Gideon Amos MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 15 Jul 2026 · Estate Regeneration · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) on securing the debate. His call for minimum repair standards seems very reasonable, and I am happy to echo it. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) identifying the regular attendees in this Chamber—I am tempted to say that it takes one to know one. I am sure we will see him again; it is always a pleasure to have him with us in a debate. It is a shame that the constituents of the hon. Member for Basingstoke do not feel they have been fully consulted, as they should have been, on the regeneration project he mentioned. Regeneration, when done with genuine community involvement, can change lives in some of the best ways possible. Community involvement, consent and consultation are fundamental necessities if that kind of positive and transformative outcome is to be achieved. Regeneration is one of the best tools we have to help solve the housing crisis. It allows us to build the new homes we desperately need—including, crucially, new social homes—on brownfield sites, saving precious greenfield from development. It allows residents to exchange some of the coldest, leakiest housing stock in Europe for better homes that are affordable to run, while adding the kind of infrastructure that the hon. Gentleman referred to, such as GP surgeries, school places and playparks, which some estates built 60 years ago never had. Many Liberal Democrat councils are showing the way to do this. My Somerset councillor colleagues, including Federica Smith-Roberts, Tom Deakin and Lee Baker, have led the way on the regeneration of the North Taunton estate. There are 162 defective prefabricated concrete Woolaway homes, unfit for the 21st century, being demolished and replaced with 229 council homes for affordable rent—67 more than we had before. The scheme was built around a resident design group from the outset, not token consultations or consultation after the drawings were finished. Local community champions like Lesley Councill, who has done amazing work at the Priorswood community centre, helped to lead that involvement and deserve to be credited for a lot of the work. Existing tenants were rehoused during the works, with a guaranteed right to return. Another example is the Cambridge road estate in Kingston upon Thames, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). The Liberal Democrat council there insisted on subjecting the proposed regeneration scheme to the kind of ballot that the hon. Member for Basingstoke referred to. Those involved worked hard with local residents and the proposal received overwhelming support, resulting in 2,100 new homes and 871 new council houses—218 more than were on the site before. Those are not marginal examples; they are proof that the choice is not between going ahead with regeneration or getting community consent. With leadership and real involvement, communities can and do vote for more housing, not less. The Liberal Democrats want to see that ambition matched nationally, and we would go further. We want infrastructure to come first in these developments, so that regeneration comes with the GP surgeries, transport and drainage capacity that the extra density demands, rather than as an afterthought. As we have said: no doctors, no development. We would also get serious about the housing that already exists, but sits empty. There are more than 359 homes across the country that have been empty for six months or longer. Addressing that would ease the pressure to drive up to unsustainable densities in other parts of towns and communities, and would relieve pressure on greenfield sites. The same principle applies to our high streets. The Liberal Democrats want to see a properly funded high streets strategy that genuinely brings empty units back into use as accommodation and housing above shops, strengthens the town centre-first principle and supports property owners who want to do those conversions. We would deliver on our 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free insulation and heat pumps for low-income households, so that regeneration is not the only route to warm homes. We welcome the fact that the Government have made housing a priority. We have read that the new Prime Minister will want to increase the number of council and social rent homes being built. Does the Minister believe that the new Prime Minister will match the Liberal Democrat ambition to reach 150,000 new social rent homes per year? I am sure we would all be interested to hear that. We ask the Minister for an infrastructure-first requirement, so that regeneration schemes are properly funded to deliver the GP surgeries, schools and transport links that increased density requires; a national target for 150,000 social rent homes per year, rather than the market-led approach that we have at the moment; the delivery of a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free insulation and heat pumps for low-income households, and a recognition that regeneration should never be done to a community, but done with and by the community.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Given the important armed forces community in Taunton and Wellington, which includes 40 Commando Royal Marines, 675 Squadron Army Air Corps, our sea and air cadets and our army cadet force, I start by thanking all those who are serving and all the veterans in my community who have served. At the weekend, I was pleased to have the opportunity to thank Ed Cullen and all the veterans who organised our superb Somerset Armed Forces Day event, drawing 49,000 people, which was a record attendance. I hope that the Minister will join me in congratulating them, as well as Terry Williams, who is fundraising to establish the “poppy of honour”, with 1.1 million named paper poppies for every individual lost in world war one. Indeed, I call on the Government to support that fundraising effort in a meaningful way. Speaking of those who have been on active service, I also congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on his service. He brings to these Benches the sharpest of insights on defence and rearmament, and great experience too. How we treat our veterans is a vital component of how we will attract the men and women to serve in the forces and deliver the warfighting readiness that this debate is about. That is why the superb work of the NHS Somerset armed forces link team must not be cut back as a result of cuts to integrated care boards by the Department of Health and Social Care. Former Royal Marine Steven Summers has said to me that “the support provided…has been life changing. They have helped bridge the gaps between the NHS, local GP surgeries, and the commitments made under the Armed Forces Covenant… Their work really does make a difference.” The support that we give our veterans should also include those who served in Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. They should never have to face double jeopardy. That is why the Liberal Democrats voted against carrying over the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Given the heat, I will spend a moment thanking soldiers on ceremonial duties. I am personally appalled by the way a minority of members of the public treat the guards and their horses, as is regularly shown on social media. Veterans in my constituency have asked me to raise that here today. I urge the Government to consider whether anything can be done to better prevent people from interfering with guards’ duties. Cadets are tomorrow’s servicemen and women, so I welcome that our cadet forces are set to keep growing, and the 30% target must be met as soon as possible. A decent home for serving personnel matters, so I was proud as the Liberal Democrats housing spokesperson to take forward the work begun by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and propose amendments to the Renters’ Rights Bill, which were eventually made by the Government, to bring service family accommodation up to a decent home standard by law. I am delighted that the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) to the Armed Forces Bill would extend that to single living accommodation. I welcome the £15 billion defence investment plan, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, it does not go nearly far enough. With £4.75 billion of that yet to be found, any raiding of the military housing budget would be a false economy and bitterly opposed by Liberal Democrats. If this defence investment is to be spent well, the promise made to our small businesses to properly integrate them into procurement must be kept. The current 5% procurement budget for SMEs is a pittance. An SME in my constituency—Coker Engineering in Taunton—needs reliable access to steel imports. I repeat the call for defence companies to be granted exclusions from steel import tariffs so that they can make the arms our forces need. In conclusion, if the Government’s ambition falls short, the Liberal Democrats’ ambition does not. We call for: a new EU-UK defence pact providing the basis for negotiating UK entry into SAFE, or Security Action for Europe; decent homes for service families and single living accommodation; and a £20 billion programme of defence bonds to inject the capital that our forces urgently need to meet the challenges set out by my hon. Friend and the strategic defence review. That is the defence of our country that Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for, and that is what we would deliver.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and her Select Committee colleagues for their excellent report and for securing this important debate. Members on both sides of the House have made important points, including my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr Forster) and for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who resolutely spoke up for their residents. The Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of a commonhold framework, the abolition of leasehold for new build flats and the end of forfeiture. Those are clear steps in the right direction, but they do not go nearly far enough. Liberals and Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for an end to unfair residential leasehold since the Liberal Government’s 1909 people’s Budget, and over 100 years on, progress has been woeful. Nearly 5 million households in England are living under this feudal system today. The Housing Secretary himself has called ground rent “money for nothing”, so why pay £250 for nothing for the next 40 years? For any of the 5 million leaseholders living under this system right now, the draft Bill does very little to help them gain enfranchisement, fix service charges or take control of how their buildings are run. The Government have said they are committed to bringing “the feudal leasehold system to an end.” Where are the goals and milestones that mean it will happen? A target date is needed by which all leaseholders have had an affordable opportunity to convert to commonhold and for the right to manage across the sector. As a first step to achieving those targets, the Government should enact all the remaining Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement, including cutting out the swindle of development value—recommendations that came out six years ago but, for some reason, remain unimplemented. The Government inherited that delay but then promised in the 2024 King’s Speech to enact them. Let me give the House a specific example of what the delay in implementing those recommendations means in practice. One constituent in Taunton and Wellington went through the right-to-manage process as it stands. It took him four years, and he told me it “felt like a full time job.” The delay meant that he kept paying an overpriced service charge, adding up to an extra £5,000. Residents were forced to set up two separate right-to-manage companies, duplicating costs, simply to manage two buildings in one estate. Once they had finally won the right to manage, they found no legal way to recover even the basic costs of the right-to-manage company because the costs were outside what the lease defined as a service charge. There was a similar story when they went to amend their leases. What links all three problems is that the Law Commission recommended they be fixed back in 2020, so why not implement them in the forthcoming Bill? Right to manage should not be a niche arrangement that only a determined minority can navigate their way into. Landlords and freeholders, who hold all the information and resources, should be required to offer right to manage through a ballot of residents, with a presumption in favour unless more than half of residents vote against it. In respect of leaseholders being enfranchised into owning their own home, and setting a target, the Minister should bring back the amendment he tabled in opposition on properly setting deferment and capitalisation rates. The Bill appears not to contain such a provision. Before I end, I want to say a word about “fleecehold” as it affects freeholders. They face exactly the same issues of moving in, then having no control over the fees they are forced to pay. Homeowners should be given the right to manage the estates they are contracted into having responsibility for. I understand that the Government have asked the Law Commission to look into this, which is welcome, but the track record on Law Commission advice being acted on is worrying. On 27 January, the Minister promised my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) that those residents would get protection in this Parliament, but that protection is not in the Bill. When will it be legislated for? In the meantime, councils should be given greater powers to adopt estates. Also, we need a property management regulator of the sort Lord Best recommended, which has the power to crack down on and cap the most exploitative service and estate management charges. Six years have passed since the Law Commission made its recommendations and seven since Lord Best reported. Forty-two years will pass before leaseholders are free of the scourge of ground rent. Yet we still have no goal from the Government on how long it will take for the majority of leaseholders to enfranchise or to gain the right to manage, or for freehold estates to be sorted out. In closing, therefore, I ask the Minister for three things. First, enact the remaining Law Commission recommendations, so that leaseholders get the support they need. Secondly, create a regulator as a matter of urgency, and give it teeth to end rip-off charges. Finally, set a clear timetable for enfranchisement and right to manage becoming the norm, so that people win control over their own home. Let us free people from the leasehold trap. The Liberal Democrats would do that without delay.

• 30 Jun 2026 · High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on introducing this important debate, on the constructive spirit in which he introduced the subject and on his generosity in taking interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) rightly highlighted the issue of business rates; they need to be abolished and replaced with an entirely different system, which I will come back to. High streets are at the heart of our communities. In Taunton and Wellington we have a great range of independent traders, shopkeepers and hospitality businesses. Footfall in Taunton is up by 4.6%, which is way above the national average, in large part due to their efforts and work to promote the independent quarter and other parts of our town. However, they are struggling against the backdrop of energy costs, the difficult financial environment and those dishonest traders who do not play by the same rules as the rest of us. We cannot allow our high streets to become sites of decline. In Taunton, thanks to the team of councillors, trading standards officers and local police, a number of shops have rightly been shut down—a crackdown that I called for and supported when it happened. Although I am encouraged by the Government’s measures on closures, they must go further on this issue. I reiterate the call I made on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in this Chamber a few weeks ago: there need to be greater powers for police officers to issue closure orders more swiftly and permanently close down repeat offenders and, as other hon. Members raised, measures need to be taken against dodgy landlords who knowingly and repeatedly let their premises to illegal traders. All those changes must come alongside investment in proper community policing to curb not only that kind of activity, but antisocial behaviour and shoplifting, which drive customers away. The Liberal Democrats would call on the National Crime Agency to establish a dedicated unit to tackle organised shoplifting gangs and give small businesses the tools they need to protect themselves. Several hon. Members rightly raised planning controls. Someone walking down many of our high streets will find units that are technically occupied and trading but with shop windows deliberately blacked out with various coverings. It is a simple point, but a shop usually has a shop window and a display, not an opaque screen hiding the internal activities from view. The window on to the street provides natural surveillance into and out from the premises. It is an invitation to the customer, and what makes the high street feel alive—it is part of its aesthetic appeal. Although it is difficult to quantify, that is incredibly valuable to the vitality that makes our town centres places where people want to go. Planning enforcement could be used to enforce that principle. If a business converts its shopfront into a blank wall or an entirely blacked-out façade, it is no longer operating as a retail unit in the traditional sense of the word. Planning use classes A and E define what a shop is, and both those classes include several mentions of a display. With an amendment to the guidance to clarify that one feature of a shop is a display of some sort or a shop window, enforcement action could be taken, and a stop notice could be issued under the Planning Act 2008, requiring unauthorised use to end. I urge the Government to include that measure in their review of powers, as well as addressing the issue of illuminated signs, which was raised by several hon. Members. We should all recognise that antisocial behaviour can be deeply traumatising; as well as bringing back proper community policing, the Liberal Democrats want more use of directly employed community safety wardens, and mobile CCTV to enforce localised issues such as fly-tipping and harassment. However, enforcement alone will not regenerate a high street. In Taunton and Wellington, I often speak to local traders who offer brilliant products and services, but they are under massive pressure to make ends meet, given the cost pressures and tax increases that have been levied. The Government increases in employers national insurance are a jobs tax, and they hit businesses hardest. That is why the Liberal Democrats oppose them at every opportunity. I call on the Minister to lobby the Treasury to reverse those increases and take more costs off our small businesses, which are the backbone of the UK economy and its single biggest sector. In some cases, business rates now exceed rents and squeeze out the independent businesses that give high streets their character. Our long-standing position is clear: replace business rates with a system of commercial landowner levy, based on land value rather than capital value, thereby shifting the burden from tenants to landowners and prioritising high streets in the process, stimulating the investment that we need. It is no matter how nice our high streets are if people cannot visit them, so we have called for bus fares to be cut to £1 for all. A family of four making a trip into Taunton from a nearby village have spent a significant sum at £3 each before they have spent a penny in a local shop. Homes above shops also have a transformative role, putting more people on to our high streets day and evening, weekday and weekend. The current policy framework allows for that, but shop owners often have neither the time, expertise or resources to navigate the system. We need more support for them to covert those spaces into residential use. In conclusion, the Liberal Democrat asks are clear: swifter, stronger closure orders; penalties for landlords who turn a blind eye; planning enforcement against opaque store fronts; the reversal of employer national insurance rises; bus fares cut to £1; and more help to unlock homes above shops. Our great traders and small businesses deserve that support, and they will repay it in bucket loads if we give it to them.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. The only certainty that consigning applications to officers will bring is a greater certainty of refusal. Officers refuse a greater proportion of planning applications than planning committees, which is not an argument in favour of the draft regulations.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is being generous in giving way. As he knows, we fundamentally disagree with these proposals. He has just illustrated the point that councillors will be reduced to the same role as members of the public: they may make representations, but that is it.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the importance of close working between councillors and officers, and I do not deny it, but the planning committees and the national scheme of delegation consultation outcome document is crystal clear, and I am grateful to him for allowing me the opportunity to quote it. It says in paragraph 17: “Nominated officers and nominated members should make every effort to reach agreement on which cases should be referred to committee.” Of course, that is only in schedule 2 applications; in schedule 1 applications, there is no opportunity for councillors to have a word with the officers and have the application referred to committee, but in schedule 2 applications there would be. The consultation outcome document goes on to state: “However, where agreement is not possible, the case must be delegated to officers under regulation 5(3).” The questions raised by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington, about whether officers will be required to prepare the same registers of interest and to be subject to the same degree of openness and accountability that councillors have to have are well put. In our view, the draft regulations dangerously undermine democratic accountability—in fact, they remove it altogether—and leave the way open for those who will say, “It doesn’t matter how you vote or what you think—it has no effect.” The regulations will extend that principle to councillors and their powers: it does not matter what they think or what they say; they will not be allowed to affect decisions that are taken in their name and the name of their council. We will be pressing the regulations to a Division if the Opposition do not. Every councillor will regret these changes.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I will give two examples that have a bearing on the hon. Gentleman’s point momentarily. The Liberal Democrats have supported elements of the Government’s reforms. We supported the housing measures in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and we support the principle of strategic planning. We also have no objection to a standard scheme of delegation or an upper limit on the size of planning committees. However, we do not accept that decisions must—the word “must” is used several times in the draft regulations—be taken away from elected councillors such that councils will approve decisions in cases where every single councillor disagrees, and the council’s name will still be on that decision. How can that be just? How can that be right? The delivery of new homes is important. In particular, our target for social homes is higher than the Government’s, as we would aspire to deliver 150,000 per year, and we would allocate funding in that direction. Many of the measures that the Government are bringing forward seem to be directed at increasing planning permissions, largely for private sector housing, which many people in my constituency cannot and will not be able to afford. There is also little evidence that increasing planning permissions will reduce house prices—in fact, that has never happened, and it never will. Of course, house builders work on a commercial model in which they need to sustain their price to make their profit, which is an entirely reasonably approach. Recent other changes also seem to be bearing in this direction. Councillors have already been removed from making a free decision on developments for over 150 homes; they cannot refuse them unless they first go cap in hand to the Minister and ask whether that is okay. Under that recently introduced direction, they lost their ability to decide on applications over 150 homes, and under the draft regulations, they will also lose their ability to decide on smaller applications. Guidance on the draft regulations would be a good thing, but this is not about guidance—the key word is “must”. The Minister referred to democratic oversight, but that will be removed unless the draft regulations are defeated. There is absolutely no question of any democratic oversight in any of these decisions. Two examples came to my mind. One does not have to spend a lot of time as a member of a planning committee to come across applications where officers recommend a cautious refusal, but members of the committee then overturn that decision. I dealt with one in Wiltshire many years ago where an owner wanted to divide a large house into two by blocking up two doorways. The planning officer and the senior planning officer were adamant that this would create a new dwelling in the open countryside and so must be refused, and they would listen to no other representations. With the support of local councillors, it was taken to the planning committee and the planning committee unanimously approved the application to create an additional dwelling and increase the housing supply. When I spoke to the chair of my local planning committee in Somerset recently, I heard about a similar example just outside my constituency where officers were recommending a refusal, but members overturned that decision and the housing was granted. That will not be possible under the draft regulations, and applicants will have nowhere to go. Whether they are local residents or local builders, they will not be able to do anything. They will be allowed to contact their councillors, but their councillors will turn around and say, “Even though I’ve been elected as a councillor, I cannot have any say or effect over this council decision. It has been taken away from me by the regulations.”

• 29 Jun 2026 · Youth Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  One of the key routes into employment that youth hubs can provide is supported internships. Will the Minister congratulate Young Somerset on helping people who have been failed by the education system into secure employment through supported internships? Will someone from the ministerial team meet me and Young Somerset to discuss cuts in funding and the reduction of those supported internships?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I support these measures. Contrary to what some have said in the Chamber today, the UK Energy Research Centre has found that two thirds of the increase in electricity bills since 2021 has been driven by wholesale gas prices. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) was right, when he was Energy Secretary, to play his part in leading the UK to becoming the world leader in offshore wind. He was right—as, to be fair, was the Prime Minister—to oppose the reckless and illegal war in the middle east, which has driven up prices. It is crucial that we break the reliance on gas to bring down our energy bills. Our Liberal Democrat plan to halve energy bills in 10 years depends on doing just that. Our essential energy guarantee would discount half of bills right now, but we need to do more. Tidal range could have been generating more than Hinkley C, had the previous Conservative Government supported that proposal when it came up. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) was absolutely right to say in her excellent speech that community energy could be playing a much bigger part. One thing that Reform and the Conservatives have not talked about today is that their alternatives do not just mean more and more burning of oil and gas, despite the global warming we are experiencing today; they also want to frack our beautiful countryside to burn even more gas. Near my constituency in Somerset, shale gas licences were obtained, including for Quantoxhead and around Brent Knoll, just 16 miles from a nuclear power station and not far at all from my town of Taunton. The Reform party said that it would be negligent not to frack. Under their current leader, the Conservatives have recently opened the door to fracking, saying that it will form part of the mix, just as Liz Truss did during her short period in office. Fracking in Lancashire, let us remember, triggered 200 seismic events of magnitudes up to 2.9, which were felt across the whole Fylde coast. My neighbours in Taunton and Wellington want nothing to do with fracking, and certainly not just outside our town. Any proposals to restart fracking pose real dangers to Somerset, and constituents of Taunton and Wellington would bear all the risk: the earth tremors, the industrialisation of our rolling hills and the threat to the River Tone, while the financial gains would flow only to the oil and gas executives and to their backers. The seventh carbon budget provides the continuity of trajectory that lower bills and a stable climate depend upon, but we must go further. We must reject the dangerous alternatives from the Conservatives and Reform, and say no to fracking our wonderful countryside.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Fly-tipping: Residential Areas · Hansard source

  More

  On rural and private land, the Environment Agency in my constituency has said that there is a gap in regulation when it comes to privately owned sites that are used for one purpose initially but gradually accumulate waste and become fly-tipping destinations. The Environment Agency has no power to act against that because it is private land, and councils are also struggling to find the right approach. Does the hon. Lady consider that as a significant issue in rural constituencies such as mine?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Draft Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. On the parent Act to this instrument, the Liberal Democrats campaigned in favour of ending no-fault evictions, and we were pleased to support the Bill to bring that about and bring those to an end. We support the principle of the landlord redress scheme, although we did push for the Government to go further on protecting renters and on the private rental database, including more records of landlords, on rent smoothing and so on. We believe that the redress system should extend to providing redress against excessive rent increases above and beyond the pertaining Bank of England rate of interest. That is in our rent-smoothing proposals. None the less, we support the draft enabling regulations for the redress scheme. Will the Minister say a little more about the kinds of landlords that the draft regulations will apply to, which he said will come out in due course? Is the metric to do with the scale of the landlord or a type of landlord? It would be helpful to know a little more on that front. Otherwise, we are willing to support the statutory instrument.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In Taunton and Wellington, people recognise the need for new homes, and indeed have supported thousands of new homes. Taunton is the town that has grown most in the south-west—its population growth is 2% ahead of the national average. However, we do not accept the blinkered idea that that cannot go hand in hand with protecting our most precious green spaces, although the proposed new national planning policy framework will make that so much harder. The longest established environmental development charity in the world, the Town and Country Planning Association, has called the framework an unprecedented change. The public are debating it, and the Government are consulting on it. Can this House have a debate on the proposed new national planning policy framework, which is more far-reaching than the recent Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025?

• 17 Jun 2026 · High Street Shops: Illicit Activity · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister accept another intervention?

• 17 Jun 2026 · High Street Shops: Illicit Activity · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful. I just want to clarify one point about planning controls. Key points were made about whether shops are actually shops if their windows are completely covered. If planning guidance was changed, that might open the way for enforcement under the existing system. Will the Minister get that message through to MHCLG?

• 17 Jun 2026 · High Street Shops: Illicit Activity · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate and the constructive manner in which he introduced the subject, which is important for many Members across the House. I thank many hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) highlighted the securing of action against illegal trading in Honiton High Street. I took note of the comments made by the hon. Members for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and for Carlisle (Ms Minns) about planning controls, screening windows and changes of use in planning conditions; I am supportive of those approaches. The hon. Members for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) and for Halesowen also pointed out that landlords need to be tackled; I will return to that later, as I will to the point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) about the burdensome need to go to court to follow through with these orders. High streets are the heart of our communities, and we cannot allow them to become sites of decline. Both Taunton and Wellington have a fabulous range of independent traders, shopkeepers and publicans, who are making ends meet in a financial climate made much harder by recent tax increases. Footfall in Taunton, however, is up by 4.6% in large part due to their efforts. The Government must be on their side, and we must be clear that criminality on our high streets will not be tolerated. The hollowing-out of our police force by the previous Government has allowed organised crime gangs to gain far too much of a foothold in our communities, with local communities paying the price. Let us make no mistake: organised crime sits behind and at the top of all this, either employing or—quite often—exploiting migrants as suits their purposes and to do their dirty work. A recent BBC investigation found someone trying to sell a shop to its undercover reporter for £18,000; a Facebook group listing dozens of mini-marts, barbers, car washes and takeaways for sale; ghost directors charging illegal workers up to £300 a month to register mini-marts in their names; and people working 14-hour shifts in mini-marts for only £4 an hour. Thanks to a local publican in my constituency, who came forward with vital information back in 2024, I raised illegal trading in Taunton and Wellington with Somerset trading standards and local police. I pay tribute to police officers such as Andy, the trading standards officers and my Lib Dem Somerset councillor colleagues, who oversaw the work that led to a number of high-profile closures in Taunton. Taunton Market, Mr Taunton and Top Market have rightly been closed down, as has the Danya Store in Wellington only last week, following just the kind of crackdown that was needed and that I have supported. It cannot be said too often to anyone flouting these laws in Taunton and Wellington or anywhere across the country: illegal trading is not welcome—you will be closed down and you will be prosecuted. But we need to go further. Polling commissioned by the Liberal Democrats found that three in five Brits want to see more power to control the number of vape shops on their high streets. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute has pointed out that we need properly resourced trading standards services, which means tackling the local government funding crisis—particularly the social care funding crisis, which is a burden under which councils such as Somerset are struggling. Through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, the Government increased the duration of temporary closure notices from 48 hours to 72 hours by amending the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and they have recently said that they will extend closure orders from six months to 12 months to give investigators more time to pursue prosecutions. The Liberal Democrats welcome those changes, but we want the Government to go further. Under Liberal Democrat plans, councils would be given the power to issue closure orders to more swiftly shut down any shops engaging in criminality. Those powers would be expanded to ensure that repeat offenders’ premises are closed down permanently, and those whose ownership is under question would remain shut until the owner comes forward and faces up to the law. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a return to proper community policing, which must mean giving the bobby on the ground more powers to deal with this menace more easily and, crucially, with less paperwork. Officers currently spend almost half their shift on paperwork, but we all want them out and about in our communities. The Liberal Democrats propose giving officers the power to close down premises using closure notices for seven days, not just 72 hours. More importantly, they would not have to apply to the courts for an order, as is currently required under section 80 of the 2014 Act, safeguarded by the requirement that the superintendent must have evidence of more than one instance of illegal activity and by right of appeal to the courts. Police officers would then not have the onerous task of preparing an application to the court every time they encounter illegal trading and want to halt it, as they are currently required to do under section 80. Our changes would mean that officers are able to close premises quickly and easily, reducing the criminal scope for phoenixing—setting up premises quickly under a different company—and constraining the ability to set up nearby alternative premises. The current law allowing closure notices—section 76 of the 2014 Act—restricts the grounds to nuisance and disorder. Criminal activity is not mentioned, so a new law would correct that omission. Measures need to be taken against landlords who repeatedly rent their units to dodgy companies carrying out illegal activity. My Somerset councillor colleagues, supported by trading standards, have called for civil penalties against landlords who knowingly let their premises be used for illegal trading. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute has also made that point. Landlords who repeatedly offend should lose their premises for at least two years; the premises should be handed over to the local council to be let out at reduced rents to genuine local businesses that play by the rules. The changes that the Home Secretary recently announced cannot come soon enough, but the Government should be much bolder. The Liberal Democrats want to see more police on our streets to restore proper community policing; swifter closure orders and notices, lasting up to seven days, with an end to the burden of paperwork that they currently generate, which slows our police officers down; and penalties for landlords who repeatedly turn a blind eye to whom they are renting their properties. These criminal gangs must be given no quarter in Taunton and Wellington or any other town centre in the country.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. It is not the first time I have done so as part of a Committee to discuss planning regulations—I am sure, Ms Jardine, that you look forward to debating these as much as I do. The Liberal Democrats are sympathetic to the need for strategic planning and welcome its being rolled out for strategic authorities; we made that point during the passage of the Bill. However, we also made the point that we should not load this requirement on to hard-pressed unitary authorities. For example, my local authority in Somerset is struggling to begin an enormous and expensive local plan exercise, under which it would be required to find a 46% increase in the number of housing plots in Somerset, which is 75,000 plots all together. It is not reasonable to, at the same time, expect county councils or unitary authorities, acting on their own, to begin work on a spatial development strategy. I understand that in the regulations there is a provision for authorities to combine to achieve that—indeed, Somerset council is trying to combine. It is part of the Wessex partnership, but the partnership’s bid for mayoral status was pushed back by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, so it is unable to form a mayoral strategic authority. Therefore, Somerset council, like many other county councils and unitary authorities around the country, will be expected to undertake the work. Although we support the spirit of there being spatial development strategies for strategic authorities, we are unable to support the regulations, given the huge extra burden on county councils and unitary authorities, as we raised during the passage of the Bill. In addition, we do not feel that the regulations have a sufficiently “brownfield first” approach. During the passage of the Bill, we also highlighted the lack of any statutory right to be heard in the plan-making process. The SDS gives us further cause for concern about the implementation of that aspect of the Planning and Infrastructure Act.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Housing Developers: Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  What many people see as the Government’s developer-led planning approach is draining local communities’ trust in the planning system. The new national planning policy framework proposes the most centralising changes in planning in my lifetime. It will mandate granting permissions under wider than ever presumptions in favour of sustainable development, which for the first time will overrule local plans. With no statutory protection available to them, even the most precious green spaces—not just national landscapes, not just land around railway stations—and the nature they support are under threat, including land at the Wellington monument in my constituency. As the National Trust launches its Nature equals Future campaign, will the Government allow this House to debate and vote on the proposed new national planning policy framework, which according to the Town and Country Planning Association signifies an “unprecedentedly permissive planning regime”?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Housing Developers: Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  People will have heard the Secretary of State referring to people wanting to protect the most precious green spaces as nimbys. They are not nimbys; they are trying to protect the most important nature in our country. If the Government will not allow a debate on the NPPF in relation to green spaces, will they allow a debate on the NPPF in relation to the expected 430,000 mortgage prisoners that the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association has identified from houses that will be at risk of flooding under new NPPF policies? If they will not allow a debate, will the Government meet the Association of British Insurers, which wants to discuss its objections to the NPPF?

• 15 Jun 2026 · NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend and near neighbour is, as so often, exactly right. I completely agree that urgency is needed in the training of new dentists and in the contract changes, which I will come to. One sentence in NHS Somerset’s recent announcement stands out: “There is currently insufficient funding to provide NHS dental care for the entire population and…available resources can only support around half of the county’s residents.” That means that 64,000 children in the county did not see a dentist at all last year, putting Somerset in the worst-hit 5%. In Taunton and Wellington, it is even worse than the average. Hard-pressed parents responded to my survey to record that they are paying £100 a year per child because they cannot access NHS dentists. That grosses up to £4 million spent by parents in my constituency in the last five years. In a cost of living crisis, that is clearly unacceptable. Increasingly, I and they believe that we should be prioritising children for NHS appointments, and I urge the Government to consider that in their reforms. It is the contract that is at fault, as Eddie Crouch and all the brilliant work he does with the British Dental Association have shown. In the longer term, the key to resolving this issue is prevention. In April I became an ambassador for The Magic Dentist, a charity that brings together local primary schools and local dental practices. The charity is trying to roll out that model across the country, and I want to pay credit to its hard work, including that of its founder Nicki Rowland and the trustee Councillor George Western. I congratulate them on enabling yet another primary school—alongside Holy Trinity Church of England primary school in Taunton—to find a partner in a local dental practice, Todays Dental, led by Rob Paxman. I also thank Charlie MacEwan and the WPA Benevolent Foundation. Beginning with prevention where it works—with children—is exactly what we need to do. The Liberal Democrats are clear about what is needed: the scrapping of UDAs, reform of the dental contract, a fair share of the £29 billion for NHS dentistry, and a proper workforce plan. Until then, charities will continue to have to pick up the pieces.

• 15 Jun 2026 · NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), my constituency neighbour, on securing this important debate and on all his campaigning. I began my campaign in my part of Somerset’s dentistry desert in 2021, when I was not an MP. My survey found that just under half had access to an NHS dentist. When I surveyed 2,000 people last year, things had got worse and only 35% of children in Taunton and Wellington could access an NHS dentist. The House of Commons Library has pointed out that from 2015, the last Government cut funding for NHS dental services by a sixth in real terms. I start by welcoming some good news. Thanks to the campaigning by my hon. Friend and me, and many others, we can confirm the news from NHS Somerset, published today, that 10,000 more units of dental activity were delivered last year in the county than in 2024-25. Let us hope for more improvement as this financial year progresses. In addition, I had the privilege of cutting the ribbon at Wellington’s new NHS dental practice in October. I thank the Minister for the work he does. His commitment to this issue is genuine. I thank the Dentistry For You team and all those in the NHS locally, because they are achieving these things against a background of limited resources and a broken funding system.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The No. 1 priority for me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 was a decent homes standard for military families, and I was delighted that the Government subsequently enacted that provision. We also welcome the £9 billion for service family and military accommodation that the Minister has referred to. Does the Minister agree that a poorly housed and unhealthy fighting force is not what this country needs and, similarly, that an unhealthy and poorly housed population is not what we need in this country? Can he confirm that the DIP will not be funded by raiding either the military housing budget or the affordable homes budget?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted by Coker Engineering in my constituency, which supplies Rolls-Royce, Leonardo and other defence companies. It can only use steels from certified electric arc mills of certain types and is worried about facing 50% tariffs after 1 July, once tariff-free goods have been used up. Will the Minister similarly look at its concerns and consider exemptions for steels that cannot be sourced in the UK?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Migration: Safe and Legal Routes · Hansard source

  More

  Dr Alasttal in my constituency is doing vital medical work. In normal circumstances, his wife would be allowed to visit him on the appropriate visa, but because she is in Gaza and would have to travel to Israel or to other cities to give biometric information, she cannot visit or join him here. Will the Government change the rules in the way they did for Chevening scholars, so that people in Gaza can give biometric details in other ways?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Community Pharmacies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank and congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), on her resolute advocacy for pharmacy provision in her constituency. She is right to mention Norton Fitzwarren, which is in my constituency but serves many of her constituents. I pay tribute to Councillor Andy Sully for all his long-term campaigning, which eventually saw a pharmacy return to the village, and I thank Mo Idris, the pharmacist who took the plunge and opened the facility. Yesterday’s debate on Second Reading of the NHS modernisation Bill included much talk about an NHS that works for people, but in Wellington, in my constituency, communities have had to scale the heights of bureaucracy in a system where patients have to work to the tune of the NHS, not the other way around. Wellington went from having four pharmacies to having just two. The Boots pharmacy in the medical centre closed, followed by Jhoots in September, leaving its staff in the parlous state that my hon. Friend referred to earlier. That left only two pharmacies—Superdrug and Boots—for a town of 17,000 residents. Queues that were 15 people deep formed, Boots completely failed to scale up to meet the challenge, medicines were not ordered in time and patients became anxious. I challenged the decision of the NHS to refuse to support the opening of another pharmacy. I pay tribute to the Wellington Pharmacy Action Group. Its dossier, which was sent to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, was a 17-page challenge to NHS Somerset, which, alongside all the pressure brought to bear by myself and others, eventually changed the position. The pharmaceutical needs assessment seems to be fundamentally flawed. How could it be prepared at a time when the town had four pharmacies, but also apparently demonstrate that two pharmacies were enough and no more needed to be opened? As I say, due to huge pressure, the situation was eventually turned around, but it should not be a matter of communities having to rise up against the challenges and rules of the NHS to get or restore pharmacy provision in a town of this size. Allied Pharmacies was granted a licence to open in Luson House, the former premises of Jhoots, which was a fantastic win for the community and came as a result of sustained community pressure. A fourth pharmacy at Westpark has also been approved, subject to appeal. However, the job is not done. The action group says that a further pharmacy is likely to be needed as the town grows, with tens of thousands of new homes under the Government’s new planning rules and national planning policy framework. Wellington is a textbook case of a town where housing growth is outrunning the provision of infrastructure. Essential services should be built in from the start, not promised after the fact, and definitely not reduced by half—from four pharmacies to two. Since 2017, England has lost 1,200 pharmacies. We Liberal Democrats would require developers to fund GP surgeries as a priority from the outset: “No doctors? No development.” The same must go for ensuring adequate provision of pharmacies and dentists if the Government’s housing plans are really to work for local people.