Gideon Amos MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right that massive savings were made after the financial crash in 2008—some would say around £40 billion over the coalition years. He would be horrified to learn that the only people suggesting cuts greater than £41 billion were those in the Labour party in their 2010 manifesto, which proposed £56 billion in cuts. [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, he can look at the headlines of the time: “Alistair Darling: we will cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher”. That was Alistair Darling in his 2010 Budget. Who began austerity? Who began the cuts? It was the Labour Government, who were planning to go further, faster and deeper, according to Alistair Darling, than the Liberal Democrats or the coalition did.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I hesitate to get too involved in the politics of Sheffield. I am concerned that we are seeing reductions in Government funding for councils across the country, particularly in the case of rural authorities, which are especially hard hit by this settlement. Rural authorities find delivering social care and other services far more costly than in tightly drawn urban areas; Somerset’s 4,000-mile road network, for instance, is a massively more onerous proposition than a network in a tightly drawn urban area. It is inexplicable that despite a consultation that considered maintaining the remoteness funding uplift across the country and across all funding heads of local government, it has been taken away from all funding heads apart from adult social care. Why would it be less costly to provide children’s services than adult’s services in a remote, rural area? Why would it be less costly to provide flood relief and flood protection than adult services in a rural area? A whole range of really remote authorities are affected, including Westmorland and Furness, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, all of which are particularly badly hit. Remote authorities have much greater areas to protect from flooding. I have spent recent days with families in Stathe and Burrowbridge on the Somerset levels in my constituency, where I have seen how heartrending it is for families to watch the water coming closer and closer to their homes. Some people are going to bed with the water 200 metres away, but by the time they wake up the next morning and look out of their window, it is only 20 metres away. In some of the places I visited, the water is lapping up against the houses themselves. When Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron came down in 2013-14—the last time we had severe flooding—he promised Somerset that money would be no object. It turned out that he meant that Somerset residents’ money would be no object, because Somerset’s new rivers authority became the only one in the country not to be funded by central Government and to have to rely on local taxpayers. When the Flooding Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), came down to Somerset yesterday, she said that Somerset will not be forgotten. I ask the Local Government Minister what extra support the Government are providing to Somerset council to deal with this flooding major incident, which could easily become a national emergency if effective measures are not taken now—and I mean in the next few days. Water levels are still rising, Minister. Finally, we need an end to the massive expense of all this top-down reorganisation of local government where people do not want it. Forcing change on the structures of the natural communities that people know and love can only distract from the important work of reducing flooding, delivering care and all the other priorities that councils put first. No one I have met in Taunton and Wellington, in Somerset or on the levels has told me that what they really want to see is a metro-style mayor for their area coming down the road. Is spending almost half a billion on mayors really going to help any of our constituencies in the way that known, understood and strengthened local councils would? While we welcome the limited extra funding, the settlement leaves too many questions unanswered on how SEND costs will be met. It is still going to lead to big cuts in services for rural and remote authorities, and on social care it leaves council tax payers bailing out a broken system. For all these reasons, we cannot at this stage support the settlement.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, who champions Torbay on a regular basis in the Chamber. Councils are suffering reductions in their funding settlements across the country, which is one of the reasons we cannot support the amount of support they are getting from central Government.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  In our manifesto, the Liberal Democrats called for multi-year settlements for local government; for councils to be freed to generate more revenue, including by charging more council tax on second homes and from increased planning fees; and for an extra £2 billion on education, including for special educational needs and disabilities. It is right that funding for local government is rebuilt after the consequences of the 2008 crash and the famous letter left by the outgoing Labour Government that they had spent all the money and there was none left. The moves forward in the areas I have mentioned through this settlement are positive and we welcome them. The announcement that 90% of SEND service debts that councils have unavoidably built up will be met by central Government also begins to address the crisis in SEND, but I am afraid it does not finish the job. The promised SEND reforms have again been delayed. Whatever the outcome of those SEND reforms, they must not be a precursor to weakening the protection disabled children rely on and their parents expect. Our five tests for SEND reform would guarantee that children’s rights to SEND assessments and support are maintained, and that the voices of children and young people with SEND, and those of their families and carers, remain at the centre of the reform process. Secondly, capacity in state special school provision must be increased, alongside improvements to inclusive mainstream settings. Thirdly, national Government must top up funding for each child whose needs exceed local authority provision within a given cap. The Government must get on and introduce a cap on the profits made by private sector SEND companies. Fourthly, early intervention must be improved and waiting must be times cut. Lastly, schools must be incentivised to both accept SEND pupils and train their staff. The additional funds for housing and homelessness, while small, are welcome, including those for Somerset council in my constituency. The extra funding through the recovery grant is also welcome, but places such as Kingston upon Hull tell us that it does not go far enough and will not fill the gaping hole in financial stability that persists. It is disappointing that social housing does not get a mention in the settlement. We need a new generation of council and social rented homes. Our plans are for 150,000 per year and Shelter’s are for 90,000 per year. Both would be a good proposition. The Government’s proposal for 18,000 per year just will not meet the level of need out there. The additional funding, along with provision for SEND deficits, will help councils like mine in Somerset to keep the council tax rise to the 4.99% norm across the country. In a cost of living crisis, people cannot afford more than the minimum increase. That is something Somerset MPs and the council pushed hard for, and I am grateful to the Local Government Minister for meeting us and engaging with us on that. It is notable that 70 out of the 74 Liberal Democrat-led councils have kept the council tax rise to the norm minimum of 4.99%. The four that are, exceptionally, going above that all inherited from their previous Conservative administrations a social care funding time bomb. Voters will take note that Reform-led Worcestershire county council is increasing council tax to the highest level allowed in the country. Typically, Reform Members are not here to take part in the debate on local government finance. The message is clear: vote Reform and pay more tax than anyone else in the country.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Conservative Members ask, from a sedentary position, who runs the council, but I use the phrase “inherited time bomb” advisedly. The well-respected Conservative former leader of Somerset county council, Dave Fothergill, was one of the first in the country to identify this issue. He told “Panorama” back in 2019 that adult social care was a time bomb that was ticking. That time bomb has now gone off around the country, and council tax payers are having to bail out the broken social care system.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Storm Chandra Flooding · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is right to pay credit to the Environment Agency, which has rolled out pumps faster than ever before. One of the key questions I get asked is, could we not have permanent pumps? That would mean we did not lose five days bringing them down from Yorkshire. Apparently, the crane that puts them on site, which has to wait two or three days, costs £80,000 a day. The pumping stations were last built in the 19th century. Surely it is time to have permanent installations. We could save several days or a week, and that could create space for millions of cubic metres of water.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Storm Chandra Flooding · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on the amazing work she does on her side of the Levels and Moors that span our two constituencies—I hope I do similar work on my side. She may be coming on to this point, but does she agree that one of the key messages I hear most strongly from residents in Stathe and Burrowbridge, some of whom have water lapping up against their houses right now as we sit in this Chamber and are frightened about what is going to happen tomorrow and the next day, especially with the long forecasts for rain, is that they need better communication, so they have the maximum information about what is happening with the Levels—when pumping will or will not start—as well as about the long-term plan that is needed after this flooding event to reduce flooding?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank the 344 and 511 signatories from Taunton and Wellington who signed the petitions, including Adekunle, who is in the Public Gallery today. Everyone recognises that the immigration system needs to be controlled and workable, but this debate is not about the immigration system. It is not about people who may come here or are thinking of coming here; it is about people who are here, who have answered our call to come and work in our health services and in our country. They have settled here, and they are already providing that vital work. These changes—extending ILR requirements from five years to 10—would remove from my constituency the care workers and potentially the care services that people need and rely on. I do not know who the Government think will vote for the removal of care and care workers from their constituencies. It cannot be right to change the rules after people have made that big decision to uproot themselves and invest their lives halfway around the world to be here. It is absolutely correct to say that we have had a period of chaos in immigration. The Conservatives lost control, post Brexit. Net migration jumped from 300,000 to 1 million in 2023. They loosened controls. They made promises about settlement, and now they—and, apparently, the Government—want to break promises made by the Government to those workers who responded to Britain’s invitation to be here, to move their lives here and to build their families and their futures in this country. Faith must be restored to the immigration system after that period of chaos, but the Government cannot restore faith in a system by breaking the promises on which it was built. They cannot restore faith by casting people out. To do so would be a breach of promise and a breach of trust. Patience is a care worker in my constituency. Her family of three chose to be here, and were thrilled by a new life. Since the announcement, she says their family “have turned quiet” and their two-year-old son is constantly asking what is wrong. Adekunle has two toddlers, who were born here and know no other country. They have no recourse to public funds. He now even feels unable to raise concerns about the people he cares for and the quality of care they receive, because of the risk of exacerbating the indentured servitude we have heard about. [Emma Lewell in the Chair ] Effectively sending people away and breaking that promise would have massive impacts on older and vulnerable people in Taunton and Wellington. If 50 care workers are expected to leave, 100 people could lose vital care. The Government should instead honour the promise made, and not move the goalposts after the game has begun. They must maintain the rules, including for Hongkongers based in the UK, and build on the success the workers have brought us.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Local Authority Children’s Services · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is speaking about very serious issues, and I commend him for not apportioning blame to one side or the other; he understands that, in different circumstances, there are different reasons to blame. The Government’s removal of the funding uplift for the most remote authorities will have an effect on children’s services, as it will on SEND provision and a whole range of council services. In Somerset, for example, it is 53% more expensive to provide home-to-school transport than in an average authority, yet the funding uplift has been removed. Does he agree that that is a shocking way to treat our most remote authorities?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  The change in business rates for pubs will be welcomed by the Winchester Arms in Trull in my constituency, but a family hotel contacted me yesterday and the combined impact of Government changes in the Budget will, they expect, as they look to the year ahead, lead to a £250,000 loss next year. Will the Minister meet me, Somerset MPs and hoteliers to discuss how hotels can be helped through the reforms he is proposing?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of a commonhold framework, the abolition of leasehold for newbuild flats, and the end of forfeiture—all these are positive steps in the right direction. Our manifesto has been calling for an end to unfair residential leaseholds since Lloyd George called it “blackmail” in his 1909 People’s Budget. But while I welcome those measures, we should be going much further. The Housing Secretary this morning called ground rents “money for nothing” and a “scam”, so why should leaseholders continue to pay £250 for nothing? The Government’s proposals need to go further. For freeholders trapped in the fleece-hold of unscrupulous property management companies, the blackmail of the great property rip-off is set to continue. There is nothing that will cap those charges in these proposals. Since residential leaseholds will still be with us for some time, millions of leaseholders need better protection from landlord costs being passed on to them. They need the capping of excessive service charges, like £400 to change a lightbulb and £4,000 to mow the grass. Help is also needed for those trapped in unsafe and defective buildings, hundreds of thousands of which are excluded from the building safety regime. Will the Minister take forward Liberal Democrat proposals and immediately abolish residential leasehold charges, set ground rents at a peppercorn now, and regulate property and estate-management companies as recommended in the Best report, capping unreasonable service and estate management charges?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly encourage President Trump to apologise. I invite him to listen to the relatives of those who died in Afghanistan, whom I talk with and listen to at remembrance services in Norton Fitzwarren, near 40 Commando camp, on a regular basis. Perhaps he would then understand the sacrifice that people made for freedom—the freedom for which Americans and Europeans died and were injured. His remarks are utterly contemptuous, and he should be ashamed of them. That shows what an unreliable ally he is to our United Kingdom. I welcome the additional support for the covenant and for those who will be supported by it in Somerset. Through its guaranteed interview scheme, Somerset council has taken the covenant very seriously and is delivering it, but it will be effective only if the resources are there for the public services to stand behind it, as has been said by the director general of the Royal British Legion. He said it is “vital” that those delivering services are “resourced with funding and training so that they can fully understand the purpose of the Armed Forces Covenant to ensure this change makes a meaningful difference to the lives of all those in the Armed Forces community”. Our servicemen and women and our veterans deserve that support. Our veterans certainly do not deserve to be considered as in any way equivalent to terrorists in Northern Ireland who sought to undermine peace and law and order, so it is right that last week’s vote overturned the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that gave immunity to terrorists. We need protections that will stand up in court, unlike the failed legacy Act, and I urge the Government to seriously consider the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), which would put in place far stronger protections for our veterans than are currently in the Bill. Returning to the Armed Forces Bill, as the Lib Dem housing spokesperson, I was pleased to table an amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill to ensure that service family accommodation meets the decent homes standard. That amendment was ultimately adopted in section 101 of what is now the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, but timelines matter. Given past promises, the importance of meeting that standard is set out in the defence housing strategy: “Promises have been made time and again…All homes would meet the Decent Homes Standard. That didn’t happen.” That was under the Conservatives; let us hope that in this new era, this Government’s promises are not empty. The new duty in the Renters’ Rights Act requires the MOD to report to Parliament on progress towards achieving the decent homes standard for service family accommodation, but the first report does not need to be made until March 2027, and the defence housing strategy contains no targets for how long it will take for service family accommodation to meet the decent homes standard. I urge the Government to give a timeline for this important commitment to our service families—our original amendment would have instituted a duty to upgrade immediately. As other hon. Members have said, we also need timelines on single living accommodation. The Bill’s new defence housing body comes as part of a £9 billion, 10-year strategy. That is very welcome—it sounds very good—but how much of that £9 billion will be spent on civilian housing, and how much of it will be spent on service family accommodation? These questions matter. For example, the 2025 armed forces continuous attitude survey found that nearly one in three respondents described armed forces accommodation in negative terms, and nearly two thirds of respondents listed the impact on family and personal life of service accommodation as one of the top reasons influencing them to leave the armed forces. One respondent said that “lack of assistance has significantly contributed to my decision to leave military service.” In summary, we need to see real targets for when the decent homes standard will be met for service families and when single living accommodation will be upgraded in an organised way.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I genuinely welcome this Bill. As an Army Cadet Force instructor, I also welcome the new unified organisation for cadet forces. Somerset has a higher-than-average proportion of veterans and those in the armed forces community, including in Taunton and Wellington. At Norton Manor camp in Taunton and Wellington, we have 17 trees that were planted to represent the Royal Marines from 40 Commando who lost their lives in Afghanistan. Let me add to the comments earlier that the fact that President Trump was so dismissive of that service and those lives is contemptible.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution about the investment bank. I welcome any commitment that will secure the ability of the UK to manufacture helicopters at Yeovil in Somerset. That is vital not only for the medium lift helicopter, but for unmanned, uncrewed helicopters. Losing that facility would be devastating for the United Kingdom defence industry, as well as for the community around Somerset and the 3,000 jobs involved. It is vital that the defence investment plan comes as soon as possible. Unless we fix housing, we will be undermining recruitment and retention.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am pleased that Somerset council is leading on things such as the guaranteed interview scheme and the research it has done recently on how the delivery of NHS services to veterans matches up. There is a whole set of recommendations that I refer him to, and I am delighted that my colleagues at Somerset council are playing such a leading role in delivering the covenant. I believe we are already a covenant county—a covenant village, a covenant town and a covenant county. We need a firm commitment, not just to deliver on the covenant but to get troop numbers back up to more than 100,000. To make that happen, the Liberal Democrats would create a £10,000 signing bonus and a £20,000 re-enlisting bonus. We also need to see the defence investment plan, so that companies such as Leonardo in Somerset maintain our vital helicopter manufacturing capacity in this country.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Children with disabilities and special educational needs in Somerset will be severely hit if the Government go ahead with removing the remoteness uplift from authorities. Will the Government commit to ensuring that councils with the largest land areas—of which Somerset is one—are properly reimbursed for the costs of remoteness, so that children in my constituency do not suffer?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  That is absolutely right. Water companies should be run in the interest of the public, not of the private shareholders’ pockets. That would be a welcome reform for communities in Taunton and Wellington and, no doubt, across the country. In Taunton and Wellington, Wessex Water needs to reform and put this right. I welcome the action it is beginning to take, but we need real investment in the River Tone to improve bathing water quality, and water quality generally. Our sewage works must get the investment that they need. The Government must close the loopholes whereby bonuses are paid in all but name, and we need to ban the parent company payments that circumvent those rules. We need to strengthen enforcement powers, give regulators teeth and hold companies accountable so that communities such as mine can have confidence that the water they pay for comes from a company that is set up and run in the interest of the public, not private profit.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on bringing to the Chamber an issue that has sparked vivid examples of the complete and abject failure of our privatised water companies. I welcome this debate, although the news that it brings is very disappointing, is it not? Our rivers are, of course, precious. The Tone runs through and unites almost all parts of Taunton and Wellington. It is a lifeline for biodiversity, for families and countryside lovers and for the whole natural world. When rivers are healthy, our communities and our nature flourish, but when they are polluted, we all suffer. That is why the recent revelations about Wessex Water are infuriating. Just a few weeks ago, we learned that the company’s former chief executive officer, Colin Skellett, received a £170,000 bonus from the Malaysian parent company, YTL Utilities. Despite a Government ban on bonuses, the current CEO and chief financial officer received £50,000 in additional payments through the same route. Those payments came after Wessex Water’s criminal conviction in November 2024 for pollution that killed more than 2,000 fish, and after the company was fined £11 million for additional sewage failures. That is all in the context of the £4.25 billion paid out by Wessex Water to private shareholders since privatisation. I cannot think of a more graphic failure of the Conservatives’ privatisation programme. Imagine if that £4 billion had been invested in our rivers and infrastructure over that time. That is exactly the kind of behaviour that the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 was meant to prevent, but companies are getting around it by using parent company fee payments, fee payments generally and complex corporate structures to circumvent the rules. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) warned that that would happen and pushed for a stronger regulator. We called for Ofwat to be scrapped and replaced with a regulator with real teeth. We also called for a new ownership model for water companies, for the public to be brought in through public interest companies, and for mutual ownership so that customers have a stake in the ownership and profits are reinvested in the company rather than going to private shareholders on the other side of the world. Many bill payers in the Wessex Water area would be surprised to find that that is where the money they pay ultimately ends up. The fundamental problem is that while executives are exploiting loopholes to line their pockets, rivers are getting worse and dying. Customers are paying through higher bills, and communities are watching their local rivers fill with sewage. I checked just before coming to the debate, and north of Bradford-on-Tone and in Heron Gate and Lower Henlade in my constituency, sewage works are pumping sewage into the River Tone right now. Water company bosses should not be rewarded for that kind of behaviour through whatever corporate sleight of hand they are attempting to use. That is as real in my constituency as it is anywhere else. As so often happens, volunteers have come to the fore. They banded together, and the Friends of French Weir Park and I applied for and got bathing water status to try to improve the water quality of the river, but we need investment.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. Thank you for the innovative heads-up on who is next on the speaking list. I too extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening the debate and taking so many interventions. Noisy fireworks, especially at times when they are not expected—outside the given days for fireworks, such as new year’s eve, Diwali and Chinese new year—cause real distress and, as we have heard, injury. I thank the 269 and 276 from Taunton and Wellington who signed the petitions on firework noise and on organised displays respectively for bringing the issues to Parliament’s attention. Particularly affected, as hon. Members have said, are those who suffer from PTSD and those with autism. We need to take their concerns a lot more seriously than we have. It is possible for someone to ready themselves if they know that fireworks are coming or that explosions will be happening in their neighbourhood, but indiscriminate use can be really affecting. When it comes to animals, we know that many die as a result, including horses, dogs and wildlife. I agree wholeheartedly with the petitioners’ concerns about the use of fireworks, for all the reasons they set out. At French Weir Park in Taunton, a private display on new year’s eve nearly turned into a disaster. After a big display put on by private individuals using the park at midnight, a big pack of spent fireworks was placed beside a group of litter and recycling bins, perhaps with the aim of being helpful. Unfortunately, it was left still smouldering; the fireworks had not gone out. The set of bins, encased in timber frame and boarding, went up in flames, with the fire reaching more than 10 feet into the air and coming within a foot of overhanging branches. It also came within two to three metres of the timber-built Centre for Outdoor Activity and Community Hub. Fortunately, as is so often the case, volunteers came out of their homes and the excellent members of Friends of French Weir Park were on the case immediately. The fire brigade was called, the building did not catch fire and the whole issue was safely dealt with. The main message I want to get across is that it is completely illegal to use the park for private fireworks displays. If people are thinking of doing that, please do not; please go to a professional event instead, and keep our parks and buildings safe. The other thing that this incident shows is that even with really tough laws to prevent these things—breaching the current rules can result in on-the-spot fines of £90, fines of up to £5,000 or imprisonment—individuals still set fireworks off privately. By the time police officers, or in this case the fire brigade, arrive those concerned are long gone and the display is over. I therefore feel that completely banning the private use of fireworks would not be the right approach. It would curtail enjoyment for people who are acting responsibility but would also be ineffective. However, we urgently need action, and the Liberal Democrats support reducing the noise limit from 120 dB to at most 90 dB, as other Members have mentioned, because it is the noise that causes some of the greatest harm to people and animals. We also need reasonable limits on the shops that sell fireworks, as the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley said, and on the durations and the dates, as other Members have proposed. I will continue to support a change in the law; it is urgently needed. I hope that Parliament can work together on this issue, so that fireworks do not always have to go out with a bang—sorry about that.

• 15 Jan 2026 · New Towns · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is always very generous with his time. Can I press him a bit further on whether the Treasury has ruled out the long-term loans that were there for the post-war new towns programme?

• 15 Jan 2026 · New Towns · Hansard source

  More

  I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for a really engaging speech about how it is the people who invest their lives in the community who make it what it is—a sentiment that I am sure we all share. I have learnt a great deal more about new towns from hon. Members across the House, and it has been a privilege to listen to the debate. In our manifesto, the Liberal Democrats committed to 10 new garden cities, so we welcome this debate and the Government’s ambitions for new towns—depending on how they are implemented, of course. It is vital to have a new generation of major communities, given the terrible state of affordability that the housing sector got into under the Conservative Government. That is why we have a big ambition of 150,000 social homes per year, which is above the Government’s current target. However, new towns must not come at the expense of existing communities and towns. My hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches are engaging in a positive and constructive spirit with a range of new towns on their boundaries, alongside the Government and local communities. New towns must deliver in social terms—the homes provided—but also environmentally and economically, as the mark 1, 2 and 3 new towns did so successfully. In our view, three critical principles need to be met: new towns must be environmentally ambitious, they must be successful in social terms—that means infrastructure— and there must be long-term financial investment. That investment must be sufficient to ensure that housing is genuinely affordable and will offer a decent home in a good environment, in all senses of that word, as hon. Members have expressed it in many different ways throughout the debate. On environmental ambition, I regret to say that garden cities seem to have been airbrushed out of this programme —unintentionally, I hope—in ways that are out of keeping with the post-war new towns programme. What was originally called the town garden in Stevenage was a great reflection of how the garden city principle informed and provided the basis for the new towns. The Garden City Association campaigned for a new towns programme before the war. Now it is the Town and Country Planning Association—I should probably declare an interest as an honorary, voluntary vice-president of that organisation. Garden cities are not just words; as we have heard, they were the basis of the new towns of Letchworth and Welwyn, and of many others. “Let the countryside invade the town” was one of Ebenezer Howard’s cries. I often wonder whether he wrote those words at the very desk that is in front of me, because his day job was as a parliamentary Clerk. In his spare time, he wrote a radical piece called “To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform”. It did not sell very well, so a year later he renamed it “Garden Cities of To-morrow”, and that book laid the foundation for the garden cities and new towns that were to be built throughout the country. He was surely right to espouse a vision of how people and nature, town and country, and society and the environment can thrive together. He was right then, and surely that vision is right now. These new towns must set the highest standards for nature protection. They need well-insulated homes that are cheap to run, with solar panels on the roof, as promoted by the sunshine Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). They need district heating and cheap heat, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) pointed out—that is good for the planet, as is good public transport that does not pollute and jam up the roads. Those ideas were pioneered by many of the garden cities. As the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) explained well, the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation endowed the environment with assets and resources so that it would continue to be protected into the future. For over 100 years, as he said, that trust has been able to fund and care for the environment and put money back into Letchworth as a community. That provided a great model. In another reflection of how garden cities provided the basis for new towns, Milton Keynes’ Parks Trust does exactly the same thing. Where such estates have not been sold off, as has been described in relation to other new towns, that is an incredibly successful model. As Members have said, it is vital to endow the public realm and the environment with the resources and investment needed to sustain them for 100 years. Turning to social impacts and infrastructure, we Liberal Democrats would like to ask the Minister how councils and communities are going to make decisions about the impacts of the new towns. Any spatial development strategy is going to come after the event, as the new towns have already been designated. Parish councils such as Somerton in Oxfordshire, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) is working hard to advocate for, have pointed out a range of simultaneous proposals in Oxfordshire, including the Oxfordshire strategic rail freight interchange, 280,000 square metres of warehousing at Baynards Green—which, coincidentally, is being considered today by Cherwell district council—the Puy du Fou leisure park, and many other developments that will collectively generate 47 million additional trips per year. The Government are engaged in the ongoing strategic environmental assessment, which I welcome, and it may assess some of the impacts, but there is no plan that involves local authorities in resolving these decisions, in taking decisions about how the new towns, such as Heyford Park in Oxfordshire, will land in their midst, and in considering how such developments will affect the existing network and hierarchy of towns and communities. There is a missing link with strategic planning, and it needs to be put back. That would allow the community-led approach to these developments that we want to see and allow affected local authorities to have their say. After all, the location for Milton Keynes was negotiated between central and local government. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch said, it is vital to respect the identities of the places in which these new towns are located. Will the Minister commission a rapid sub-regional plan process for the councils in each of these locations so that they can resolve the issues? He has already indicated that he may, but will he visit in due course all these locations, so that he can engage with the local communities concerned? As other Members have asked, will he confirm—I think he said he said that he was thinking about it—that the planned housing numbers will indeed count towards local plan targets imposed by the Government’s standard method? It will be impossible for local leaders and local councils to develop these new towns at the same time as trying to deliver the impossible housing targets that many of them are facing. There is a 41% increase in local plan numbers in my Somerset council area alone, for example. On social impacts within towns, the pre-war garden cities and post-war new towns were 90% social housing. In the Select Committee, the Minister indicated that the Government may be walking back from the 40% affordable housing target. What is the minimum that they will accept? Infrastructure is needed by new and existing towns, particularly those affected by these plans. For example, Ardley station is needed to serve the Heyford Park new town and the existing community. Other forms of infrastructure also too often go missing, and that is true not just of new towns. For urban extensions, promised and needed GP surgeries have never come forward, including in Orchard Grove in my Taunton and Wellington constituency and in Bicester in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock. Will the Government ensure that existing communities will not lose out on GP surgeries as a result of new towns being given those facilities? These vital relationships with existing communities need to be resolved. Infrastructure for transport, water, energy, health and active travel must come first, and before the housing. Let me turn to the financial support that these developments will need if they are to be successful. All these things cost money—we recognise that. We are therefore disappointed that the Minister, I think, said to the Select Committee that there is no pot for new town funding, and that poses a real risk that the £3.9 billion a year funding for the affordable housing programme will be used to fund the new towns programme, inevitably taking money away from other areas. Although the land value capture model that the Government are promoting is welcome and we support it, it will not be enough. As many Government Members will know, the original post-war new towns had significant, 60-year Treasury loans. They were worth about £4.7 billion; that is about £140 billion today. Those loans were repaid—not just in full, but with a surplus coming back to the Treasury. The bulk of it was repaid in 1999. Since then, almost another £1 billion has been repaid from further land sales and receipts from that investment. It is a sound investment. No doubt the Treasury will say, “Don’t worry, the market can deal with this. We don’t need any public money.” But markets do not look 50, 60 or 100 years ahead. Markets do not know how to build communities with facilities for real people—the kind of people that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch spoke about. We need long-term financial investment from the Government so that these schemes will be successful. Without it, we risk repeating some of the failures of the past. We stand ready to work with this Government in a constructive way on their new towns programme, but only if it provides the financial investment that is needed so that it is a success and, crucially, so that existing towns do not lose out. It must commit to long-term investment over and above land value capture, so that local councillors and mayors are not left out in the cold, trying to promote these projects with one arm tied behind their back. Finally, the programme must recognise that, in a society under threat from climate change, environmental ambition needs to be at the forefront, learning from the very best of the garden city ideals.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case for the whisky industry. Does he recognise that the cider industry in my part of the world in Somerset is deserving of good treatment because of its support for agriculture? It used to benefit from a duty of 40% that of the wider beer and drinks industry, but that has crept up. The average is now about 75%, and the duty on some classes of cider is now more than the duty on beer. Does he accept that that differential should be restored to support agriculture?

• 12 Jan 2026 · New Medium Helicopter Contract · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), on bringing this vital question to the House. As a fellow south-west MP, the Minister will know the massive impact that this issue has not just on Somerset, but across the whole south-west. Given the answers to earlier questions and the fact that he seems unable to confirm that this matter will be decided before the next financial year, do the Government recognise that they are putting into doubt not just the NMH, but the very ability to produce uncrewed helicopters in the future? In other words, if we do not get the NMH, we will not have uncrewed helicopters in this country any more, because Leonardo will have gone. Is that a risk worth taking?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Leaseholders are being hit increasingly with flood risk and difficulty in getting insurance. Rockwell Green in my constituency has flooded twice in the last seven years. Why are the Government proposing to weaken the rules preventing development in areas of high flood risk, and how many homes will be affected in future by more flooding as a result?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Fully 5 million leaseholders were plunged into the dark before Christmas and thousands report feeling angry and abandoned. Why, then, are the Government choosing to delay their ending of the feudal leasehold system? Will they go further and follow the calls from Lib Dems and others to regulate property agents and to cap extortionate service charges?