Local Government Reform

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also share my congratulations with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing today’s debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) on his appointment as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department. We all know that he has been a champion for local government and we all recognise that his constituents—like mine—benefited from an enormous vote of confidence in their local Conservative council at the recent elections. I am sure that he will be once again sharing the insights of benefiting from that in his role at the Department.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), my right hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all shared valuable insights about the impact that the local government reorganisation process is having on the communities that they represent. A lot of those frustrations reflect the simple fact that at the start of this process, the Government—perhaps because it was not in their manifesto—did not ask what, in their view, local government is for.

Essentially, this is an instruction to do what is being done at the moment, but a bit less of it, at lower quality and at a higher rate of tax. That is certainly something borne out in the local government reorganisations in places like Somerset, which a number of Members used as a reference point for the concerns that their constituents have.

As a country we already have the fewest elected representatives for our constituents of any major democracy. Our constituents have less elected representation in the decisions that affect their lives than their counterparts in the United States, France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Yet we have a Government bent on a path of reducing that local democratic voice even further.

Just last week the Government announced that, in a planning system where 98% of decisions are already made under delegated powers, even fewer of those decisions will hear the community’s voice, whether local councillors, planning committees or a public forum where people can express concerns—as Members have proudly expressed today—about the impact on towns of overspill and concreting over green spaces. They will further lose the opportunity to share those concerns.

That is based on a policy that is underpinned by no independent financial analysis. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire referred to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report commissioned by the County Councils Network to support its case for county-based devolution. That was an entirely reasonable exercise to undertake. One would expect that central Government would then say, “If that is the case being made by one side, let’s see what the case is for unitarisation, for district-based and for reorganisation along some other lines.” None of that has happened, which is perhaps why there is a high level of concern in places such as Leicestershire that the impact will be higher taxes, poorer quality of services and less ability for local people to share their concerns.

In a moment I will put specific questions that I know the Minister will want to consider, but let us reflect on where we are. The streets of Belfast are on fire and last week there was a massive rise in community tension in Southampton. Last year, my local authority of Hillingdon had to deal with a murder on the street of a local individual walking his dog, by an asylum seeker housed in the local area. The ability of credible local leadership to respond to those challenges is critical at such moments. We are all learning the significance of that.

This is not purely about the administrative convenience of Whitehall. This is not, in the words of a former Local Government Minister, about councils as a delivery mechanism for central Government policy. It is about the leaders of those communities and neighbourhoods having a powerful and credible voice locally and the ability genuinely to affect the decisions that make a difference in that area. By failing to ask what local councils are for, the Government are setting up the new authorities to fail.

As a number of Members highlighted, housing is one of the most obvious examples. The Government have set a target of 1.5 million new homes to be delivered over the course of the Parliament. Those 1.5 million new homes already have planning permission. Local authorities have been granting those consents over many years. In Broxbourne, Leicester and South West Hertfordshire there are sites ready to go. They have been designed, laid out, and discussions have been had with utility companies. Yet the economic conditions created by the Government mean that that development is simply not happening.

Rather than addressing those economic conditions, the focus is on removing a bit more local democracy from the planning system. That risks a situation, highlighted by the impact of the expansion of Leicester and Southampton, where many treasured green fields will have planning permission for unbuilt homes, while old mills in city centres remain undeveloped. That is due to a failure of leadership by a local Labour city mayor and a Government not creating the economic conditions for housing development to happen. When there are so many challenges, to which local government delivering on average 800 different services to local residents could be the answer, whether in public health, education, housing, transport and the environment, the fact that we have what is essentially a reductive exercise about how can we do this, but a bit worse at a higher cost, is simply not the answer.

I will conclude with these questions. At the heart of much of this debate has been the fact that elections were promised and cancelled, and mayors committed to and their elections deferred. It would certainly help us all to understand the decision making in the Department if the Government were willing to release the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the local authorities about the cancellation of elections. That has been the subject of freedom of information requests and questions in the House. The Minister, who I know is committed to local democracy, will understand that it would build confidence if the Government were willing to share how the Secretary of State gave local government leaders a steer in that controversial process.

Secondly, will the Minister commit to a full and independent financial analysis of the impact of the reorganisation process? That analysis should not simply rely on something written specifically to support reorganisation, but should be independent and say what is in the interests of the whole country. Will she tell us why it is not appropriate, in her view, for local residents to have a say at any point in the process? There will be debate about whether this is a matter for referendum, local election or mayoral election—there are various ways for it to happen—but a number of Members have shared the sense of frustration felt by local people about the absence of a route by which they can have their say.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

There is one point that I should perhaps have mentioned to emphasise how united the community is. When I wrote initially to the Minister’s predecessor, the letter was co-signed by the leaders not just of the Conservative group on New Forest district council, but of the Lib Dem group, the independent group and the Green group. When there was a vote on supporting the New Forest Together campaign, every single member, including the sole Labour member of New Forest district council, voted in favour. This is a unified community howl of protest against what is being imposed on us.

[David Simmonds]

My experience, unlike that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham, does not go as far back as the Redcliffe-Maud report, but what has been described over the years, as we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, is people’s frustration about things being done to rather than with them. This is not about local community leadership growing up from those neighbourhoods; it is about administrative convenience in Whitehall.

I will finish with a question at the heart of building a sense of community confidence. Residents in Leicestershire and Hampshire feel that this is about enabling cities to dump their housing targets—which they have failed to achieve within their own boundaries—in the neighbouring area. We have seen that issue around the fringes of London, historically in south-west Hertfordshire in places such as St Albans. That has been the subject of legal action and Government intervention in the past. We need absolute transparency from the outset.

What do the Government want the new councils to do? When they go to the ballot box, and when they engage in consultation and talk to their Members of Parliament, residents need to know that the new councils will exercise the functions that they are there for, and they need to know what it will cost them and what it will mean for their neighbourhood. It is not too late for the Government to pause the process, listen to the concerns that have been expressed powerfully today, including by the Minister’s own Back Benchers, and look at how lessons can be learned, so that we have a local government system fit for the future.

Draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 General Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.

There are many arguments of principle and technical detail regarding the merits or otherwise of the change to the voting system proposed by the Government under this draft legislation, but the Committee is not the place to debate those; they have been considered in Committee previously. I will be clear that the Opposition remain opposed to the change, which reverses a change that we made in government. We remain committed to the elegance and simplicity of first past the post as a means of carrying out elections, rather than any of the other many complex systems that are available around the world. For that reason, we will seek a Division, but I have no questions to put to the Minister.

Draft Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 General Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. The explanatory note was written in the name of the former Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh). I am sure that the Minister would give the Committee the same assurances as the former Under-Secretary of State about the provisions meeting the relevant standard.

The Opposition do not propose to divide the Committee on this delegated legislation. We recognise that this is one of a number of such decisions brought forward, at the invitation of the Government, as local authorities have sought to take advantage of what is the only game in town for them to secure the additional powers and scope that a combined county authority will bring. For the record, we remain sceptical about whether a directly elected mayor is the optimal type of political leadership for all parts of England that currently do not have that arrangement—we acknowledge in particular the diverse geography of the area that we are debating—and whether a single elected individual will be in a position to make effective decisions that enjoy democratic support, which is a significant challenge. Although we do not oppose the regulations, we remain concerned about that.

Members will be conscious that a series of local elections took place that will change the political dynamics of the authorities that are set out as party to this agreement, and that those authorities will be subject to boundary changes in future. The Minister will have heard the impassioned pleas, particularly from Members for the New Forest constituencies, to reconsider the impact that those proposed local government boundary changes will have on their local areas and communities. It would be helpful for her to set out for the Committee whether the impact of those changes on subsequent authorities has been considered by the Ministry in its decision-making process.

In the regulations, the proposed date for the new mayoral elections is 2028. Only a short time ago, those mayoral elections were due to take place this year. Across the country, political parties selected mayoral candidates and campaigned, but then we saw the frankly incredible shambles of elections being cancelled and then uncancelled as a result of judicial reviews, with mayoral campaigns being stood up and then stood down, all of which has undermined the confidence of those involved in the process about whether the end point is realistic and deliverable.

The new unitary authorities within the geographical area to which the regulations relate are due to have elections in 2027. Although I am sure that the Minister is not minded to amend the regulations, I would be grateful if she told the Committee whether she will consider amending the legislation so that, instead of having two separate, dissonant sets of elections, the elections that take place under the new arrangements all take place at the same time in 2027. That would ensure a smooth transition from the powers that are about to be removed—such as those of the office of the police and crime commissioner—to the new arrangements that the mayor will bring in, rather than having a 12-month hiatus in the process. It would also give residents the opportunity, within those democratic processes, to give their judgment on the mayoral proposals and the new unitary authorities, which would come into being at the same time. That would save taxpayer money and result in a smoother and more efficient transition.

Finally, the provisions of the 2026 Act include specific prohibitions for those who hold mayoral office from becoming Members of Parliament and vice versa. Will the Minister set out how those provisions will apply to the regulations?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

Let me pick on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne made about the evidence on performance. People might feel a certain way about such local authorities, but following reorganisation, Cheshire West and Chester council and Cheshire East council, which the Minister just mentioned, both suffered significant problems with Ofsted inspections and Care Quality Commission inspections of children’s and adults’ social care, requiring significant intervention. It was clear that the disruption inherent in reorganisation had been a major factor in the emergence of those problems. The same was true in Somerset, in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and in a number of other authorities. It would be helpful if the Minister set out the evidence for the performance improvement that she cited.

[Alison McGovern]

I respect the hon. Gentleman and his point, but I will not detain the Committee by debating that topic, which does not relate directly to the regulations. I gently say to him that under the previous Government, a lot of the accountability measures for local authorities were taken away. We will reintroduce an outcomes framework and much more transparency about performance, precisely so that we can guard against the issues that he mentions. Reasonable people can disagree, but I will not detain the Committee any further on that matter.

The hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for Eastleigh both mentioned changing the date of elections. The shadow Minister also mentioned confidence and trust, which we will have to bear in mind when making any further changes.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh asked a couple of specific questions about powers and other things. I will write to her about those matters, if that is okay. She may not be aware, but strictly speaking, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), would ordinarily have taken this debate, but unfortunately she is elsewhere in the country today. I will ensure that she responds to the hon. Member’s points. In the meantime, I assure the hon. Member that district councils have been fully involved in the local government reorganisation process, and that we have listened and will continue to listen carefully to their representations.

I will not detain the Committee any longer. We have discussed the issues relating to this topic, as we have done before and will do again. I thank all Committee members for participating in the discussion on this incredibly important matter, and I hope they will join me in supporting the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I put on the record my thanks to the Minister and colleagues in her Department for the constructive spirit in which they have approached the negotiations around the Bill. It remains the official Opposition’s view that the Bill’s overall direction of travel is a centralising one: it brings into effect many new powers for the Secretary of State to direct the work of local authorities and, in particular, the new mayors and the strategic responsibilities that they undertake will all be subject to a degree of direct influence from Whitehall. However, it clearly is in the interests of all parties represented in the House to seek to reach agreement on those points that have remained in contention. I know that I share the Minister’s sense of delight at once again being here at the Dispatch Box discussing Lords amendments.

Let me briefly address the Lords amendments in turn. The Minister set out clearly the Government’s agreement to step back from some of the directions which were included in the original legislation. That is one example of where the Opposition felt there was centralising power within the legislation. However, the Government have been constructive in the way they have approached that and have recognised that there is a degree of justification around that backstop power to avoid a situation where the whole country is covered by combined authorities but some councils are left outside of those boundaries. I know that many Members have expressed concern in the debates, both in Bill Committee and in the Chamber, at the impact that that would have, particularly on opportunities for economic development.

Let me turn to the brownfield amendment. Opposition Members have been resolute from the outset in saying that whatever new arrangements the Government are determined to implement, we need to ensure that local communities can continue to stand up for and protect the green spaces they cherish, whether those are greenfield sites used for agriculture, or greenfield and green-belt sites used for leisure to provide that buffer around our cities and suburbs.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we continue to protect those greenfield sites, as we do in my constituency and, indeed, as Conservative councils do across the country? Does he agree that it is sad that the Reform candidate for the Mayor of London disagrees and wants to build over some of our precious green-belt land?

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on in what he says. Members across the Chamber have been surprised to hear Reform say that it wishes to tear up London’s green belt as part of the local election campaign. I am grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for recognising, in the fine tradition of many Labour councils, that we need to ensure that there are sufficient provisions in the legislation to ensure the protection of those vital green spaces for future generations.

I am especially grateful to the Minister for making what may seem like a fairly technical change, but as she has just told us from the Dispatch Box, it establishes for the first time, after five rounds of ping-pong, a clear hierarchy in the legislation that sets out that the new mayors, in their spatial development strategies, will need to prioritise brownfield land for development. Many Members across the House expressed concerns when we debated local government reorganisation just a few weeks ago about the impact of housing targets being displaced. That will be more effectively managed under the amendments that have been agreed across the House tonight. That is a distinct step forward from all our perspectives.

Finally, I will briefly touch on local authority governance. We recognise that there is a difference of opinion. It is the Opposition’s view that local authorities should be able to set up their structure of governance in a way that reflects their local circumstances. Although our strong view is that the leader and cabinet model is the most efficient and effective way to do that, people taking decisions with which we may disagree is the essence of local democracy. The Government’s agreement to pause the use of that requirement means that there will be a period in which local authorities can reflect on their governance arrangements and consult if they wish to do so, and the normal cycle of local elections can take place—of course, there will also be a parliamentary election.

I think we all know that the matter of local government reorganisation never entirely stops; it merely starts again at a different point in each parliamentary cycle, so there will be further opportunities to reflect on it, but in the context of the Bill, about which we still have significant concerns, those agreements reflect progress in a direction that makes us much more comfortable. For those reasons, we do not propose to divide the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Despite the Minister’s centralising zeal, I detect a slight weariness on her part as we once again go toe to toe on Lords amendments. It remains the position of the Opposition that the Government are bringing forward in this Bill overall a set of centralising measures that are fundamentally about extending control from Whitehall into our town halls. Those measures come from a Government who have a record of imposing additional cost and responsibilities on our local authorities, as we hear continually from local government leaders.

It is welcome to hear from the Minister that there has been additional recognition from the Government of the differences that exist in our rural and coastal communities—I do have some coastline in my constituency, but I do not think Ruislip lido was what we had in mind when making the argument. It is clear that the needs of our rural and coastal communities, and the potential that they offer, are often different from what we see in urban and suburban areas, so we will not be pushing for a further vote on the matter of extending the recognition of rural affairs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

The point that my hon. Friend is making is a very accurate description of what is happening in my local area of Bexley, where developers are trying to argue that greenfield sites are now ripe for development because of the Government’s planning changes. Does he share my concern that the Government are continuing to try to barge those changes through this House, and that both Reform and Labour support the Government’s position on the grey belt, which will have a detrimental effect on our local community and our natural environment?

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People in Old Bexley and Sidcup—just like those in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and, indeed, in many of the constituencies that are represented by Conservative Members—are concerned about a Reform party that is championing tearing up the green belt across our capital in pursuit of housing targets, and about the ambiguity that has been created by the Government’s position on grey-belt land. That description seems to be applied to any site on which a developer can argue that housing could be delivered because it has had some previous use. That level of ambiguity is another one of the reasons why we are keen to make the very strong case for brownfield being enshrined as the priority, and for the Government to accept that case.

I will now turn briefly to the Lords amendments dealing with the leader and cabinet model of local government. To be clear, as an Opposition, we do not have a strong view about what governance arrangements town halls should choose. Many of us will have had experience under the committee system or under the leader and cabinet model, some with executive mayors. However, the reason why we intend to push the Government on this issue is that it once again represents their centralising tendency—a view in Whitehall that the Government know best what structures should be used. I happen to agree with Ministers that the leader and cabinet model is the most effective and efficient model, but it is not for us to tell locally elected officials and councillors what arrangements they should make.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and congratulate him on his efforts yesterday. I am sure we are both struggling to bob in the Chamber this afternoon.

I agree with the shadow Minister about the cabinet model for local councils. I am sure he agrees that one of the advantages of that model is that there are fewer meetings, which makes being a councillor more accessible for those who have jobs and childcare commitments and means that we do not just rely on councillors who are perhaps retired. On his point about the Government’s approach to local authorities, does he agree that one good thing that this Government have done is ensure multi-year funding for local councils? When I was a councillor in Harlow—I got my mention of Harlow in—it was a real challenge for the opposition to do its shadow budgets and for the administration to do its budgets.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It would be interesting to know the timings of the shadow Minister’s marathon.

[David Simmonds]

Suffice it to say that I was significantly slower than the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), whose outstanding efforts will, I am sure, leave him a little bit sore when bobbing today.

The hon. Member will know the benefits of an effective leader and cabinet model, because he has a good Conservative local authority led by Councillor Dan Swords, and the work of Councillor Dan Swords and his team has driven forward the improvements Harlow has been able to enjoy over many years.

[Chris Vince]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Simmonds]

I am going to make a little progress, if I may.

The key point is to ensure that our local authorities can set out their governance arrangements in a way that reflects the needs of their community. The Government have already accepted the argument that we need to ensure a degree of nuance in the Bill for rural and coastal communities, and this is another example of exactly that argument.

On parish governance, I know we do not all have parish councils in our local areas, but they are a significant feature of civic life across the country and many of them run important local facilities such as leisure centres and car parks. It is clearly important to ensure that their role is enshrined, especially at a time when this Government’s wider agenda of local government reorganisation is leading to a significant transfer of services to parish councils from districts due to be abolished, so it is welcome that the Government are moving forward on that.

On the final two groups of amendments we are debating this afternoon, the so-called agent of change principle is the idea that a new arrival in a community should bear the cost of consequent changes on its gaining planning consent: if somebody opens a new music venue or builds a new residential development, that should not be at the expense of existing and long-established uses. Many of us as constituency MPs have had experience of when, for example, a property developer creates a new residential development and seeks to close down an existing venue such as a local pub—I had an example to do with a bus garage—because they are concerned about the impact it would have. Clearly those established uses with prior consent need to have a degree of priority, and that has already found its way into law in Scotland. We believe that it is reasonable to recommend that the Government take this forward and ensure that those existing uses have sufficient protection in the Bill that they are not subject to the unfair impact of new and subsequent arrivals seeking to pass the costs of mitigating the consequences of their activity on to them.

Finally, Lords amendment 98 is about the Secretary of State’s powers on changes to strategic authorities. It was hotly contested as the Bill made its way through Committee that it contains chapters and chapters of new powers for the Secretary of State to direct mayors or combined authorities, which very much speaks to the point that this is centralising legislation. While it introduces a new layer of local government, it none the less results in central Government having significantly more powers to levy a precept, to create a new housing development, to create zoning to ensure development takes place, and to bring together groups of local authorities and assume some of their responsibilities. All of those now fall much more strongly within the purview of the Secretary of State issuing directions from Whitehall about how things should happen locally.

It remains the Opposition’s position that, as supporters of and believers in devolution, we should not simply pay lip service to it in the title of the Bill, but ensure that those measures have the consent and support of the locally elected politicians whose mandate gives them the power to make those decisions on behalf of their community. We remain determined to push ahead in favour of that principle of consent and ensure that local communities continue to have champions who speak up for them in this Chamber.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

In my comments, I will address the agent of change principle. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music, and this has long been on our agenda. The shadow Minister got the gist of this right when saying that it is about existing or long-standing venues—music venues and nightclubs, in particular—having to bat back legal challenges from residents of any new build residential property, but primarily apartments. We have had examples of cases, such as Alphabet and the Moth club, where there have been legal costs of £50,000 or more from having to take on new developments that are challenging their ongoing operations.

I encountered a case of this kind in my constituency, which we had to fight in the planning committee. An organisation called Music and Arts Production provides music and arts education in its building for young people who have been excluded from school and who would otherwise become NEET—not in education, employment or training—but who are thus kept within the education system. One of its main sources of funding is Cosmic Slop, an event that raises a significant amount on Saturday nights.

There was to be heavy residential development in the area in the form of a new block of flats in Mabgate, opposite the MAP building. The problem was that there would be no sound protection or mitigation; in its local plan, Leeds had not mapped music venues or nightclubs. I received thousands of emails about the planning application from as far away as New York. We had to have significant discussions with the planning department and councillors to ensure that the necessary stipulations were made for noise reduction, and to ensure that the new residents could not, in effect, close down the club night, because if that happened MAP would have to close as well, and all those young people would become NEET.

I sympathise with the Ministers dealing with this matter, because throughout the process the national planning policy framework, on a non-statutory basis, has forced local authorities to take such action. I think we should consider ways of addressing this issue through secondary legislation and the local planning process, because at present neither the Bill nor the NPPF protects venues adequately. I know that, like mine, the Minister’s constituency contains many music venues and nightclubs, and she obviously cares deeply about such venues. I hope she will reassure me that the Government will look at the agent of change principle and ensure that, both locally and nationally, the relevant protections are available so that further pressures are not put on those venues. Nightclubs in particular are already suffering as a result of the business rates increases and other recent cost pressures, and the additional costs of having to fight developers will eventually push them out of existence.

Representation of the People Bill (Eighth sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lisa Smart]

The arrests were made for support for a proscribed organisation via holding a placard that said the holder supports that organisation. I think we are talking about the same case. I understand the point that the hon. Member makes. Proscription of organisations is a tool that the Government rightly uses, although I have questioned the proportionality of the use of that tool. New clause 3 particularly mentions political violence; the hon. Member is talking about peaceful protest, if I understand her correctly. All hon. Members on this Committee, and everyone beyond it, should support the right for people to tell a Government that they think the Government have got it wrong. We should all support that and not make it harder for people to do it. If, however, someone is guilty of a

“prescribed offence relating to the promotion, incitement, or use of political violence”,

I do not think that they should be able to financially support a political party. The promotion of an organisation is the same as supporting an organisation. There are ways of supporting organisations and causes that stay exactly the right side of the law. While I am not of the view that the Government have always used proscription rules proportionately in recent months, I do think that, if those rules exist, they should be able to be used in that way by those who are enforcing the law.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I am sympathetic to the point that the hon. Member is trying to make. I have listened carefully to what she said about new clauses 2 and 3. With respect to new clause 3, it would be helpful to consider the treatment of those who may have been opponents of an oppressive foreign political regime who have been convicted in this country of an offence that might be a proscribed offence under mutual recognition arrangements, but where they perhaps sought asylum in the UK. We have seen examples of people who were vocal opponents of the Putin regime in Russia coming to the UK and joining a political party. Those are people who we recognise as good citizens. How would they be treated should that offence be on that proscribed list?

In respect to new clause 2, again, I have sympathy, but I raise the issue of business people undertaking consular roles in other countries. It is quite common, for example, for a British business person who may be the British consul in a particular town to then be appointed by a series of other Governments to act for them as an agent in that respect. Subsequently, on returning to the UK that business person would be caught by the rules in new clause 2, even though those restrictions are in no way intended to target those types of activities. Has the hon. Member given some thought to how those types of roles would be captured and how they might be excluded?

[Lisa Smart]

New clause 3 talks specifically about political violence. While we can sometimes agree with the message that opponents of our adversaries use, it is right that we are against political violence and those who promote political violence. I think that covers his question on new clause 3.

Representation of the People Bill (Sixth sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank Members for the wide-ranging and constructive points that they have made. The Government accept the thrust of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley; however, we believe the existing clauses already allow for foreign links, the status of the foreign influence registration scheme and other relevant indicators to be considered.

It is important for us all to consider—this speaks to a point that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire made—that, as drafted, the list of statutory risk factors is capable of amendment by secondary legislation, so that the framework can remain up to date. As new risks emerge, they can be addressed through secondary legislation. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove made the point that this is a very fast-moving landscape. When the Government introduced the strategy last July, it was prior to the conviction of Nathan Gill. New risks have emerged in considerable number in the past year, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset described how new parties are emerging. It is important that legislation is not prescriptive in a way that hampers consideration of risks as they emerge.

I appreciate the sensitivity that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove expressed—I think the hon. Member for Hamble Valley understands this too—to the challenge of legislating in a fast-moving landscape. The Government are responding as promptly as we can. On the timetable, Parliament will be prorogued soon—I do not know when; my hon. Friend the Government Whip may have more intelligence on that—but this is a carry-over Bill, and that is important given the consideration and consultation that needs to happen as we respond to the Rycroft review.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I want to pick up on the implications of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley and the hon. Member for South Dorset. We are all aware that Reform was the first political organisation to come into being as a private company. It operates outside the framework of a traditional political party, and that carries with it some risks.

As the Minister has outlined, the intention is that the framework identifying those risks can be regularly updated. However, that organisation has been in existence for some six years, so this is not something that has suddenly materialised. The point that my hon. Friend outlined in his contribution, and in the amendments covering things such as FIRS, is that that these are emerging risks that we have all been aware of for some time.

I appreciate the Minister’s point about the timetable and where we are in this Session, but it would be helpful to understand from her how soon those long-standing risks that we have been aware of for some time will find their way into secondary legislation and therefore the framework, or where they might feature in amendments on Report so that they can be properly taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Maximising rises in council tax underpins this Government’s entire approach to council finance. The Minister has admitted that no assessment has been done of the impact that this has on the cost of living for British households. As the Government send in the bailiffs to support their council tax maximisation strategy, will she assure the House that the Prime Minister has considered the impact of these huge council tax rises on working households?

[Alison McGovern]

I think that is a little bit rich given what we all lived through over the past 14 years. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, on average, Tory councils cost people more. I know that the best way we will ensure that council finances recover from the period of Tory austerity is to improve services, stop paying the cost of failure and help deal with the cost of living crisis.

Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

I rise to oppose clause 47, as well as speak in support of Opposition amendment 30. I will also speak to new clause 19, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Not one person or organisation at the first evidence session of this Bill Committee supported changing this element of the legislation to enable bank cards to be shown as an acceptable form of ID. Witnesses said that t1hey had great concerns about that change. Across the House, we should all agree—and I am sure we do—that the integrity, security and safety of the electoral process in this country must be upheld.

I strongly contend that the Government’s watering down of voter identification will lead to more impersonation, more prosecutions and a less safe electoral system compared with the one we currently have. Under the Elections Act 2022, the previous Government brought in photographic voter identification. It is a simple fact that, if people do not have one of the acceptable forms of ID, they can apply for one for that specific circumstance. I ask the Minister, seriously, to listen to those witnesses again. They are experts in their field and they gave strong warnings about the integrity or ability of a bank card to be shown as a viable form of identification.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. Clause 47(3), which refers to the treatment of digital forms of bank cards, says that, in digital form, they are a specified document and valid for ID purposes

“only if a person can form a reasonable view about whether it is a specified document by means of visual inspection alone.”

That is a significant burden to place on a polling clerk, the returning officer or another election official—the paragraph does not specify who that person is—to determine whether, when an individual shows them an image that may or may not be that person’s bank card, which is not required to contain a photograph or anything like that, it is the genuine article. Particularly given the significant growth of online banking, does my hon. Friend agree that that opens to door to this supporting impersonation in a way that would constitute electoral fraud?

[Paul Holmes]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Banking has advanced to such a great extent that I could pay for my cup of coffee on my iPhone with my bank card showing—nowhere does that card have my name on it. What if people do not have a physical bank card? Although the legislation says that voters have to show a physical form of bank card, there are different cards now. The designs of bank cards have changed, and no two bank cards are of exactly the same design. It is very hard to put the burden of evidence on a volunteer election official at a polling station and expect them to ask the elector to provide their bank card; if they are not satisfied, they will be put at risk.

I contend that, if this measure is implemented at the next election, the number of arguments or attacks at polling stations will increase because of the downgrading of the type of ID required. ID is very simple and very expected, as we first heard at the evidence session. It has absolutely bedded in, and it is well known now, because of campaigns by the Electoral Commission, that voters are to take photographic ID to a polling station. Many people now know that. It is the least we should expect that, when people try to vote in this country, they should show a form of photographic identification.

Points of Order

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I can see the Secretary of State looking at me and nodding. Let’s take that as a positive.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? We have just had a statement from the Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government on donations. Can you tell me whether the Secretary of State or the Department have given any indication that they propose to come to the House to give a statement and an opportunity for questions on local government reorganisation? I know that Mr Speaker was particularly concerned that a good deal of information has been placed in the media over the last 24 hours about decisions that have been made, and as yet no Members of this House have had the opportunity to scrutinise the Government on those matters.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member has put his point appropriately on the record. I have not been given any notice of such statements, but the Front Bench has no doubt heard his concerns and will respond accordingly.