play in delivering a resilient NHS? \p Mims Davies: It is a pleasure to receive an intervention from the hon. Gentleman in an Adjournment debate, and I completely agree. That is exactly what tonight’s debate is about, and I thank him for adding to it.

Without a dedicated Uckfield hospital manager to pull it all together, the site has become fragmented—that is the feedback that I receive continually. I have repeatedly heard that none of the individual trusts seems to interact for the wider good of the hospital site and its patients. I have previously written to the Secretary of State for Health on this matter, as I am concerned that if any fire or substantial incident was found at the site, who ultimately would be responsible for the site as a whole and for ensuring health and safety for all?

Let me take you back, Madam Deputy Speaker. I visited the hospital on 4 October 2024 to meet Danielle Gearing, a staff nurse, to see for myself the services offered at the hospital and to find out what was actually happening on behalf of my constituents. Along with the minor injuries unit, there was a full and varied range of out-patient clinics, including oncology, rheumatology, chemical pathology, dermatology, vascular, oral and maxillofacial and neurology, to name a few. Most of these clinics did include the consultant, registrar and quite often a clinical nurse specialist.

Yet that list does not include the other service providers and facilities on the site, such as the health visiting team, diabetes nurses, diabetic eye screening, heart failure nurses, dietitians, cardiac rehab, Parkinson’s nurses and MS nurses. Macmillan is there. Bowel screening is there. There is hospice outreach and the AAA clinic—providing abdominal aortic aneurysm screening—and the list at Uckfield community hospital goes on.

Danielle confirmed that it is a very busy out-patient department, which we hope will continue. We should not forget that at that point the hospital also had a GP surgery, a pharmacy and a mental health facility on the site. The ambulance service also runs a site close to this facility, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will say more on the pharmacy situation shortly.

Out of the blue, in August 2024, the League of Friends received the following in a letter from Dr James Evans, a consultant in critical care and anaesthetics and medical examiner at East Sussex Healthcare NHS trust:

“I am writing to yourselves as a Consultant within East Sussex Healthcare Trust, and Deputy Divisional director of DAS, and as a Clinical Lead for Day Surgery.

I am hoping you will be able to help, and would be grateful if you could take some time to consider this email.

One of my roles is Clinical Lead responsible for the newly built Sussex Surgical Centre (SSC), which is looking to be functional in March 2025. This will be a surgical Hub aiming to improve day case surgery provision across the whole region and hopefully benefiting patients and staff in East Sussex.

Part of my role is related to equipment for the SSC, both ensuring we have the right stuff in place, and sourcing any essential items within a tight budget. Whilst engaged in this task, I have been made aware of some equipment within Uckfield Hospital that was kindly purchased by yourselves over the years. Some of this equipment is expensive and specialist, and extremely useful for the surgeons and whole…surgery team.

I know that equipment purchased by The Friends is intended for use solely within their Hospital, but I was hoping you may be able to consider making an exception at this time.

All of the equipment you have purchased (including a microscope, ultrasound machine and ECG machine) are incredibly expensive, but vital for the successful running of a DSU, and we are struggling within the constraints of our budget to purchase all of the equipment. As you know, the trust is in a dire financial position, and any help would be greatly appreciated.

The items in Uckfield would go a long way to facilitating the above and would be used on a daily basis within the SSC.

I am aware that I am asking a great deal from yourselves at this time but wonder if you may be open to further discussion on the subject.”

This, Madam Deputy Speaker, is literally taking the family jewels in plain sight. Chris Macve, chairman of the League of Friends of Uckfield community hospital, said of their concerns about the possible removal of services from our day surgery unit that they “as yet have had no official communication from East Sussex healthcare NHS trust.” There are still various unhelpful rumours and deep concerns about what was received in this letter from James Evans, and frankly there is still no clarity for the staff, the Friends and my constituents—and your constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker. For clarity, the Friends have said—this is what they know—that they “have not been told that this unit is fully closing, but you can understand our disbelief at the insensitivity and the lack of respect at receiving the news in this way. We have a perfectly good operating theatre at Uckfield, fully equipped and staffed, just sitting there doing virtually nothing.”

After a number of rumours increased on 7 October 2024, the hospital staff in the surgical day unit were told unofficially that the integrated care board had agreed to a six-month closure and that they should expect a meeting at the end of October or early November in 2024. As Members can imagine, this was a real shock and morale took a massive tumble. The pilot—the mothballing—began on 2 December 2024, just before Christmas last year, and I brought to the House my worries and concerns for my constituents at that time.

As Joe Chadwick-Bell, chief executive officer of East Sussex healthcare NHS trust, wrote at the time of the announcement:

“Uckfield DSU cannot safely support general anaesthetic or overnight care, and does not carry out surgical procedures on patients with a higher risk of complications, such as those with  complex needs, certain disabilities, significant frailty and/or certain concurrent illnesses. In those cases, even day case procedures must be carried out in an acute hospital environment where the full scope of supporting clinical services is on site. Uckfield theatre sessions are not currently well used. The reason is partly due to the safety criteria mentioned above, but also partly because some of the procedures that we previously carried out at Uckfield are no longer commissioned by the NHS. It is also because advances in care mean many of those procedures no longer need day theatres, so are delivered in normal treatment rooms.

Over the course of the pilot, we will evaluate the impact of the changes and consider options for the future of day surgery at Uckfield. It is in all our interests to make the best use possible of what is a valued asset for the NHS in Sussex.”

This pilot is so unfair. Frankly, the surgical unit in Uckfield was condemned to not stand a chance—with no staff, no anaesthetists and treatment figures already manoeuvred by the East Sussex healthcare trust. That is the view of staff. Another blow to the staff at the unit came at the start of 2025, when Kamsons Pharmacy closed—and left, I understand, with some clouds over the terms of its departure. Frankly, why has this happened?

One year on, my residents are not taking this lying down. They have got together a local petition, which at present stands at 6,366 signatures. But it is the uncertainty that is causing local residents a great deal of stress and panic. I will be building on this petition after this debate. People need local services. They need family and friends nearby to help with operations, getting to the hospital and out of hospital, and they need care in the community—all of which this Government are committed to. My residents need answers.

I have had meetings, after much pleading, with three recent chief executive officers of the integrated care board: Adam Doyle, who personally promised me and my casework team updates in early August; Mark Smith; and the newly appointed chief executive officer of NHS Sussex, Karen McDowell, who I had the most recent meeting with last week. NHS England reorganisation and staff changes have left me and my casework team in the dark, just like my constituents under this Government, who I know are committed to local community services just as I am.

I stress again how important the day surgery unit is to providing local care. Uckfield hospital is a vital facility. It must not slip through our fingers. Its staff—some of whom have now retired or left in upset, anger and frustration—are worried. The CEO has kindly written to me since we met and said:

“I clearly heard the commitment of you and the local people for Uckfield community hospital, and am speaking to our commissioning teams who have been working with East Sussex healthcare NHS trust around their pilot specifically on day surgery but also—and likely more importantly—our terms working to develop neighbourhood care, and the potential for this asset within its work.”

I thank her for this letter and share it gratefully.

To recap for the Minister, a thriving surgical day unit has been mothballed. The manager of the hospital has been taken away and not replaced. Anaesthetists have been moved elsewhere and are not accessible. Patients are now directed to other surgical sites. Staff heard out of the blue of a six-month mothballing and were given roles miles away from Uckfield. The League of Friends’ assets have been stripped from the site. A year later, we are still in the dark, with no decision taken and no ICB head willing to put their head above the parapet. We need to know what comes next.

My well-loved hospital is a vital community service. Our town and area are growing at a rapid rate, with a significant amount of housing being built and due to be built. There is difficulty involved in getting around a rural area and there is an impact from the public having to get to Eastbourne.

Lots of people have moved from the coast and from London and have taken the opportunity to work locally, and they expect NHS services on the doorstep. That is why I am grateful to be in the Chamber this evening to ask the Minister to look at this vital matter for me and my constituents and to do all that she can. We need this facility to thrive, with the community hospital and its wide-ranging services backed to the hilt. Crucially, we want the Uckfield day surgery back doing what it should: operating. \p Nusrat Ghani: The hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) is a strong campaigner on behalf of Uckfield community hospital and its services, which my constituents in Sussex Weald will have used and would want to use, so I too look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. \p Karin Smyth: Duly noted, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies). I begin by recognising the genuine concern of the residents of East Grinstead and Uckfield, which she has articulated so well, about the future of that local surgery unit. Such local facilities are really important to all our constituents, and it is right that we, as Members of Parliament, advocate on their behalf. She has ensured that her constituents’ voices have been heard both in Parliament and through her engagement with the NHS Sussex board and the integrated care board. We understand that it is difficult to keep pursuing such changes, but as we are all told in the House, we are used to being persistent.

Reducing waiting lists is a central part of the Government’s health mission. I reassure the hon. Lady and other colleagues that we are committed to putting patients first, ensuring timely treatment and bringing care closer to where people live. That is why in December 2024 we published our plan for change, setting out our commitment to return by March 2029 to the NHS constitutional standard that 92% of patients wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to consultant-led treatment.

We are seeing improvements, with more than 5 million additional appointments—more than double our election pledge—and working with the NHS we have cut waiting lists by over 230,000 since we came to office and delivered 135,000 more cancer diagnoses. In August, we confirmed that 100 community diagnostic centres across the country are offering out-of-hours services 12 hours a day, seven days a week, meaning that patients can access vital tests, scans and checks around their busy lives. There are also new surgical hubs, as we have heard, to help tackle the backlog.

Currently, the waiting list stands at 7.3 million patient pathways, with 6.2 million people waiting. That is what we need to change with our elective reform plan—our 10-year health plan is built on that—which has a key focus on improving access to healthcare for everyone and prioritising patient experience, ensuring that wherever  people live in England, they will be seen, diagnosed and treated in a timely way, no matter what they earn. To help achieve that, we are investing £6 billion of additional capital investment over the next five years in diagnostic, elective, urgent and emergency capacity in the NHS.

I join the hon. Lady in thanking her local NHS staff for their work to make sure that these improvements are felt by local people. On her specific concerns regarding the trialled closure of the day surgery unit, which as she said is run by East Sussex healthcare NHS trust, I understand how unsettling the decision feels for many people, including the public and, as she articulated, the staff. In preparation for the debate, I met the local NHS leaders. I am grateful to them for their time and their briefing on these issues. It is important to hear from people on the ground on these matters.

Our 10-year plan commitment to move care into the community is a priority for the Government, as the hon. Lady said, but it does need to be coupled with pragmatism and what is best for patients. In this case, according to the latest data held by the trust, almost 90% of patients accessing relevant services at Uckfield live closer to the two main hospitals in Hastings and Eastbourne, and the proposal was therefore to relocate the day surgery unit activity to those two hospital sites. According to the trust, for most patients that would mean treatment closer to home than under the existing offer.

Secondly, the change was expected to increase the overall number of day surgery procedures available to more people, including the residents of Uckfield, so that they could receive surgery more quickly. Local leaders have taken that decision because it is critical to increase productivity in the NHS. By using both hospitals, local and general anaesthetic procedures can be offered in the same place, with greater provision for higher risk patients or those who need overnight stays.

I come on to the findings from the trial to date. Decisions to reorganise local provision are often a disappointment and difficult for many people. It is important that there is a strong case that the move is better for patients, productivity and value for taxpayers’ money. Following a six-month trial, the trust has found that patients did not report any decline in their experience following the move, and concerns were not raised about travel or access. I am told that the patient advice and  liaison service has reviewed complaints from the pilot period and has had no negative feedback related to the pilot. The evaluation showed that the trust was able to increase capacity for elective procedures, improve the timeliness of pre-assessment, and provide greater flexibility to prioritise urgent, cancer and general anaesthetic cases. The initial analysis indicated that 88.3% of sampled patients were treated closer to their homes, with an average reduction in travel distance of 10.3 miles per journey.

The responsibility for delivery, implementation and funding decisions on services ultimately rests with the appropriate NHS commissioner rather than with the Government, working closely with providers and local stakeholders, and that includes local Members of Parliament. The ICB has a duty to consult the relevant local authority health overview and scrutiny committee about substantial changes to health services, and I have been informed that the trust is looking to share a paper with the committee in December.

All substantial planned service change should be subject to a full public consultation and meet the Government and NHS England’s tests to ensure good decision making. The hon. Lady made her points extremely about the League of Friends and its great work across the country and in her area. As well as putting this issue on the record, as she has done here, I will ensure that the local NHS addresses the issues that she has raised this evening.

It is important to note that the changes only affect the day surgery unit. I am assured by the local NHS that other services at Uckfield community hospital, which she outlined in her speech and which are central to our plans to make care more local and to provide neighbourhood services, will continue. The opening of the new Sussex surgical centre, which the hon. Lady talked about, backed by £40 million of investment, means that the trust will be able to provide better care for more patients closer to where most of them live.

In closing, may I add my thanks for the great work of the League of Friends? I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important issue and for her ongoing support for the Uckfield community. I know that she will continue to work with the local NHS on behalf of her constituents and we are happy to continue that discussion with her.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.