Local Government Reorganisation

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

Hampshire is an area that we will look at afresh, just as we will look afresh at other decisions. I have not predetermined what might happen, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. This is an imperfect process, but ensuring that the decision reflects community identity is definitely at the back of my mind.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

As the Minister said, LGR and devolution are intrinsically linked, so it came as a bit of a surprise to read on page 66 of the Red Book that Surrey is apparently in advanced talks with the Government over a new strategic mayoralty, because those talks have not involved any of the local MPs and have apparently entailed only a 10-minute phone call with the new unitary authorities for Surrey on Monday evening. In the spirit of consensus and correspondence, can we make sure that before this goes any further, those unitary authorities and the local MPs are fully consulted?

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about consultation. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), and I have done a lot to engage with local government, and many of our drop-in sessions have been about devolution, so I push back on the idea that we have not done that, but we could always do more. Further talks might be required, but let us not detract from the benefit of this multibillion-pound investment to our communities. As local MPs, surely the reason we come here is to make sure that our areas get their fair share.

Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend’s constituents, my constituents and the constituents of all Members will be watching this debate, half feeling glad that all this is happening, and half hoping that it actually will happen. In that respect, one part of the Bill I really welcome is that a remediation compliance plan has to be published on a website, openly available and proactively shared with residents. The fact that that even has to be said is testament to how frustrating it has been for residents to try to find information. Instead of them asking, “Who has built this building? Who are the responsible parties? What are they going to do? Where is the plan? Will I be moved out? When is it going to happen? When can I get on with my life?”, a plan has to be published, put on a website and proactively shared. I really welcome that.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

The hon. Lady talks about the need and desire to end the culture of cosy deals. I completely agree, but is not PAS 9980 itself a cosy deal done by the former Secretary of State, Michael Gove, as a compromise with building developers, to let them off from so many of the financial obligations that they would have had if they had to remediate buildings to the standard at which they should have been built? Does this Bill not turn that cosy deal into law?

[Fleur Anderson]

I have been following this issue closely. As well as EWS1 forms and the question of who fills them in, developers marking their own homework to any degree causes problems in the system. Many Members will be looking at the Bill as it progresses through this House and the other place to see how we can strengthen it even further. Measures may be put into the Bill in all good faith, but in practice, there may not be enough people inspecting buildings, so there may be huge delays in the system. We do not want those people to want to minimise the amount of work done and keep the delays going.

I welcome the fact that building owners who fail to act could face fines of £500,000 and even criminal prosecution. Where owners refuse to do the work, Homes England will have the backstop powers to step in and ensure remediation is finally carried out, with the costs falling on those responsible, rather than the leaseholders. The measures in the Bill will help accelerate the resolution of historical safety defects, require manufacturers of unsafe building products to contribute to putting things right, and ensure that those affected have a clearer route to redress.

For many people, the cladding scandal is not a historical issue, but a daily reality. Throughout this scandal, I have found out all the layers of poor regulation in building works. For many homes and developments in Putney, not only has the cladding been unsafe, but many other parts of the building have been unsafe as well. In looking at the cladding, we have also found missing or inadequate fire stopping, inadequate compartmentation, poorly installed cavity barriers, defective balconies and water ingress. In a couple of the developments I have been in, I have watched water flowing down through electrical cupboards. That shoddy building work and the way that developers seem to have been able to get away with it should also be looked at, although not in this Bill. This Bill needs to be specific, and we need to get on with it, but other questions are being asked as a result of this process.

My residents have had to find out a lot more about whole developments and how they work; about their managing agents and how they should be working for them, but in many ways are not; about waking watches; and about non-communication by those who are meant to communicate about other defects in their buildings. They have had to become experts in inspections and how they work. They have had to work with the fire service themselves, because they are the people who are involved with all of these different things. I have been to meeting after meeting that residents have called, or that I have called, to try to get answers. It really should not have been so hard—it should be far easier for residents and leaseholders to know what is going on in their building. That is why I really look forward to the upcoming leasehold and commonhold Bill, because in my constituency of Putney, Roehampton, Southfields and Wandsworth Town, I am still working with people whose lives continue to be disrupted years after these problems first emerged. Many of them are currently decanted and living in other places, and many are unable to rent, sell or remortgage. They struggle to obtain their EWS1 forms or—as has been mentioned by other Members—affordable insurance, and far too often, their service charges are also going up. They describe uncertainty, stress and frustration.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to continuing delays by the Building Safety Regulator, which I have talked about before in a Westminster Hall debate. I have had three developments really affected by huge delays by the Building Safety Regulator; two of them have now been fixed, so I thank the Ministers very much for that, but I have one left, so I am going to raise it now. That is the heritage-listed stilt blocks on the Alton estate in Roehampton. They are really iconic—people come from all over the world to look at our stilt blocks. We are very proud of them, but living inside them is not so nice. They have mould, and they have really poor windows that let the water and the weather in. Residents have endured winter after winter waiting for replacement windows.

Although Wandsworth council approved and funded new windows and stairwell fire doors in September 2023, the introduction of the new building safety regime transferred responsibility for approving those works to the Building Safety Regulator, because those listed blocks are classified as high-rise residential buildings. The residents narrowly missed the approval window before the new arrangements came in, leaving them in limbo with the Building Safety Regulator and causing further delays for people who have already waited far too long. They have waited through the winters of 2023, 2024 and 2025, and now they are approaching yet another winter with these very cold windows. Residents say that when they put a radiator on, they might as well just be throwing money out of the window. It is an appalling situation, and I really hope that as a result of me raising it in the Chamber today, the Ministers will address it.

None of us wants to return to the failures of the past. Robust regulation is essential, and the whole purpose of reform is to ensure that safety comes first, but a system that leaves people in prolonged uncertainty is also failing them. As implementation of the Bill proceeds, I urge Ministers to continue examining how regulatory processes can be made more efficient without compromising safety, whether that is ensuring they have the right number of staff or that their systems are right—whatever it takes to make the system work. People should not be left waiting months or years for decisions when works are ready to proceed. Safety and speed are not mutually exclusive; we need to have both.

As I have said, I look forward to the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, which is part of the package of exciting and strong new regulatory powers that are being introduced by the Government in a number of ways. The last Government could have done the same, but did not.

I support this Bill, and I hope that while making these reforms, we will continue to focus relentlessly on turning regulation into results for the people of Putney and people across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

Time and again today, we have remembered all those who tragically died in the Grenfell fire all those years ago. We look back on that not only because they deserve our tribute, but because we all know in our hearts that it did not need to happen. It could have been avoided, and the warnings were there years before. As has been said a few times today, the fire happened nine years ago, and we still have not got things right.

I cannot speak any more eloquently than my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) did. He spoke for only a few minutes, but he has campaigned relentlessly on behalf of his constituents for many hours, days and months—not only to make sure that we get the truth and learn from it, but to keep championing all those people who are still worried. Many feel trapped in homes in which they should be able to live safely and comfortably, but in which they cannot.

I really welcome what the Government are doing today, and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and her Ministers. In 2024, the Secretary of State began the remediation acceleration plan, because it was taking way too long. Relevant legislation has been passed in this place before, but we see that it is not delivering. There are too many gaps, and I believe that this Bill is a great step forward. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying that she will add to it, and I am sure that she has been listening carefully to what has been said today and will continue to listen, not just to us in this place but to the people we represent. I know that she and her Ministers have been meeting people affected by this issue and representatives of End Our Cladding Scandal. One of the big champions in my constituency, Sophie Bichener, has been working in this area for years, and she has acknowledged those meetings.

When we talk about examples in our constituencies, we sometimes think that MPs who represent big cities will have a lot, which might be true. I represent a new town, just like my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who represents another fine new town that is not far from Stevenage. We do not have as many examples as the House might think, but I want to highlight two. It does not matter that we do not have many, because those residents who have been trapped for so long really feel it. In Stevenage we have Monument Court and Vista Tower, and I want to relay a couple of my residents’ expressions of despair.

One resident of Vista Tower said:

“Since the Grenfell disaster we have been imprisoned in a property that we cannot sell, has no apparent value and has continuing yearly safety improvements. But worst of all, the owners of flats have no visibility as to when this nightmare will finish.”

Another said:

“I am living in a home that I know to be unsafe, with no clear timeline for when the necessary remediation work will be completed. The ongoing uncertainty is causing significant stress and anxiety, particularly as I have two young children whose safety and wellbeing are my priority. I am also facing increased insurance costs and am having to deplete my savings to cover the financial burden. I cannot sell my property because of the unresolved cladding issues, leaving me effectively trapped in a home that may be unsafe and unable to move forward with my life.”

Those residents are just two examples of people trapped in their own homes, not knowing if they are safe after all these years.

Residents in Vista Tower are now going through a second round of remedial works. They have been told that they are to be decanted, but for how long? We do not know. When is that going to happen? We do not know. Vista Tower itself has been the subject of many legal actions going on for years, and there seems no end to it. We have to give those residents the hope of an ending, so that they can get on with their lives, feel safe in their homes and, if they want to do so, move on and live elsewhere.

I am pleased that the Bill takes us forward on some of those matters, but it has been very difficult for many Members to hear about some of the issues that have been raised today. We need to ensure that non-qualifying leaseholders, such as those living in Vista Tower and Monument Court, are not left with unaffordable bills to fix historical defects, such as the fire safety defects, so I am pleased to hear movement from the Secretary of State in that regard.

[Dr Pinkerton]

The hon. Gentleman’s constituents’ stories resonate deeply, and are similar to those I hear from my constituents. Nine different properties in my constituency had EWS1 forms that were signed by a rogue fire safety engineer called Adam Kiziak, which has introduced further uncertainty and anxiety, alongside everything that the hon. Gentleman has spoken about. That is why I feel so passionately that this Bill could go just a little bit further, and call for the independent regulation of fire safety engineers to bring added certainty to those who do have to commission forms that ultimately speak to the quality, but also the safety, of the building. Will he join me in making that case?

[Kevin Bonavia]

I thank the hon. Member for making a very sensible point. I am pleased that the Bill takes forward the idea of having independent actors to step in, which I would always welcome—the more of that, the better. We cannot have the developers or freeholders of these buildings essentially marking their own homework.

We must ensure that buildings are reviewed holistically and made safe as a whole. As I have said, Vista Tower is facing a second round of intrusive works and the decanting of residents, so we need to ensure that such things can be avoided. That is why it is so important to have compliance plans and, more importantly, to ensure that residents are informed of and are able to influence and shape these plans. I welcome the moves in that regard.

For Vista Tower, there have now been eight years of fighting, with no timeline for ending it. We must therefore make sure that remediation compliance plans guarantee access to assessments, work specifications, delivery timetables and completion evidence, with real and meaningful engagement for leaseholders, while also providing them with accessible routes to challenge decisions and raise concerns about their homes. In that way we can give leaseholders, but also the flats market as a whole, confidence that when work is required, it will be done properly and collaboratively.

Today is a day of real progress—we are filling the gaps one by one—and I am pleased to hear that Ministers are listening. They should carry on listening to make sure that the Bill becomes an Act that finally gives people who are living in fear of the future and uncertain about what is going to happen to their home the release from all of that that they truly deserve.

Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the building safety remediation of residential buildings.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and all right hon. and hon. Members for their participation.

More than nine years after Grenfell claimed all those lives, we must ask whether the system that is intended to protect residents and deliver the safety and security they deserve is truly working. There has been progress. The Building Safety Act 2022, the Building Safety Regulator and remediation funding have strengthened our collective national response, but legislation must lead to safer homes, funding must lead to completed works and residents must be able to move forward with their lives.

Today, I will address three interconnected issues: the protection of residents during remediation, the operation of PAS 9980 and the competence of those making critical safety decisions, and the position of non-qualifying leaseholders. I will begin by drawing on an experience directly connected to my constituency. Surrey Heath is, by any definition, a semi-rural consistency, where one would not necessarily have expected this issue to rear its head, yet the correspondence reaching my office from Camberley, our principal market town, shows how deeply the problem affects ordinary households across the UK. We must judge the system by the experience of the residents who depend on it. At Dorchester Court, one of my constituents has lived in their shared ownership home for 20 years. They are unwell, unemployed and at risk of losing that home. They need to sell, but unresolved building safety and EWS1 issues have taken that choice away.

Another resident has lost two prospective buyers because lenders would not offer mortgages on that property. Cala Homes, the original developer, has accepted full responsibility for life-critical remediation, but residents say that they still have no clear timetable for those works to be delivered or completed. Accepting responsibility is only the beginning. Until the required work is completed, residents remain trapped. It is a repeat pattern across the country. People need to move because of illness, unemployment, caring responsibilities or just simple changes in family circumstances. Their lives cannot be placed on hold indefinitely while developers, building owners and managing agents decide what happens next.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I can think of at least two buildings in my constituency that have been determined urgent life-critical but cannot be remediated because of delays in getting the certificates they need from the Building Safety Regulator. That leaves residents facing large insurance costs, unable to sell, and stuck with damp and mould and a whole range of other issues. Does the hon. Member agree that the Building Safety Regulator needs the resources so that residents are not left trapped in their homes for years?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Lady, who I know represents a Bournemouth seat. I have exactly the same issues in my constituency. Reports and certification are not being received in time, often frustrating sales and driving things like insurance premiums in the long term. Residents’ lives cannot be placed on hold indefinitely while those who have the whip hand decide what happens next.

The problems do not end when remediation begins. At North Court, another development in Camberley, residents undergoing remediation through the Metropolitan Thames Valley housing association have reported restricted daylight and ventilation, broken windows and water leaks. Those issues are challenging at the best of times, but almost unbearable during a long, hot summer like the one we have just had, when temperatures inside properties regularly reached 40ºC.

Some residents have described deteriorating mental health and feeling increasingly insecure in their own homes. Scaffolding, sheeting, noise and disruption may be unavoidable for a time, but poor communication, unresolved damage and unhealthy living conditions are not acceptable. Clear information, prompt repairs and credible completion dates should be basic expectations throughout the remediation process. I ask the Minister to outline how residents will be protected during remediation works, especially during hot summer periods and cold winters.

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

I am struck that the hon. Member used the phrase “collective national response” to start his remarks. As a Scottish MP, I am conscious that this is a UK-wide endeavour, but four different Governments could be looking at it. If work is accelerated in one part, pressure can be put on the resources available in another. Does the hon. Member agree that the collective national response has to be considered in a UK sense, not just under the relevant Department in Westminster?

The Public Accounts Committee looked at this issue on 21 March 2025. One of our conclusions was:

“Given the lack of progress to date and the remaining challenges ahead, we are sceptical about the adequacy and achievability of MHCLG’s Remediation Acceleration Plan.”

Does the hon. Member share that scepticism?

[Dr Pinkerton]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one main handbrake to remediation is national resourcing. There are simply not enough fire safety engineers or specialist companies that can do this remediation work on a fast timescale. That problem exists not only between Scotland and England but within the English regions. I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that a co-ordinated national solution is the best response we could hope for for our residents, so that the work is undertaken in a timely and efficient manner.

My second question for the Minister relates to that topic. How will those responsible be held to enforceable timetables, so that residents have certainty and transparency from companies completing the remediation works? The examples I have cited concern the pace and conditions of remediation but, before any work begins, someone must decide what work is required.

That brings me to PAS 9980, the framework used to assess fire risks in the external walls of existing residential buildings. The Government have committed to making the standard mandatory for relevant external wall fire risk assessments, but its interpretation will influence the work that is carried out, the funding available and the conditions in which residents are expected to live. A proportionate approach is sensible. Assessors should consider the building as a whole, including its materials, construction and wider fire safety arrangements.

The work undertaken should reflect the risk that the building actually presents, but that approach relies heavily on professional and subjective judgment. Residents need confidence that those judgments are competent, consistent, transparent and properly scrutinised. When assessments of the same building reach different conclusions, remediation can be delayed, funding becomes harder to secure, lenders lose confidence and residents are left wondering whose judgment they can ultimately trust.

There is a particular concern where combustible materials, which would not be permitted on comparable new buildings, are allowed to remain on existing homes. An assessment may conclude that the immediate risk to life is tolerable, but residents could still face higher insurance premiums, difficulty securing a mortgage and a reduction in the value of their property. They may be told that their building meets the required standard, while continuing to feel unsafe and financially trapped.

Royal Artillery Quays clearly illustrates this problem. At this point, I pay tribute to Steve Day, who has been a doughty campaigner for that development and its residents. Many hon. Members might have heard directly from him. Royal Artillery Quays is a large, private residential development in Thamesmead, built by Barratt Homes in 2002, and home to around 1,000 residents. Barratt Homes’s proposed approach there, assessed under PAS 9980, would leave some combustible panels in place, on the basis that the remaining risk is tolerable.

Residents—not unreasonably—remain concerned both about the safety of that approach and its financial consequences. They report that annual service charges have risen from £3,000 to £6,000, with much of that increase linked to insurance. That phenomenon is confirmed by the Association of British Insurers, which in October 2025 reported that buildings remediated only to PAS 9980 may face persistently higher premiums than those remediated to a higher standard. In other words, residents will be paying higher insurance premiums in perpetuity because of decisions that were made not just by this Government but by developers in the past. Some of those residents cannot sell without accepting a substantial reduction in the value of their home. Residents have drawn my attention to a fire safety engineering report that states that leaving the panels in place is

“not the most appropriate fire engineering solution”

for that building. Already there is contestation between the different approaches recommended. Where does that leave residents? The reliability of these decisions ultimately depends on the subjective competence of the people making them.

Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will publish the findings of their audits and reviews of the application of PAS 9980, and what steps are being taken to ensure greater consistency in its use? Where PAS 9980 assessments result in combustible materials remaining in place, how will the consequential impacts on insurance premiums, mortgage availability and property values be assessed and communicated to residents?

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Member talked about publication of the audit, with which I hope everyone will agree. Does he agree that it should be shared across the nations of the UK in order that all our Executives—the Parliaments in Scotland and Wales and the Executive in Northern Ireland—can take action where that is appropriate?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He parallels the case made by the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane). There has to be a national-level approach, and I hope that the Government will share information with the devolved Administrations in all parts of the United Kingdom and with all Members of this House so that we can adequately support the affected residents, who are certainly not just in England.

The experience with the separate EWS1 process shows what happens when confidence in these professionals breaks down. One Surrey Heath constituent accepted an offer on their apartment for £260,000. That was for a flat originally bought for £316,000. They were prepared to accept a loss of £56,000 simply to move forward with their life, but even then the sale collapsed, because the buyer could not obtain a mortgage after lenders stopped accepting the building’s EWS1 form, which had been signed by the now notorious Adam Kiziak of Tri Fire Ltd. The Institution of Fire Engineers suspended Mr Kiziak’s membership and registration in 2024, following findings under its disciplinary process. It announced his expulsion on 5 March 2025, following even more complaints. Also in March 2025, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), I met the then Building Safety Minister to raise concerns about Mr Kiziak and his behaviour.

My office has identified at least nine EWS1 forms issued through Tri Fire in Camberley alone that have subsequently been rejected by lenders. That is why independent verification is essential, including where an earlier assessment concluded that no remediation was required, because we now know that Adam Kiziak was faking EWS1 forms, suggesting that buildings were entirely safe when they in fact contained combustible material.

The consequences of failure in this area can be immediate. At the Courtyard in Camberley, a couple reported receiving five EWS1 forms that were not accepted before a sixth finally satisfied the relevant requirements. That delay pushed their purchase beyond the stamp duty deadline and left them with an additional bill of nearly £4,500. They had no control over the assessment process, yet bore the cost when it failed. When does the Minister expect statutory regulation of fire engineers to be introduced? Given the degree of subjectivity in PAS 9980 assessments and the potentially life-changing costs passed on to residents, how can leaseholders have confidence in a system that lacks a fully regulated profession?

Failures in assessment can impose substantial costs. The next question is who should be expected to pay them. The Building Safety Act introduced welcome protections and ensured that many leaseholders would no longer be expected to meet the cost of failures that they did not cause. Some non-qualifying leaseholders may also receive support because of their landlord’s responsibility, a developer commitment or the funding arrangements that apply to their building. However, significant gaps remain.

Once a lease is classified as non-qualifying, that status can remain attached to it when the property is sold. Someone buying their first and only home can therefore inherit the consequences of the previous owner’s circumstances and become exposed to significant remediation costs. They had no involvement in the original construction and have no responsibility for the defects, yet under the current system, they can still be left with the bill.

On 10 April 2025, in response to a written question, the then Building Safety Minister said the Government was looking closely at how to

“sunset the ‘in perpetuity’ status of leases which do not qualify for the leaseholder protections.”

Can the Minister update us on that work, and will the Government bring forward proposals to protect those who bought what they reasonably believed would be a safe and secure home?

The Government’s promised remediation Bill provides an opportunity to resolve outstanding problems and turn commitments into delivery. Under their plans, by the end of 2029, buildings over 18 metres should be remediated and buildings from 11 metres to 18 metres should be remediated or firmly scheduled, with 2031 the intended final completion point. Those ambitions are absolutely welcome, but meeting them will require accurate building data, secure funding, skilled contractors, effective independent inspection and, as we have heard today, proper resourcing for agencies across the United Kingdom. It will require costs to be recovered from those responsible, including developers and construction product manufacturers.

Residents have already spent years waiting. Deadlines will mean little unless they are enforceable and backed up by the capacity required to meet them. When will those duties become legally enforceable, and how will the Government ensure that the funding, workforce and regulatory capacity are in place to deliver it?

The lesson of Grenfell is that building safety depends on the whole system working: sound regulation, competent professionals, effective oversight and accountability when things go wrong. When that system fails, danger can remain unaddressed and residents can be left trapped in homes they cannot sell and paying costs they cannot control. Behind every assessment, funding decision and remediation timetable is someone trying to protect their family, preserve their savings or move on to the next stage of their lives.

The bereaved and the survivors of Grenfell deserve justice, and my constituents in Surrey Heath and constituents across the country deserve safe homes and confidence in those entrusted to protect them. More than nine years on, we must take every reasonable step to prevent another loss of life and ensure that those still living with the consequences of this crisis can finally move forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Pinkerton]

I hope that every right hon. and hon. Member who participated in the debate accepts my thanks for their excellent contributions. I thank the Front-Bench spokespeople and the Minister, who is new to her role.

To pick up on one thing, the Minister said—forgive me for paraphrasing; I was writing it down as she spoke—that “no responsible party” in this whole scenario should be able to derogate, or words to that effect, from their obligations. I will leave her with one thought: the risk of PAS 9980 is that it allows those responsible to do exactly that—to be absolved of their responsibility. The defects that were built at the point of construction will be retained because of the new risk-based approach. The responsibility then falls on the purses of our constituents, because they will pay higher insurance costs in perpetuity. I know the Minister is new to her role—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Local Government Reorganisation

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I say again that the review does not include the reorganisation of Surrey. Councillors have been elected and new councils go live from 1 April.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

You wait a while and two Surrey questions come along at once! One of the potential unintended consequences of today’s announcement is to leave Surrey in the slightly discomfiting position of being in an experimental cohort with a sample size of one—the one county being reorganised under this legislation. We all know why: it is because the Conservative-run Surrey county council begged the Government to put it on this rollercoaster with no known destination and, as it turns out today, with legally slightly shonky rails. Do the legal concerns that the Secretary of State has expressed today also relate to Surrey? If Surrey is affected by those legal concerns, what faith should my residents have that this experiment is not going to come fully off the rails before 1 April 2027?

[Angela Rayner]

I gently say that, for me, this is not an experiment; it is about working with local areas to deliver local services and improve on them. The review does not include the reorganisation of Surrey. As I said, councillors have been elected already, and the new councils go live on 1 April 2027. I hope that Surrey, with the two new unitary councils, will be able to deliver across the area on vital services, like adult social care, transport and those good services that people want to see across their area, and I will work with them to deliver that.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. We saw how the previous Labour Government imposed the cabinet structure on councils up and down the country. True devolution puts the power of choice of local governance methods in the hands of local people and, therefore, an approach that does not allow local councils to change to that committee system is the wrong approach and is not devolution. The Government cannot simply claim to devolve power while denying local areas the ability to keep the system they have chosen or wish to choose. I ask the Minister to clarify whether councils will be able to stay as a committee system and whether she will consider allowing other councils to change to the committee system should the local council team and local people wish to do so.

Lords amendment 37 would introduce a national strategy to support and expand parish and town councils. The Government say that that should be left entirely to local decision making, but this is not about removing local choice; it is about whether communities are even given the opportunity to understand what a parish council could mean. Without a national strategy, there is no direction, support or momentum to expand parish governance.

I have seen the power of parish councils in my community and constituency. Parish councils give residents a direct voice. They ensure that development works with communities, not against them. At a time when councils are becoming larger and more distant, parish councils keep power close to the people. One of the most compelling things about parish councils is that, where they have a local neighbourhood plan, 25% of the community infrastructure levy goes directly to the local community. Outside parish councils, that figure drops to 15%, which is held centrally.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I congratulate the Conservative Lords on insisting on amendment 37. However, I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State might have a word with the Surrey Heath Conservative Association, which has campaigned vigorously against parish councils in my area. It has described parish councils as gravy trains that allow most councillors to do very little—if anything at all—and collect a financial allowance.

However, setting that inconsistency to one side, in the context of local government reorganisation in Surrey, where we will have a new West Surrey of 650,000 people that will be bankrupt on day one, parish councils actually represent an incredible receptacle through which to move key local assets so that they can be secured for the future. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Zöe Franklin]

I could not agree more. Across the country, we can see that giving parish councils power and community assets allows them to look after those assets for the community. I am a massive advocate for that approach and for town and parish councils generally.

One final area of Government reluctance on devolving power is around Lords amendment 41 on the agent of change principle. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music. I have seen in my own community the wonderful power that live music venues have to bring people together. The amendment is so crucial to protect community assets and live music venues. Can the Minister advise on whether the guidance that she mentioned will be statutory or non-statutory? We Liberal Democrats will vote to support our Lords colleagues.

I want to end, in a spirit of positivity, on what we can do when we work collaboratively. Lords amendment 80, which my colleague Lord Foster of Bath co-sponsored with the Government, genuinely shows what we can do when we work across Benches to improve legislation. Good ideas do not belong to one side, and the amendment reflects that.

I will end on my central point: the Bill asks us to believe that it delivers devolution, but devolution cannot simply mean the limited powers that Ministers are willing to relinquish, while so much remains controlled by Whitehall. If we do not trust local communities and their elected leaders with real authority, real decision making and real agency, we have not really devolved power at all. That is why these Lords amendments matter, and it is why we will oppose the Government’s attempts to defeat them.

Local Government Reorganisation: South-east

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of local government reorganisation in the South East.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to the hon. and right hon. Members from across the House who will be contributing to this debate.

Local government is the tier of government that is most closely woven into people’s everyday lives. It is where national decisions become local realities: the roads we drive on, the services that support vulnerable families, the planning decisions that shape our towns and the community spaces that bring people together. It is for that reason that I support the principle of devolution. Decisions should, wherever possible, be taken by those closest to the communities they directly affect. But as is so often the case in public policy, the difficulty is not the principle, it is the implementation.

In Surrey, implementation is already raising serious concerns about scale, financial sustainability and a process that has moved forward with a troubling democratic deficit. This debate concerns the south-east of England more generally, but colleagues from across the region will speak about how reorganisation is affecting their own counties and communities. My perspective naturally comes from Surrey, where those concerns are already becoming clear. Size, remoteness and financial fragility are among them, and we must add to that mix the glaring democratic deficit.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I spoke to him beforehand, so he knows what I am going to say. I want to support him—that is the reason why I am here—and I want to give an example that happened in my constituency and which is similar to what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Two councils, Ards and North Down, were merged together, and one issue that was put forward as a “must do” was the financial and administrative savings with two councils being able to do the job of one, but that did not work out. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while efforts to streamline governance should be welcomed, more action must be taken to provide adequate financial support to cover one-off reorganisation costs without compromising the delivery of services such as, for example, waste services?

[Dr Pinkerton]

As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful, sagacious intervention. He will discover, if he is able to stay for the rest of my speech, that I will cover those fundamental topics: the funding of the transitional moment, and the certainty that joining two authorities together does produce long-term savings and the modelling that those assumptions rely on.

In late 2024, Surrey was placed on a fast-tracked path towards local government reorganisation. That process was triggered when the leadership of Surrey county council requested that the Government cancel the local elections that were scheduled for May 2025. That request was granted, and the result is that councillors elected in 2021 will now remain in office until April 2027, two years beyond their original mandate, and oversee one of the most significant and consequential restructurings of local government in our county’s history. The idea of cancelling elections has, more recently, fallen out of favour with both the Government and, as I understand it, the Conservative party. Sadly, for those of us in Surrey, that realisation came only after the Surrey Conservatives pulled the trigger on the policy that the Government had placed before them. Whatever one’s view of reorganisation, it is difficult to argue that such a profound change should proceed without giving residents the opportunity to pass judgment on those leading it. Local government reform should be carried out with democratic consent, not in its absence.

Alongside those democratic concerns sit serious financial questions. Over the past decade, several councils across Surrey pursued large-scale commercial property investments in an attempt to generate income as central Government funding declined. In some cases, those strategies have left councils carrying extremely substantial debt. The six councils that could form the proposed West Surrey council—Woking, Spelthorne, Guildford, Runnymede, Surrey Heath and Waverley—collectively carry around £4.5 billion-worth of debt. In my constituency, the then Conservative-led Surrey Heath borough council speculated wildly on commercial property between 2016 and 2019. It spent £113 million on a shopping centre with a knackered roof and a former department store riddled with asbestos. At the time, those purchases were described by the council’s then chief executive as “investments” that would help to secure the council’s long-term financial viability as Government funding declined. In practice, it amounted to a Conservative-run borough council borrowing heavily on the financial markets and through the public works loan board in the hope of defying the gravity of the cuts coming from Conservative central Government. Today, those assets are estimated to be worth around £30 million—not the original £113 million. They are operationally loss-making and together risk bankrupting my borough before we even reach unitarisation next year. Surrey Heath cannot afford to keep them but cannot afford to sell them because selling would crystallise the losses it has incurred.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is eloquently explaining the serious financial situations that many potential unitary councils will be in. They will be saddled with such financial burdens that it will be difficult for them to deliver the services that local residents need. A three-year financial forecast for East Surrey has identified a potential £35 million deficit. The Whitehall funding settlement does not currently reflect the real cost pressures that such councils will experience. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour needs to fix a broken funding system and not leave residents paying the price?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Labour may not have broken the local government system in Surrey but there is now an obligation to ensure that people who live in Surrey are not faced with the bankruptcy of their new unitary authorities on day one of those authorities’ existence, especially given the vital services that they will be delivering.

In neighbouring Woking—where there was another Conservative-run council in those fateful years—the gravitational denialism was even wilder. During the same period, Woking borough council accumulated debts that now stand at approximately £2.1 billion. It is said that that debt is so large that it directly impacts the Government’s borrowing capacity in international markets. Versions of that story are repeated across much of west Surrey: it is a pattern of behaviour that has, frankly, never been properly investigated. Its impact has been compounded by systemic failures in the auditing of local government accounts.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman astounded, as I am, that the majority of that debt is with the public works loan board, which sits underneath the Treasury. Where was the Treasury when that debt was being allowed to accumulate?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to talk about a systemic failure, as I see it, in the power that section 151 officers of borough councils have in effectively signing off the ability of a council to repay debts when accumulated. That is a power that I think may be far in excess of the skills that they have. After all, there is no separate mechanism to determine—from the Treasury or from the PWLB, for example—the ability of a council to fulfil its obligations.

It is therefore entirely reasonable that residents ask a simple question: why should communities that played no role in accumulating that debt now be expected to inherit its consequences through a newly-created local authority? If reorganisation is intended to create a stable future for local government, it would be deeply concerning for any new authority to begin life already burdened with billions of pounds in inherited liabilities. I ask the Minister what assurances the Government can provide that any future West Surrey authority will begin life next year on a financially sustainable footing? It cannot be right that my residents face the realistic prospect of their new unitary authority being bankrupt or effectively bankrupt on day one of its existence, given the critical services that councils are expected to provide.

The scale of borrowing in Surrey also raises wider questions about financial oversight in local government—this is where I will answer the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb). Local authorities rely on statutory finance officers—section 151 officers—to ensure financial prudence, yet the scale of borrowing undertaken by some councils suggests that existing safeguards have not always been sufficient to prevent high-risk commercial strategies. This debate is often framed in terms of protecting section 151 officers from excessive political pressure, and that may well be necessary, but it is also true that section 151 officers hold significant authority within council structures and must themselves be subject to proper scrutiny and accountability—something that is often lacking.

Councillors very often perceive that they are not allowed to overly scrutinise 151 officers because of members’ codes of conduct. Will the Government therefore consider whether additional safeguards or oversight mechanisms are needed to prevent similar situations arising again in the future, particularly as councils become larger, their finances become more complex and the risks become even greater.

There are also important questions about the size and structure of the authorities now being proposed. Under current proposals, the new West Surrey council would serve approximately 657,000 residents. By comparison, the average non-metropolitan unitary authority in England serves around 265,000 residents, with most serving fewer than 300,000. Authorities of the scale we are talking about today risk weakening democratic accountability, diluting local knowledge and making decision-making feel more distant from the communities they are meant to serve.

Ministers have suggested that having larger authorities will deliver financial efficiencies. In support of that argument, the Government have relied on modelling produced by the County Councils Network, which happens to be chaired by the very same leader of Surrey county council who locked Surrey into this fast-track pathway in the first place. Despite several Parliamentary questions seeking clarification, it remains unclear what independent modelling the Government have undertaken to substantiate those claimed savings. I ask the Minister again: have the Government undertaken their own economic modelling of the projected financial benefits of local government reorganisation in Surrey? If so, will that modelling now be published publicly?

Finally, we should recognise that all of this is unfolding while councils continue to deliver vital services under considerable strain. In my constituency, the concerns most frequently raised with me relate to special educational needs and disabilities provision. Hundreds of families contact me about problems with education, health and care plans—incorrect names, incorrect details, long delays and support packages—that simply do not meet the needs of the children concerned.

For the past three years, Surrey has recorded the highest number of SEND tribunal appeals nationally. At the same time, residents regularly contact me about deteriorating road surfaces, potholes causing vehicle damage and wider infrastructural pressures. These are not abstract policy debates; they are real challenges affecting families who rely on local government services every single day.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for setting out with such exemplary clarity the challenges of going ahead with local government reorganisation, particularly on the timescales that have been set. He represents a Surrey constituency, while I represent a constituency in West Sussex, where we are currently awaiting the outcome of the Government consultation on whether the new unitary will be a single unitary authority covering all of West Sussex, second in size only to Birmingham city council, or our preferred option of two future west Sussex unitary councils.

Does he not agree that constituents need local decision-making and for there to be accountability, so that when pothole or SEND provision fails, constituents have a close relationship with their councils and can get the answers that they deserve?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I feel every sympathy with my hon. Friend’s campaign for two unitary authorities; I was very supportive of there being three unitary authorities for Surrey, and we were sadly denied that. That would have delivered the much more local accountability to which my hon. Friend refers. I wish her good luck in her campaign for two unitary authorities, and for the local accountability which, as she recognises, is so important for her constituents.

There is also a wider concern that I hear frequently from the voluntary and charitable sector. Many charities organise themselves around existing local authority boundaries. They rely on those relationships for funding, partnerships and the delivery of services. Local government reorganisation risks sweeping away that social infrastructure —boundaries change, funding streams shift and relationships built up over years can disappear overnight—but this is happening at precisely the moment that charities may be more important than ever, helping communities to pick up the pieces during a period of institutional upheaval and ensuring that vulnerable people do not fall through the gaps that inevitably appear during major restructuring.

Against that backdrop, local government reorganisation is creating substantial additional workload for councils and their staff, many of whom are already working under tight financial constraints and significant workforce pressures. Local government reform should strengthen local institutions, not weaken them. It should produce councils that are financially stable, democratically accountable and close enough to the communities they serve to understand their needs. Those are the standards that fundamentally matter, and the ones against which people across Surrey and the south east will judge the outcome of this process.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Pinkerton]

I thank the Minister for the seriousness with which she has addressed many of the points raised today. I also thank everyone who has spoken; we had excellent interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), and from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) gave a really excellent speech. Like me, he questioned the financial underpinnings and assumptions that sit underneath this process altogether. He also raised important points about urban-rural tension. I slightly agree with the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds): I think the reorganisation will place greater pressure on rural communities than on urban ones, but we will see. The point is that nobody has certainty and there are fears in both directions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) spoke powerfully about transitional funding arrangements, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster), my constituency neighbour, spoke knowledgeably and passionately about inherited debt—reckless borrowing from the past—but also about the important point of personal responsibility and indeed culpability. I would absolutely support him, and indeed the Minister, in taking that point still further forward.

Lastly, I thank the spokesperson for the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), as well as the Minister once again. Thank you all.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of local government reorganisation in the South East.

Oral Answers to Questions

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

Birmingham city council has strengthened its financial position, and its balanced budget proposal for ’26-27 is a significant milestone. That has been made possible by the Government’s funding reforms, which increase Birmingham’s core spending power by 45% from ’24-25 to ’28-29, because we recognise that councils should be funded in line with poverty and deprivation.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

The Minister has talked about the protections afforded by local plans, but in areas such as Surrey Heath and Guildford, which have experienced a near-doubling of housing targets, those protections have been stripped away according to the tilted balance approach. What protections will the Minister put in place as at least a temporary measure to protect our communities from speculative development?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Local plans that are up to date provide protection from speculative development. Local authorities have to ensure that they are meeting housing delivery targets; that is an essential part of the system. Again, I will happily respond if the hon. Gentleman writes to me with further detail.

Local Government Finances: Surrey

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

The amount of money that local government authorities have, such as Surrey county council and the new east Surrey and west Surrey unitary councils, has a huge day-to-day impact on residents. It determines the provision of services and the protection of our communities, and it is essential to the many businesses and voluntary organisations in the area through both policy and the many direct contacts held with local service providers.

We heard again this week claims that the Government are boosting funding for councils, but the reality does not live up to the rhetoric. Surrey county council’s budget is being reduced by over £50 million for the next financial year. Surrey is negatively impacted more than any other area despite increased demand and escalating costs just to maintain existing service levels.

The Government’s calculations simply do not provide enough money for statutory services such as adult social care provision—and we all know about the urgent action that is needed to improve the special educational needs system and support available for children, schools and families. Instead of investing in services, the Government are slashing central grant funding for Surrey. Despite that, Surrey county council has managed to put forward a balanced budget, thanks to hard work led by Councillor David Lewis, but the situation as it stands is unsustainable, and the risks are mounting. The Government need to act.

In addition to the counterproductive funding decisions being made by the Government, we have the added complication of local government reform. Changing the structures of local authorities is a complicated matter. It requires changes in contracts, staffing, location and every other aspect of running a large and complicated organisation, yet we have no information on how the transition will be funded. It cannot possibly come from existing budgets if services are to be maintained, given the situation I have outlined. There is no clarity on what will happen to staff during the transition. Many jobs are at risk, and some have already sought new, more stable opportunities elsewhere. All face additional pressures as a result of reorganisation, and the risk is that important decisions will be delayed, leaving Surrey stuck in stasis.

Beyond transition, we must look at the foundation of the new unitaries. We all know the concerns about local authority debt. Some councils, such as Runnymede borough council, which covers a big chunk of my constituency, were able to operate a commercial strategy with sound financial management, meaning that the risk of high debt was mitigated by clear controls and revenue provisions. However, they are the exception. Too many local authorities borrowed heavily without the knowledge or systems to manage the risk, and none did so more disastrously than Woking borough council.

Given the size of the authority, the failures at Woking are unparalleled, both in terms of the scale of the debt and the failure of financial management and scrutiny, yet, despite announcements that the Government are proceeding with local government reform, there is still no clear plan about what to do with the Woking debt. In October last year, the Government announced debt relief totalling half a billion pounds for Woking borough council in 2026-27, but that still leaves more than £1.5 billion of debt, and under the Government’s plans, that may shortly become the liability of residents across west Surrey.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving an excellent speech that has really drawn out the pressures on his constituents, as well as on mine and on those of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). West Surrey unitary authority as a whole faces the prospect of beginning its life with £4.5 billion of debt. The hon. Gentleman raised a very important point about the vital public services that need to be paid for. My constituents are concerned that when west Surrey unitary authority comes into existence, those public services could falter and fail on day one, and I am sure his constituents are concerned, too. Through the hon. Gentleman, I ask the Minister for reassurance that that will not happen and that some kind of financial package will be offered to my constituents and those of the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although it sounds like it was more for the Minister than for me. He has given the Minister time to prepare for his inevitable question, which I hope she addresses in her speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

My hon. Friend is a lot harder in his language on this issue and I very much respect him for that. At the very least, we need to have a well thought-out plan and strategy for what is going to happen with the block of debt. There is a variety of different options for how it can be managed and dealt with. Here is the fundamental problem that my constituents—service providers, charities and businesses—raise with me and are really worried about: that decisions made in a neighbouring local authority, which they have had no involvement in or dealings with, will have a material impact on them when the west Surrey unitary authority is set up.

I realise that the scale of the debt is a huge and complicated problem. I do not envy the Minister in trying to find a way through. I am glad that we have this forum for debate this afternoon, but we need to have these debates and discussions so that the west Surrey unitary authority—and, frankly, others that are being set up that face similar problems—can be dealt with fairly and so we know what is coming down the tracks. My residents are not going to be punished for decisions made in other authorities that they never had the chance to vote for. That is fundamentally unfair.

By the way, in some ways this is not something that we are unused to in my part of Surrey. We sit on the penumbra—just on the outskirts—outside London, and there are plenty of policies that come from this awful Mayor of London that affect us in a whole range of negative ways and which we do not have the ability to vote for. Unfortunately, this situation is far and away the most substantial we have faced, and there is so much fear, concern and uncertainty about what may be coming down the track.

Of course there is a huge irony in all this, because Surrey is one of the largest contributors to the Exchequer in our country. Cutting local authority funding, and impacting services and the many contracts that local authorities maintain, risks serious harm, not only locally in Surrey but to the national economy. Let us consider some examples.

If the Government do not effectively fund local highways, that will lead to deteriorating road conditions, resulting in more temporary emergency repair works. We all know the nightmare that that causes, with delays, costs of millions in lost work hours and missed appointments, and longer transit times for goods. That damages the Surrey economy and, by virtue, the national economy. If the Government do not effectively fund adult social care, that will cause bed blocking in hospitals and pressure on health services, impeding effective recovery and care.

If the Government do not effectively fund planning services, that leads to lengthy delays in assessing applications for homes and businesses and, crucially, risks enabling rogue development, which blights Surrey and other areas. Although planning enforcement remains a discretionary service, there is a real risk that it is increasingly seen as a “nice to have” and not an essential tool to protect communities. Evidence shows that enforcement rates continue to fall in the face of funding pressures. Inappropriate and illegal development—people essentially cocking a snoot at the planning system, and building anyway—is a serious problem in my constituency and in places across the country, and my residents are rightly incensed. Critical to stopping this activity and turning the situation around are not only stronger enforcement powers—for which I have been campaigning for years—but, at the very least, the resources to do proper planning enforcement.

[Dr Pinkerton]

In my area—perhaps in the hon. Member’s, too—we have had increased housing targets of up to 150% as a consequence of this Government’s decision. I understand their commitment to house building, but such targets open up the floodgates to opportunistic development—development that is unplanned. It requires incredible expertise in planning departments to ensure that such development is appropriate and that there is enforcement where necessary. Those are exactly the kind of services that risk being cut at just the time when we face the greatest pressure. Does he agree that we need some kind of financial resolution to ensure that these services are continued into the future?

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Member for raising housing targets and planning in local authorities. The majority of my constituency is covered by Runnymede local authority and, I think, roughly a third by Elmbridge local authority. In the Runnymede authority, there is a local plan, so there is no risk of the opportunistic development that he mentions. In the Elmbridge local authority, there is no local plan, so there is opportunistic development. Applications are under way that are causing huge concern to local residents in the Cobham, Downside, Stoke D’Abernon and Oxshott area in particular. In fact, at the end of last year, I wrote to the Secretary of State along with councillors from Elmbridge to raise our concerns about the fact that, because of local government reorganisation, again Surrey has found itself stuck in stasis.

There is a local plan in Elmbridge. Can that be put together by the time we hit the election of the shadow authorities? When you think about it, the term itself is an awful one—try knocking on doors and asking for support for the shadow authorities! What is Elmbridge to do? Do people living in the Elmbridge part of my constituency effectively have to wait a year and a half, until we have the full authority going when the shadow authority transfers over, before we can have some sensible progress when it comes to getting plans in place to protect people from opportunistic development? That is before we even talk about the scale of the housing targets, whose spread is disproportionate in Elmbridge; and I will ask the Minister later about the absence of a commitment for a Surrey mayor, who would in part be responsible for planning decisions. I hope Members can see that it is all a bit of a mess, and my constituents and local businesses are stuck in the middle.

No topic is more sensitive or concerning than where we find ourselves with special educational needs provision. We all know what happens when that is not fully funded. I welcome the work that the county council and Councillor Jonathan Hulley have been doing to improve transparency and engagement locally, really turning up the dial on what is happening for families and children with special educational needs, but ultimately we need national changes to services and support, and the funding to bring forward delivery. Without the local funding, the opportunities for children to reach their full potential are limited. It leads to failure demand, which is when services do not provide what is needed early on, thereby creating more demand in the system later, and that harms and limits children. That is notwithstanding all the pressures on families and siblings and on schools, which are going above and beyond to try to support those children.

The Government know these risks—I know the Minister knows and appreciates them. I hope the Government also know that it is a false economy to cut costs right now. The resulting economic and social impact of not funding these essential services will be calamitous locally.

Of course, as night follows day, I fully expect Government Members and others to see this as an opportunity to blame the Conservative Government, and of course I acknowledge that local government has struggled as a result of difficult financial decisions over the years, but there really is no more capacity for cuts. That is why we need to address the issue now. I want to use this debate as a plea to move beyond any sort of blame game or political posturing and work together to address the real risks that we face and establish a sound financial basis for effective local authority finances.

Given the clear risks, more than anything else we now need certainty. Residents and businesses need to know that they will not be shackled with high costs resulting from other local authorities’ poor financial management. Businesses and charities that have contracts and partnerships need certainty about their future. We all need to know that there will be adequate funding so that we all retain access to the essential services that local authorities provide. That cannot wait until after the May elections. Our voters need to know what authorities they are voting councillors into. They need clarity over the scope of the authorities’ powers. This debate is the Minister’s opportunity to answer the questions of 1.5 million Surrey residents.

How will local authority debt be dealt with? Will central Government ensure effective funding, or do Ministers intend to rely on constant tax rises despite the cost of living pressures? These are council tax rises—taxes on working people, as she and the Government, I assume, would define them. Will we have a mayor in Surrey? If so, can we have the details? How can we prevent the long-term risks if the Government continue to prioritise short-term funding cuts? For once—just for once—will this Government put Surrey first?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are already working with all the authorities involved. That is why we put in place £500 million for Woking local authority. We have been working with it historically, and we will continue working with it to resolve this. I cannot give a timeframe, in part because resolving this requires all parties involved to come together to understand the scale of the problem and, critically, how we can work together, using the levers available to us. I hope that the hon. Gentleman hears that there is a shared commitment to resolving this, and we will work with the constituent local authorities to get a resolution.

[Dr Pinkerton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make a little progress, if I may. I acknowledge the pressure that social care is creating for the local government finance system; that is squeezing vital services. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned planning, but we see this issue across services that are not non-statutory. Ultimately, the core thing that local government can deliver is effective services that build our communities and hold them together, and we all want to preserve that. That is why we are driving through pretty punchy reforms across children’s social care, for example. That is the biggest transformation in a generation; there will be an historic £2.4 billion of investment over the multi-year settlement period in the Families First partnership programmes. We are building a national care service based on quality care, backed by £4.6 billion of additional funding available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26.

We will bring forward a full White Paper on special educational needs and disabilities, because we understand that there is pressure, and the impact that has on local government finances. We must find a way to deliver the best possible services for children and families who need support, and must do so in a sustainable way.

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am terribly grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She has been extremely open in her responses so far. One side effect of the financial pressures that Surrey faces as a consequence of special educational needs is the so-called safety valve agreement. That has had consequences for a proposed school in my constituency, Frimley Oak Academy, for which money is designated. The Department for Education agrees that it should go ahead, but as a result of the safety valve agreement, Surrey cannot go ahead with it, because of that school’s ongoing operational costs. That is an example of financial constriction having a material effect on the provision of a vital educational offering. Will the Minister perhaps take that point away, and inquire whether the situation could be freed up to ensure that the school can come to my constituency?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am happy to take that point away, and either my Department or the DFE will write back and provide an answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Let me address the question about devolution and the devolution process, and the move towards a mayor. We are absolutely committed to devolution. I have spoken to the leader of Surrey council and made it clear that we want to move forward. For us, the first step is creating a strong strategic authority that is empowered to start driving economic change and can bring constituent authorities together for strategic decision making. We want to move forward with that at pace, so we will work with the new unitaries, and with partners on the ground, to build a strong economic footprint, and build the institution that allows us to move to the next stage of devolution.

Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. On behalf of everyone, I thank you for the excellent way in which you dealt with the suspensions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this important debate on local government reorganisation. He made the case on behalf of his constituents very well, and I was listening to what he said.

I also listened to the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) and for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). Many Members spoke up for the identity of their constituents and the culture and history of their constituencies. It is important that we are able to do that in this House, and I congratulate all Members on doing so. I will try as best I can to respond to the points they raised.

I will set out why we are reorganising local government and why it matters. Nearly a third of the population—about 20 million people—live in areas with two-tier local government, which splits functions and services across county and district councils, slows down decisions as different councils try to agree and leads to fragmented public services. It is confusing for citizens in terms of who does what and who is responsible.

My constituency is in the Wirral, which was reorganised six years before I was born. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said, over time, the Wirral has come to have its own identity, but people still have identities from long before. The county of Cheshire, which is near my constituency, still has a strong identity—as you will know, Ms McVey. It was reorganised in 2009, but, while the unitary authorities have grown in different ways, that Cheshire identity is still there.

This is a continuing journey, as Members have said. In the area of the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire, Leicestershire county council reported that 140,000 people called the wrong council when trying to get help and support. We can all do better than that, and I want to work with local government to make that happen. We want to simplify local government and have single-tier, unitary councils everywhere, making stronger local councils that are equipped to create the conditions for growth, improve public services and empower communities. This is not a bureaucratic exercise; it is the biggest reform to local government in 50 years. We want to make the most of that opportunity. Councils need to play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and making sure that everyone everywhere is part of our national growth story. Reorganisation can help to do that: with one council in charge in each area, we will see quicker decisions, grow our towns and cities and connect people to opportunity.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who made an important contribution, asked what the net effect would be. It is different for each area, which makes it hard to forecast, but I want to point out another issue. We are currently seeing spiking costs in particular areas, including SEND, as he will know well, children’s care, temporary accommodation and homelessness. I would be wary of drawing hard and fast conclusions because of the cost environment that we are in. We will have a number of opportunities to discuss the finances of local councils on the Floor of the House in the months to come, but I would be happy to discuss those issues with him. Local government finance is complicated but very important, and I noted his strong contribution.

Particularly in these areas, we want public services to be designed for people’s lives rather than in council silos. Bringing housing, public health and social care together under one roof means that one council can see the full picture and spot problems early. That is very important in the case of children’s care, where we want to take a preventive approach and improve parenting support.

Strong local government is the only way that we can really tackle deprivation and poverty in the round. People living in neighbourhoods with high levels of deprivation especially deserve public services that will help them to reach their full potential. Rather than multiple councils with confusing and inefficient structures, one council will take responsibility for making sure that its area turns a corner.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

As the Minister knows, in Surrey, which is going through a process of reorganisation, two unitary authorities have been selected, and each will cover more than 600,000 people. There is a great concern that that is too big or will feel too remote. An added complication is that, with potentially £4.5 billion of debt in the new West Surrey, which my constituency is in, many of my residents will end up paying a very high cost for debt that they had no part in accumulating. That may directly affect the very public services that the Minister has just mentioned. Will she speak directly to my residents and tell them why they should be paying for debt they did not accrue, and offer them reassurance that they will get the public services they deserve?

Oral Answers to Questions

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee for that question. We remain steadfast in our commitment to the promises in our manifesto to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. Despite the noises off from the usual naysayers, the imminent publication of our ambitious draft commonhold and leasehold reform Bill will be the beginning of the end for that system, which has tainted the dream of home ownership for so many households across the country. As my hon. Friend knows, this is a large, incredibly complex and technical piece of legislation, and I hope she and the rest of the House would agree that it is worth a brief extension to ensure that we get things right and avoid a deficient Act, such as the one that the previous Government left us with, which we are now having to fix through primary legislation.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

May I take the Minister back to the circumstances of constituents who are living in retirement communities? I have a community of constituents who live at Mytchett Heath, owned by Cognatum Estates. They are experiencing very high service charges, and I have written to the Minister about that before. They are made nervous by talk of delay. They are often on a fixed income with fixed-income pensions. They are getting older, and they want to enjoy their retirement in peace. Can the Minister offer them any reassurance today?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman has written to me about that issue and he has, if I may politely say, generated a huge number of questions on it. We have met about it on one occasion, I think, and I am more than happy to have another conversation with him to try to get to the root of his concerns.