← Back to House of Commons Debates
Local Government and Regeneration Bill - Lords amendments engaging Commons financial privilege and other Lords amendments to be discussed
21 April 2026
Lead MP
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Local Government
Other Contributors: 31
At a Glance
Miatta Fahnbulleh raised concerns about local government and regeneration bill - lords amendments engaging commons financial privilege and other lords amendments to be discussed in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
Moves to disagree with Lords amendment 2. Proposes several Government motions to disagree with multiple Lords amendments and offers alternatives in lieu of others.
Lindsay Hoyle
Lab
Chorley
Informs the House that Lords amendment 39 engages Commons financial privilege and outlines other Lords amendments to be discussed, including motions to disagree with specific amendments.
Asks the Minister about the importance of protecting Surrey's green belt and getting a mayor for Surrey who can do so. Raises concerns over ongoing election campaigns affected by this legislation.
Confirms that applications to be treated as being of potential strategic importance will not solely depend on location within a London plan designation or mayoral policy area, but also consider the residential character and local authority evidence.
Highlights the challenge in London with two-thirds majority voting for scrutiny bodies to take decisions, suggesting simplifying it to a simple majority voting like other authorities.
Questions whether there will be funding available for local transport authorities to enforce new measures and obligations handed over to them.
Welcomes the ban on pavement parking but seeks clarity on guidance given to local authorities, exemptions, and whether decisions will be centrally mandated or left to local discretion.
Jeff Smith
Lab
Manchester, Withington
Critiques the Government for rejecting Lords amendment 41 on the agent of change principle and encourages stronger protections in the national planning policy framework.
Corrects the Minister's understanding of Lord Banner’s amendment, arguing that it moves from localism to centralised Government decision-making without involving local authorities.
Wendy Morton
Con
Aldridge-Brownhills
Encourages the acceptance of Lords amendments protecting communities and the environment from development pressures, criticising the Government for wanting to impose 20,000 homes on Walsall.
Requests a chance to discuss further but does not provide specific arguments in this excerpt.
Wendy Morton
Con
Aldridge-Brownhills
Morton supports the amendments, citing successful brownfield regeneration in Walsall under Conservative leadership. She emphasises the need for government funding to unlock development potential on brownfield sites while protecting green spaces.
Will Forster
not specified
Forster asks James Cleverly a question, seeking clarification or additional information regarding the proposed amendments.
Paul Kohler
not specified
Kohler questions why the Conservative party did not vote against the amendment from Lord Banner, arguing that the Tory amendment (a) is merely a tick-box exercise allowing the Minister to consider a report rather than imposing substantial change.
Elsie Blundell
Lab
Rochdale
Ms Blundell supports the amendments related to private hire vehicles, appreciating the steps taken by the Government towards enabling licensing authorities to take enforcement action against PHV drivers licensed out of area. However, she highlights the need for local knowledge in enforcing these measures and questions the potential gaps in enforcement due to a lack of local context. She also raises concerns about funding for enforcement efforts.
Wendy Morton
Con
Aldridge-Brownhills
Mrs Wendy Morton agrees with Ms Zöe Franklin on the need for a proper brownfield-first approach to planning. She cites an estimate of 5,000 homes that could be unlocked in her area through such an approach and suggests a lack of funding and political will from the Government as barriers.
Ms Carla Denyer supports the committee system over the leader and cabinet model, citing independent review benefits in Bristol. She argues that non-political reviewers have noted enhanced democratic engagement and cross-party co-operation under the committee system.
Mr Al Pinkerton supports the Conservative Lords insisting on amendment 37 for national strategy to support parish councils. He acknowledges inconsistencies in local association campaigns but emphasises the role of parish councils as a receptacle for securing future key local assets, especially in contexts like the proposed new West Surrey region.
Beccy Cooper
Lab
Sussex
Supports the strengthening of licensing authorities' ability to issue cumulative impact assessments for gambling venues. Argues that adult gaming centres are predominantly found in deprived areas and can harm local communities. Believes the amendment is a step towards creating healthier environments but calls for further measures such as removing 'aim to permit' presumption. Welcomes the devolution Bill's potential benefits for Sussex.
Lewis Cocking
Con
Broxbourne
Speaks against increasing housing targets and urban sprawl on green belts. Supports Lords amendment 26 to ensure a brownfield-first approach, arguing it is crucial for protecting green spaces and preventing overdevelopment. Criticises the government's plans for new towns in green belt areas and highlights concerns about infrastructure capacity. Calls for more focus on building on existing brownfield sites with planning permissions.
Campaigning against a 24-hour gambling casino in Crystal Palace, where the company was fined £1 million for failing to safeguard vulnerable people. Agrees that ending 'aim to permit' and placing a presumption to reject in specific areas would help local residents.
Asks if similar powers could be brought for vape shops as well, suggesting that licensing powers could create healthier high streets through restrictions on vaping outlets.
Agrees with Joe Powell’s comments and highlights the North End Road area of Fulham being a designated gambling vulnerability zone, bordering some of the most deprived estates in the country.
Lewis Atkinson
Lab
Sunderland Central
Supports Lords amendment 41, arguing it is essential to protect grassroots music venues like Pop Recs and Independent in Sunderland. Cites the decline of such venues from 1,150 nationally to 800 today due to planning issues. Highlights a case where intervention was needed for a housing development near a venue, resulting in halted construction.
Paul Kohler
LD
Wimbledon
Speaks against Lords amendment 42 regarding land trust protections. Argues it undermines local authority control and replaces localism with centralism, citing a controversial case in Wimbledon involving the All England Lawn Tennis Club and its purchase of Wimbledon Park.
Amanda Martin
Lab
Portsmouth North
Supports Lords amendments 80 on gambling impact assessments and amendments 43 to 79 regarding taxi and private vehicle licensing. Advocates for stronger local authority powers to assess additional gambling premises' consistency with community needs, addressing high street concentration of betting shops in North End.
Ben Maguire
Lab
North Cornwall
Mr Maguire supports Lords amendment 98. He asserts that the Government's actions amount to undermining this vital amendment and failing to provide appropriate legal protections for Cornwall’s national minority status. The amendment aims to prevent potential future Governments from disregarding Cornwall’s unique identity by forcing it to combine with other authorities.
Nusrat Ghani
Con
Wealden
Ms Nusrat Ghani signals the end of Back-Bench contributions and invites the Minister to respond. While she does not provide detailed arguments, her intervention suggests that there may be support for addressing concerns raised by Mr Maguire.
James Cleverly
Con
Braintree
Intervened to state that the Minister is not addressing central Government but devolution.
Asked for an intervention from the Minister.
Asked for an intervention from the Minister.
Nusrat Ghani
Con
Wealden
The speaker proposed rejecting multiple amendments from the House of Lords, including 99 to 116, 120, 121, 123, and 155. They also supported Government amendments (a) to (f). The specific reasons for disagreeing with these amendments are not provided in this speech.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.