Miatta Fahnbulleh MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will have to make progress in case I incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker. Finally, Lords amendments 85, 86, 97 to 116, 120 and 121 and 123 collectively seek to remove the Secretary of State’s power to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority or combined county authority or to provide for a mayor in certain circumstances. The Government have been clear that devolution has the potential to drive growth. We have also been clear that we will always seek to make sure that partnerships are locally driven. I hope that the new combined authorities we established in recent weeks and our invitation to all areas to form foundational strategic authorities serve as evidence that we are taking a local-first and locally driven approach.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This Government were elected with a clear mandate to deliver change, but to deliver change that people can see and feel, we must empower our communities. We are therefore determined to build a different type of state where local leaders and communities with skin in the game are given power and control to shape the things that matter in their place and in their lives. Our English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is a critical, bold step in delivering that. It will drive the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and our communities in a generation. It sets a floor for devolution, and we intend to build on the foundation set out in the Bill to give communities the power and control they are demanding to drive the change they want to see in their place.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend says, Lord amendment 41, with Lords amendment 95, would place the agent of change principle on a statutory footing in the planning and licensing and statutory nuisance regimes. While I and the Government respect the concerns raised in the other place and those he has raised about how in some cases new homes are adversely affecting existing businesses and cultural venues in their vicinity, we are not persuaded that the amendment is necessary, given the changes to the planning system already in progress. The agent of change principle is already firmly embedded in national planning policy, and both the licensing and the statutory nuisance frameworks give local decision makers the flexibility to factor it in, where relevant to the circumstances of particular cases. Furthermore, we are already considering changes to strengthen this duty, because we recognise the arguments that my hon. Friend has made. As the House will be aware, we recently consulted on a new national planning policy framework that would strengthen this policy and ensure that the principle is effectively applied to protect businesses while building the houses the country desperately needs. Today, I can commit to publishing updated planning policy guidance on the agent of change principle, following the publication of the final national planning policy framework. This guidance will ensure consistent application of the principle and a fair approach across local planning authorities. I hope that will be enough to satisfy my hon. Friend, and I urge the House to disagree with Lords amendment 41. Lords amendment 42, moved by Lord Banner, fixes a current gap in the law where land held on statutory trusts was previously appropriated or disposed of without complying with the statutory advertisement requirements under the Local Government Act 1972. The law currently provides no legal mechanism to resolve this situation, resulting in difficult and protracted legal wranglings. While this will apply in only a very small number of cases, the Government do not believe that historic procedural errors should be left unresolved, especially when that risk is preventing the delivery of environmental improvements, or improvements to community facilities. The amendment creates a mechanism for the Secretary of State to intervene in these rare cases to determine whether the land should remain in a statutory trust or be disposed of. Crucially, the amendment does not—it does not—weaken protections for public recreational land. It introduces a rigorous evidenced-based process overseen by the Secretary of State, with strict qualifying conditions and robust publicity requirements. It has a broad public interest test at its heart, which includes environmental and heritage considerations. By providing a clear route to fix the gap in the law, the amendment ensures decisions about land previously held for public enjoyment are taken in the interests of the public. For those reasons, the Government support the amendment.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We have a policy that wherever there are new powers—whether they are conferred to local authorities or combined authorities—the new burdens principle is in place. In designing this policy, we will work really closely with local authorities to ensure that we are doing enforcement in a way that bites for our communities in the way that they want to see.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make progress, if I may. Lords amendments 26 and 89 seek to specify that mayors, combined authorities and combined county authorities may designate greenfield land for development only when they are satisfied that no suitable brownfield land exists. The Government are strongly committed to a brownfield-first approach, and we have been clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call. To further support this ambition, the national planning policy framework was revised in December 2024 to set out that proposals for brownfield development should normally be approved.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We will be learning insights from Edinburgh and the other places that have applied the provision, and we will be providing further details and guidance on how it could work. In doing that, we will try to strike a balance between setting out an overall framework that enables places to put this in place and allowing places to use their discretion and local knowledge to make sure it works in their interests.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  With the leave of the House, I will close what has been a considered and insightful debate. Many hard-working communities in this country have been neglected for far too long. They have seen good jobs disappear, their high streets decline, and the dream of a decent, affordable home fade. This Bill will do the job of empowering forgotten communities and restore local pride by making devolution the default setting. It will give our strategic authority mayors new powers over transport, planning, housing and regeneration, and help rebuild local government so that it can once again deliver strong local services that we all rely on. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their important contributions, and I will respond to some of them in the time left. Again and again, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) has accused the Government of this being a centralising Bill. Candidly, that is just not true. The Conservatives, who had an ad hoc and all-over-the-place approach to devolution over the last decade and a half, had the opportunity to fundamentally reset the relationship between national Government and local government, and they chose not to do so. We are acting where they did not act. We are doing the biggest transfer of power that we have seen in a generation—

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, to our mayors, our local leaders and our communities. Not acknowledging that is quite simply churlish. The right hon. Gentleman raised the key issue of scrutiny of commissioners and all the key decision makers at strategic authority level. We recognise and agree with that, which is why we have included amendments to introduce stronger local scrutiny committees with greater teeth, so that with greater responsibility comes an accountability framework to make sure that we hold decision makers to account on behalf of local people. On the question of reviewing the protection of public spaces, I am the Minister responsible for green and public spaces, and I am absolutely committed to making sure that such assets are available to all our communities. We are committed to doing a review, and we are very clear that the powers that have been introduced with regard to statutory trusts will not be used until we have concluded that review. [ Official Report , 27 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 6WC.] (Correction) The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke to Lords amendment 2. Again, there is no agreement on policy. We are very clear that mayors have a responsibility to ensure that their rural communities are looked after and protected, and the reality of what we are seeing in places like North Yorkshire is that that is exactly what our mayors are doing. We do not believe that we need to put that on the face of the Bill, because it sits within each of the competencies that mayors will have to take on board. The guidance that sits alongside that, which points to good practice and the work that mayors have done, will be far more powerful in ensuring that this policy bites in the communities where we want it to bite. Several Members spoke about the brownfield-first approach, and we agree with that policy. That is very clear in the national planning policy framework, which we have strengthened to ensure that it is the case. [ Interruption. ] No, I am not just saying it, because that is the policy, and the policy determines what happens in the planning framework. However, we are clear that is there is variability— [ Interruption. ] The shadow Secretary of State says we are centralising, but we say we should leave it to mayors and local authorities to deal with diversity in their particular circumstances, so that they are not caught in legal wrangling, but can make such choices. The policy is very clear: it is about putting brownfield first. Critically, unlike the last Government, we are investing to enable our councils and our mayors to remediate and regenerate such land, so that the policy can bite in the way it is supposed to. On the question of the cabinet and leader model, I go back to the fact that we are doing this because we fundamentally care about creating strong local authorities that can deliver for their people. Some 80% of local authorities already have this model, and it is effective. We have already made the concession that, where alternatives such as the committee model or the mayoral model exist in particular places, they can see out their terms. However, we think it is right to move in the long term to a model that will serve local people. The hon. Member for Guildford also talked about devolution being imposed. On the approach we have taken to strategic authorities—I ask the House to judge us by the way we are acting, not just by the words I say—we are incredibly clear that it is ultimately for local partnerships to come together, and Government will enable and pass devolution down to them. We are not imposing, and we are committed to not imposing.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give away, but I will pick up the hon. Member’s point about local government reorganisation. In his defence, he has been consistent on this throughout all these debates. Candidly, if we think about the near decade and a half that the last Government had to deal with local government issues, while we recognise that the status quo is not fit for purpose, the Conservatives denuded local government with years of austerity and cuts. They could see that the model was creaking, and they did absolutely nothing to deal with it. We are acting where they chose not to act. The hon. Member can continue bleating about this but, fundamentally, we want local government structures that work and deliver services for communities. The Conservatives did not do that, but we are determined to do it. My hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) made important points about our high streets and gambling, and I thank them for their tireless campaigning and advocacy on this fundamental point. We are committed to giving local authorities the powers to shape their high streets, which is absolutely critical. The gambling cumulative impact assessment is a first step in this process, as an additional tool for local authorities that will allow them to begin to shape their high streets, but we are clear that we must and will go further. Our high streets strategy will set out the further powers we will give local authorities to empower them to shape their high streets in the way their communities want. Let me turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), who has been a vocal and passionate advocate for reforms to the taxi and private hire system, which we absolutely recognise are necessary. We completely agree with her that the system is not fit for purpose, and I thank her for all the work she and many of my hon. Friends have put into driving forward the changes we have put into the Bill. We are clear that these are important first steps. Having national standards means we can ensure consistency of approach across the country and, critically, we are strengthening enforcement powers. However, we know that additional reforms must be put in place, and we are committed to bringing them forward. Various hon. Friends have also mentioned the agent of change, so let me reassure them again that we absolutely recognise both their arguments and those made in the other place. We are committed to publishing guidance that will sit alongside the national planning policy framework and bite on planning decisions. It will be a powerful material consideration in decisions that are made. I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) the reassurance that the Minister for Housing will meet him and other Members to think about how we can continue to strengthen and build on that important policy. Returning to brownfield first, which has been raised time and time again, there is no disagreement on the policy. We are clear that we will take a brownfield-first policy, and we are clear that that exists within the NPPF. We are putting in the funding required to ensure that that happens. I reiterate that we do not think we should lock rigidity into the system and in legislation. We think that national planning policy is the space and the place in which this should bite. If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my final minutes I would like to take a step back. We have shown that we are willing to work with Members across the House and to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to genuine concerns. There is no disagreement across the House about wanting a strong Bill that does the job of transferring powers and control to our communities and our local leaders. What we cannot and will not accept are amendments that undermine that core principle—some of the amendments from the very party that accuses us of centralising do exactly that—but nor will we accept amendments that fundamentally go against the principle that we must strengthen the institutions and structures of local government so that they can deliver for our communities. I place on the record my thanks to Members across both Houses for the constructive way in which they have engaged in debate on the Bill. I look forward to continuing those constructive conversations, with a view to securing agreement across both Houses. I believe there is a genuine consensus on the need for devolution. It is a big step change in the way that government has operated for decades, when the centre thought it knew best and imposed its will. The Conservatives had 15 years and failed to act. [ Interruption. ] Almost 15 years—it felt like 15! There must a consensus on changing the way that government works. The Bill is an important first step forward. I urge Members, both in this place and in the other place, to ensure the Bill achieves Royal Assent, so we can move forward. I again put it on the record that the Government are very clear that this is the first step. This is not the ceiling of devolution; this is the floor. The job for us as the Government, and for Members across the House, is to ensure that we continue to work together to build power and control locally, because that is how we will drive change in our places for our communities. I commend the Government position on the Bill, and I ask Members across the House to support that position. We want to be constructive, but equally we cannot miss the opportunity to achieve Royal Assent. I urge my colleagues to resist and reject the amendments that we do not support. We do that not for the fun of it, but because we think they will weaken the Bill. Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because the issue is still the responsibility of the local authority. The amendment is trying to get to those specific cases where the local authority has not applied the proper process to dispose of land and then we are in limbo; it creates a mechanism by which to resolve that. There is a process in place for local authorities to choose to dispose of land, or maintain it in statutory trusts. That is not affected by this amendment. This is trying to get to those situations where it has not been discharged properly. There is currently a gap in the legislation, which we hope this amendment responds to.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a little more progress first. We also expanded the definition of previously developed land in the framework to include large areas of hardstanding, better reflecting land that is already developed. We are looking to go further still in our support for brownfield development as part of our most recent consultation on changes to the national planning policy framework, which closed in March. The Government strongly promote this policy, so there is no disagreement on policy here. However, brownfield sites vary greatly and need to be both available and in the right place to support sustainable development and meet the needs of the community. These amendments seek to impose this sort of requirement in legislation rather than in policy, which is what we do across all aspects of the planning system; this would be unduly rigid, likely to delay land coming forward for development and support unsustainable development in some cases.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make progress. I am happy to give the House a commitment that the Government will not commence these ministerial powers of direction for two years following Royal Assent, nor will we use the powers to provide for a mayor without local consent for a period of four years following Royal Assent. I hope that that will reassure Members. To conclude, there are many amendments for us to work through together in this debate. I hope that the House has seen that we are willing to engage with amendments that we think enhance the Bill, but we cannot and will not accept amendments that undermine the core principles of the Bill, which is, fundamentally, to make sure that we give local authorities, leaders and communities the powers that they deserve. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will come back to that point, because it relates to an amendment that I would like to speak to, but I want to fully address the point that has been made about call-in powers with regard to licensing. My hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) have provided clear, insightful feedback and constructive engagement, and they have done a fantastic job of representing the concerns of their constituents. Let me reassure them on all the key points that they have raised. It is important to put on the record that the amendment will be embedded in the Licensing Act 2003. The licensing objectives that seek to protect and safeguard local communities will apply, and the mayor will be required to have regard to them when exercising the powers conferred through the amendment. The Government are incredibly clear that there must be the right balance between encouraging the growth of hospitality and the night-time economy, which we want to do, and protecting the needs of local communities and their places. The safeguarding and reassurance that are required are locked into the way that we have designed this policy. As I have said, local licensing authorities will continue to be the default decision makers, so the mayor must have regard to the evidence that they provide to determine the decisions that they make. Finally and crucially, where cumulative impact zones have been designated by boroughs, this will remain the case, and the mayor must have regard to the cumulative impact assessment. We hope that we have designed this policy in a way that provides a balance between growth, residential amenities and safeguarding the protection of local communities. As we design the detail of potential strategic importance, we are committed to working with Members from across the House, as well as our licensing authorities, to ensure that we get this right. On pavement parking, which affects communities across the country and disproportionately harms people with mobility or sight impairment, as well as those with prams or pushchairs, who rely on safe, accessible pavements to move around independently, this Government are committed to creating safer, more inclusive streets. Lords amendments 41 and 158 will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations under which English local transport authorities are able to prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on pavements in their area. The regulations will include details on how local transport authorities will exercise the power to prohibit pavement parking, on which vehicles would be excluded and on permissive exemptions.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to resile from the fact that we want to build more homes, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have a housing crisis, and we absolutely need to build more homes across the country. However, we are agreed on the principle of brownfield first. Our argument is simply that that should be done through policy, as we do across all aspects of the planning system from local authorities—it is far too rigid to be put on the face of the Bill. We have strengthened the national policy framework to deliver that policy intent, which we hope will reassure and satisfy Members of both this House and the other place. Briefly, Lords amendments 36, 155 and 90 seek to remove provisions from the Bill relating to local authority governance and executives. The Government continue to hold a strong preference for executive models of governance, and in particular the leader and cabinet model, which is already operated successfully by 80% of councils.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for asking an important question, and for his ongoing engagement in this area. Let me take his question in the context of what we are trying to do through the Bill. The Government are really clear, and Baroness Taylor made it very clear in the other place, that we recognise that licensing authorities are often best placed to make licensing decisions, based on their local knowledge. In that context, the evidence provided by licensing authorities will have a significant role in both the design of the policy and the determination of potential strategic importance.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make progress. For that reason, we cannot accept the amendment from the other place. The Government’s provisions are intended to bring greater clarity and consistency to local authority governance across England. We have heard and responded to the genuine concerns of Members in this Chamber and noble Lords in the other place about certain aspects of this policy. Members will recall that on Report in the Commons the Government brought forward their own amendment to allow councils that have recently adopted the committee system following a council resolution or referendum to continue with those arrangements until the end of the moratorium period. We believe that this strikes the right balance, so we do not think that the amendments are necessary. Lords amendments 37 and 91 require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy for parish governance in England. Let me put on record that we absolutely see the important role that parish and town councils play, and we are clear that they will have a role within the neighbourhood governance system that we will roll out through clause 60. We do not think that the amendments are necessary. We are committed to ensuring that, through an amendment in lieu, neighbourhood governance structures can include town and parish councils. We are also pleased to commit to updating the existing community governance review guidance to reflect examples of good practice for local authorities.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Community-owned Assets: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  There are two things I would say: there is the programme and we have just announced another 40 places; and there are more parts of the country that are in need of support. With Pride in Place, investment is already going into place, but we are very keen to take the approach where we also think about how we put communities in control of some of that investment so that they can drive the priorities and ensure that the investment the Government are making in every part of the country actually works for the community. This approach is fundamental to the way the Government do things: we say that communities should be in the driving seat, driving priorities and ensuring that the investment coming into their area is working in their interests. The Pride in Place programme complements the rights we are giving to neighbourhood boards, and the freedom to invest in community ownership and renewal. That might mean restoring a valued building or bringing empty spaces back into use. Whatever the priority, it has to be driven locally and not imposed from Whitehall.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Community-owned Assets: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  But funding alone is not enough, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. Communities also need stronger rights. Too often, valued local assets are sold off, left empty or lost entirely, with residents having little say in the process. That is why this Government are strengthening community power through legislation. Through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, we will introduce a new community right to buy. This gives communities the first opportunity to purchase a registered asset of community value when it comes up for sale. Communities will have more time to raise funds, access a fair and independent valuation, and rely on rights that carry real weight.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Community-owned Assets: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) for securing this debate, for speaking with such conviction about the importance of community-owned assets and for highlighting the importance of the Ultimate Picture Palace—I do know it—which is a treasured asset in her community. I know she has been a long-standing champion for communities in her constituency, and I recognise the work she has done to bring local voices to this House. As a fellow Co-operative Member, I share her ambition, passion and commitment for community ownership and power. Community-owned assets matter because they are not just buildings, but places where people meet, organise, volunteer, learn and support one another. When communities lose them, they lose not just bricks and mortar, but connection, pride and opportunity. That is why this Government believe strongly that communities should have more power to protect the places they value. My right hon. Friend is seeing that at first hand in Greater Leys, as it is one of the neighbourhoods receiving long-term funding and support through the Pride in Place programme. That 10-year commitment reflects both the strength of the community and the challenges it faces, and it gives local people the certainty they need to plan ahead and to shape the area for the long term. Alongside the Pride in Place programme, the Government have also introduced the Pride in Place impact fund. The fund is designed to provide rapid, visible improvements to community spaces, public places and high streets in areas that need immediate support. Further communities across the country are benefiting from that additional route for action, where quicker intervention is needed. Together, the two approaches reflect a deliberate choice by this Government to combine long-term, locally-led change with the ability to respond quickly where urgent improvements are required. They serve different purposes, but both are rooted in the same fundamental principle of putting communities in the driving seat and ensuring that they decide what is best for their area and their priorities.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Community-owned Assets: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  We are committed to working with all councils, which we know are under huge pressure, to ensure that they are sustainable and that they can do the fundamental work that we need them to do to support and empower their communities. Colleagues in my Department are working with individual councils that we know are facing a very difficult time financially, particularly in the context of local government reorganisation. There is a bigger piece for us, though, which is that we absolutely believe it is right to empower communities to take on assets. This is a principle that we believe in; we believe in co-operative ownership and community ownership. We are conferring rights through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in order to drive that forward. We must continue building on it to ensure that we are giving communities the wherewithal, the resources and the know-how to be able to exercise those rights. We are committed to doing this to ensure that communities can take on and maintain assets, because it is fundamental to our view of how we drive change in place. Ultimately, this Government are clear that we were elected to do things differently, because business as usual is not working for too many of our communities. That means moving away from short-term competitive bidding and towards longer-term, locally-led change. It means trusting our communities, backing their ideas and giving them the tools to succeed. I once again thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East for raising the important issue of community ownership and community power so eloquently. She is right to shine a light on this subject. We will continue to work through Pride in Place and community right to buy and by providing targeted support for urgent local needs to ensure that our ambition for communities is matched in practice and in reality. My right hon. Friend spoke about encouraging collaboration between arts and culture organisations and higher education providers, and this work has begun; we are working closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education to ensure that we are aligned. I will continue that collaboration, as she suggests. I would absolutely love to accept her invitation to visit the Ultimate Picture Palace—I think it will probably be the highlight of my year. I look forward to working with her and with Members across the House who have a shared commitment and ambition for what we can achieve by empowering our communities to drive the change that they are so desperate to see. The Government are committed to this aim, and we will work diligently and effectively with all Members across the House to make it a reality. Question put and agreed to.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Community-owned Assets: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  We have had this exchange at the Dispatch Box previously; the Government embarked on local government reorganisation as a point of necessity, not because we either desired it or thought it would be fun to do so. Ultimately, local government is under huge amounts of pressure. We need to have local councils—the beating heart of our communities—that are sustainable, that have a footprint local people can recognise and that can do the job of enabling our communities. That is our firm intention through the local government process, but we recognise that alongside that it is critical that we build and support at community level. That is why, in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, we are introducing the roll-out of neighbourhood governance and why, through our Pride in Place programme, we are fundamentally empowering communities, which should be at the very heart of how we drive change in our places.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Water Supply and Housing Targets: West Kent · Hansard source

  More

  On that specific point, our methodology is trying to strike a balance, where we think there is both need for homes and the capacity to build those homes. I absolutely acknowledge that the water sector and some of our other infrastructure providers are not where they need to be. All the reforms we are trying to drive through in planning reform and the water sector, and the robust action that we are taking to work across the piece, are in response to that very problem. For example, in the context of the investment required to build our water assets, the Government are ensuring that £104 billion of private sector investment is going into the water sector over five years to enable that building of assets. I want to reassure the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and hon. Members that the Government will introduce the water reform Bill when parliamentary time allows, working in partnership with water companies, investors and communities to make sure that we have a system that is fit for purpose. An important part of that reform, which pertains to this very debate, is the establishment of regional water planning function, which will enable a more holistic, co-ordinated approach to water, environment and supply planning and support the delivery of national strategic objectives such as economic growth, meeting house building targets and nature recovery, while enabling regional and local priorities to be realised. That more joined-up approach will deliver a more resilient and future-proof water system—that is our hope and our intention—better able to absorb shocks, which will hopefully prevent situations such as those we have seen in west Kent from ever happening again. I think there is consensus that such situations are appalling and that we absolutely must mitigate them in the future. To answer the direct questions put by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge about the water companies and their role in the planning system, we are just going through the responses to a consultation on statutory consultees. The Government intend to list water companies and sewage companies as consultation bodies for new plan-making, so that they are involved right up front in the system. However, we are also looking at their relationship with regard to planning applications in particular, for the reasons that he set out. Critically, the right hon. Gentleman also asked me to sit down and discuss this issue with my team and other Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) is the Minister for Housing and Planning, but I will take that suggestion away and get that meeting in the diary as a priority, because we appreciate and understand the specific issues. I come back to the fact that we know there is a systemic problem; we are working hard to deal with it, but we recognise the urgency of the situation, because the plan-making process is happening. To conclude, I again commend the right hon. Member for Tonbridge for securing this important debate and shining a spotlight on the particular issues and concerns in his constituency. I return to the fact that the status quo is appalling; the water shortages that we have are absolutely unacceptable, and the Government are committed to working with him and with his local council to make sure that we are resolving this situation. We all agree that we need more homes. We also all agree that the water sector has to be reformed, so that we can deliver the infrastructure we need to service those homes. This Government are committed, as we have been from day one, to driving through whole-system reform to ensure that the interaction between planning, house building and the wider infrastructure sector is right and fit for purpose, in order to deliver what we need. I look forward to continuing our engagement and to making sure that we resolve the specific issue with the plan and the capacity within the plan. My Department is ready and willing to work very closely with the council to do that, and we will take the plan forward. I again thank the right hon. Member for securing this debate and you, Sir John, for chairing it. Question put and agreed to.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Water Supply and Housing Targets: West Kent · Hansard source

  More

  In the short term, the priority is to make sure that the company has a viable plan so that we can deliver the homes that we want. The approach that the taskforce has taken in other areas is to sit alongside the company to stress-test its proposals and propose improvements to them so that we can get the building happening. As the hon. Member will know, we are driving through bigger reforms of the water sector because we recognise that the status quo is suboptimal and that we need to hold companies and their bosses to account where they are not delivering for their customers.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Water Supply and Housing Targets: West Kent · Hansard source

  More

  I will make more progress. The lack of water infrastructure is blocking our capacity to deliver more homes and is resulting in water outages such as those in west Kent. That is a clear signal that we need wholesale reform and that the system is not doing what needs to be done. We believe that we can secure water supplies for the future only by managing water demand, reducing leakages and creating new water assets. We have to do all three of those things, and we are working with the water industry and the regulator to do that.