Local Government Reorganisation: South-east

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.

Local government is an area of great interest to me. I did my master’s dissertation on models for English devolution; I have worked at the UK’s leading think-tank on devolution; for 17 years I worked as an adviser to local authorities, and I have served in local government in a county council and a district council, including almost a decade as a council leader. From 2015 onwards, I have also been involved in various devolution proposals for Sussex in one way or another.

I say all that because, despite that background, I still cannot get my head around what the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is trying to achieve with all this. That is despite talking to the director at No. 10, special advisers and Ministers on this policy area. In fact, the more I delve into it, the more opaque it becomes.

My understanding is that this reform all kicked off with Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves—two people without any background in local government—making a deal: more money now, in return for local government reform. The only reason they thought it would deliver any results was that the County Councils Network had, for many years, been putting forward a document that seemed to set out a case that there would be financial savings if county councils were merged at the unitary level.

Those figures relied on population sizes of roughly half a million people—that figure is critical; I re-read all the statements made by local government Ministers on this before this debate, and it is a figure that has been repeatedly stated and was consistently pushed for the better part of a year. The reason was that, when we look at the County Councils Network figures, the £2 billion savings it talked about delivering, which it presented as if it were an annual statement—it is not, it is over five years—are achievable only when dealing with population sizes of 500,000 or greater.

The problem, when we come down to it, is this: for the Labour party, that is completely unelectable. We have pockets of support within the south east, but we do not have larger footprints. With the politics unravelling around this question, we have started to talk about smaller sizes for unitary authorities, but here we run into a problem: unitary authorities do not save money. Merging existing councils saves money. We could merge districts together—that would save money. We could merge counties together—what an idea!—and that would save money. We could merge existing unitaries together—that would save money. However, when we start creating unitaries, we are merging two different tiers together; if that is a smaller footprint than existing upper-tier authorities, it will always end up costing more money than the alternative.

We now have a proposal that will not deliver politically or financially. I will return to the finances in due course, because the situation is much worse than people think it is. This proposal is somehow still on the table long beyond the original document that set this all out. If there are other figures on this then, like the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), I would be delighted to see them. I have asked for them repeatedly. However, when Governments do not release data, we come to the conclusion that they do not have data that backs up their case. The evidence base here is very hard to find.

The other argument that comes up very frequently is that two-tier areas are too complicated and people do not know who runs what. I have lived in two-tier areas essentially my entire life, apart from when I was at university, and that is not something I have come across, despite being in roles where I might expect to come across it very regularly. If we say tiers are a problem, adding mayors across the country and encouraging people to set up third-tier authorities increases the total number of tiers at the local government level. It adds to the complexity rather than decreasing it.

We hear bizarre arguments about issues such as waste collection and waste disposal authorities, as if the idea that someone collects the bins and someone gets rid of them is complicated. What particularly grates my gears about that argument is that there are many unitary authorities that are not waste disposal authorities. Take the Thames valley waste authority as an example—take Greater London—take Greater Manchester: in all those areas, waste is collected that is then disposed of on a larger footprint. There are many such areas where the powers do not perfectly align, and people manage to get through them without any great deal of controversy.

The argument for much of this change, particularly with the mayoralties, was that we were would get wider public sector reform, which would deliver astounding savings. The problem with that argument is that the footprints that the change was supposed to create would align the mayoralties, the police authorities and the integrated care boards, so that we would get all the services in one area and they could deliver efficiencies. However, we are now talking about creating police authorities on a larger footprint than the existing mayoral footprint, so the two would no longer correspond. There will be a much more complicated structure now, with deputy mayors sitting on different boards in relation to it. Similarly, the ICBs have had to expand, so they no longer go along with the devolution footprint.

The only form of public sector reform that we can now carry out around this process is reform of local government on its own, and that will not deliver the projected savings. Most of the areas that a district council deals with and most of the areas that a county council deals with do not interface in any meaningful way when it comes to savings. If they did, the County Councils Network report, which it paid PwC to produce in order to create the strongest possible case for reform, would have put that forward. Instead, the report solely states that savings can be made by reducing senior officer numbers. As anyone who has been involved in the sector knows, many of those posts no longer exist in the numbers that they did at the time that the PwC report was formed. At this point, such figures simply do not exist.

The only people I can find who have any difficulty with the idea of two-tier areas are civil servants and politicians from unitary authority areas. One might imagine what other people might feel if we went to their areas and tried to impose our culture upon them. There has also been the claim that these reformed authorities will be engines for economic growth and housing delivery, but let us think about it in this way: I was the leader of a local authority that delivered over four times our Government-assessed numbers for housing, whereas—unfortunately—Mid Sussex district council, which was previously under Conservative control, often did not even have a core strategy for that entire period, never mind delivering any actual housing numbers.

We are about to create unitaries where the areas that deliver large volumes of housing, and that need such housing at an affordable rate, will be swamped by rural communities. What do we think will be the dominant factor in these new authorities, where the politics is controlled by rural communities? Will it be a focus on economic development? Will it be a focus on housing delivery? Or will it be stamping down on those two things, as we have seen time and time again? This plan does not deliver on the Government’s missions; it kills them off, as many Members have tried to point out in recent times. The reality is that demography is destiny, and rural communities will have control over those authorities.

Returning to the issue of finance, in my area the actual cost of the merger is estimated as three times greater than the estimate put forward so far. In fact, even on the most optimistic assumptions, on these footprints no savings would be delivered until the end of the next Parliament—but it is more likely that there would not be any saving at all. In fact, the situation gets even worse than that. Who knows when most of the country’s leisure centres were built? I will give Members a clue—it was in the early ’70s. What happened in the early ’70s? We merged all the district councils, and they looked at their accounts and said, “I am not handling this over to the next council”, and they got busy spending.

We can see that in the country currently. The reality is that, until the protections come in with the new authority, people will be getting money out the door. Debt is going up, budgetary decisions are being postponed and savings are being put off in order to invest in local communities while there is one last chance to do that. Over the next 12 months, section 114 notices are far more likely than in any preceding period.

I will move on to the issue of democracy. Resident satisfaction surveys of local authorities have consistently shown a positive correlation between the perception of a local authority and the size of that authority. It is not the other way around, as though suddenly authorities delivered much more effectively when they got to a much greater footprint—why would that be the case? More remote Government is not necessarily going to make people any happier.

Currently, the average size of authorities in the UK is seven times larger than not the European average, but the authorities in the European country with the next largest—and this programme will make our authorities 14 times larger than those. Why are we such an outlier? Why are councils in Europe, which have far greater powers and far greater money than we do, apparently perfectly capable of running their local areas, while in our areas we have to bring things up to a central Government level? Again, I think that the civil service has far more to do with this programme than any actual rational thought does.

The changes will also prevent people from having any meaningful relationship with councillors. In the UK, we are far less likely than in any other part of Europe to have independent councillors. The reason is that with footprints of this size we cannot build a meaningful relationship with a councillor. The distance cuts people off from their democracy and any sense of control, and increases their scepticism. Conversations about area committees are frankly meaningless; anyone who has actually worked with those structures knows they do not replace meaningful representation.

The fundamental problem we will run into is geography. When we strive to get population sizes in rural areas, we come up with enormous geographies; for my patch, we are most likely talking about an area in excess of 50 miles wide. Greater London is just over 30 miles wide. What common interests can exist in that footprint? What common services? What common identity? We will end up with competition between the different communities in those areas, and policy will be driven by those communities whose voices are heard loudest in whatever administration is in control. That will, again, mean that the rural beats out the urban. Urban communities such as mine, which includes some of the most deprived parts of the country—certainly in the south-east, at least—will lose out as a direct result of the restructure.

There are 71 Labour constituencies that trusted us at the last election, but that will see their quality of life decline as a direct result of the policy as well. When we look at the numbers, it might well be that if the Labour party, sacrificed those 71 constituencies, it would never be in office again. I am sure that Opposition Members would be delighted; it is why I thought they would be pushing the policy, not the Members on the Labour Benches. Talk to any Labour party organiser and they will say that the policy undermines our organising model. They are up in arms.

Most Labour Governments in the last century would not have happened had there been a reform such as this. We are arguing for a policy that no longer reflects the principles on which it was first brought together. It no longer reflects the same goals: it will not save us money, it will be more remote and it will undermine the deprived communities that this Government are allegedly in place to serve. It is clear that the advice given to Ministers in MHCLG is poor; we have seen that in just one month, with fair funding miscalculations that took place, and we have seen that with the elections, with the conclusions that we now all have to deal with.

Having been through the detail of the policy over and over again, I cannot see any way that it is not another example of that poor advice.

[Alison Bennett]

I am very much appreciating and enjoying the hon. Member’s contribution to the debate. Can I suggest that, when it comes to getting local government in England on a sound financial footing, the real elephant in the room is putting social care on a financial basis so that councils can deliver decent social care to our communities?

[Peter Lamb]

There are three areas, and social care is one of them. The finances of upper-tier authorities have been totally compromised, initially by the costs of social care, where we have still not taken decisions all these years after the Dilnot review. We all know that social care is slowly bankrupting councils. Go to any single council presentation on local government finance—whether a unitary or upper-tier authority—and that is the thing that will be mentioned.

Then there is SEND, which again has absolutely crippled local authorities’ funding to the extent that we allowed them to keep it off their books because the cost would have bankrupted them. That has now been taken away from them to be covered centrally, so that is one less problem to deal with.

Lastly, there are the costs of temporary housing, which housing authorities, like the districts, are mandated to provide. They have no control over it, and are often dealing with the consequences of central Government decisions that move more people into the area and create that level of housing need. However, those costs ultimately stem from a failure of housing policy in this country.

Those are the three areas bankrupting local government. Despite the fact that local government started out as the most efficient part of the public sector and has become still more efficient since, taking sensible decisions to maintain its survival, it cannot deal with pressures that are not being dealt with centrally. If we deal with those three problems, local government finance problems will go away—but they are central Government’s problems to resolve, and we have not yet quite resolved them.

I accept that all that is in motion, but when I talk to people in local government, very few of them want this policy. The reality is the boundaries are most likely going to end up lasting for another half a century—just look at the pain we are going through now; we are not going to want to go through it all again. We should not be embarking on something that will last 50 years when we cannot publish the evidence base because it is so weak. A pause is now needed to reflect on these proposals. I will continue to argue more and more loudly for that, adding more and more things to the debate about the best outcome here. I say to Ministers, “You’ve inherited a mess from other people; it wasn’t of your making and I really wouldn’t jeopardise your careers seeing this through.”

Local Government Reorganisation

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and of course recognise that he is one of the finest constituency MPs in the House—it was a delight to campaign for him, and it is a pleasure to see him in his seat now. We have had this conversation before, and it is quite right that we continue to have it, but I do not agree with his analysis; there are savings that will derive from local government reorganisation, and it will also make the system simpler for local people to understand. However, I know that the debate will continue.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Building on the point made by the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), the £63 million of new capacity funding is a drop in the ocean compared with the real cost of LGR across the country. We are talking about councils having to merge workforces, IT contracts and outsourced contracts, none of which has been properly funded by central Government. These are authorities that are highly leveraged and do not have the reserves to pay for it. What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the true cost of local government reorganisation?

[Steve Reed]

I have announced additional funding. It is very unfair to describe it as a drop in the ocean, because it goes a long way towards supporting councils that need to go through local government reorganisation to remove anomalies, such as that people in two-tier areas have one council that is responsible for leaves above a drain and another that is responsible for leaves below a drain. If residents do not know which council to contact, it is very difficult for them to seek improvements in the services they are using, which is why it is so important that we continue with this process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I can provide the hon. Member with that assurance. I met my counterpart in Northern Ireland some time ago, and this prompts me to check with my private office and ensure that another meeting is scheduled for the near future.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

9. What steps he is taking to support high streets.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

The Government are taking action to revive our high streets after a decade and a half of neglect under the last Government. We are tackling vacant premises through high street rental auctions, driving local regeneration through £5.8 billion of Pride in Place funding, and bringing forward a high street strategy backed by at least £150 million of support for the areas that need it the most.

[Alison Bennett]

Burgess Hill in my Mid Sussex constituency has done everything asked of it by successive Governments. It is taking thousands of new houses, yet it has a high street and shopping centre that need redevelopment. Under the previous Conservative Government, a levelling-up fund bid was unsuccessful, and Labour has not supported it through the Pride in Place scheme. The Liberal Democrats want to give Burgess Hill the town centre that it so badly deserves. What support can the Minister offer for the regeneration of high streets and town centres, such as that in Burgess Hill, that are unlikely to qualify for Pride in Place funding?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The hon. Member is right to talk about the importance of high streets. They are a barometer of how people feel that their communities and the nation is doing. We are committed to reviving high streets, and that means reimagining high streets, and working with communities through our high-street strategy to empower them to do that. We have the high-street rental auction, which is a way that we can get vacant premises up and running, alongside £150 million that we have announced with the strategy, so that places are able to reshape their high streets and ensure that they work for their communities.

Local Government Reorganisation

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Today’s announcement raises three questions about waste, incompetence and trust in democracy.

First, on waste, councils across the country have already committed significant public money in good faith to preparing for these elections, which the Government repeatedly assured them would go ahead. Cancelling them at this late stage is not cost-free. Will the Secretary of State commit today to reimbursing councils in full for every pound spent as a result of these cancellations, or are local taxpayers now expected to pick up the bill for ministerial indecision?

Secondly, on incompetence, will the Minister—who repeatedly told hon. Members, including at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on 11 November and during oral questions in the Chamber on 24 November, that elections scheduled for May 2026 would go ahead—explain why a U-turn happened a few weeks later, in December? What new information came to light between November and December that prompted that change of heart?

Finally, on trust in democracy, councillors in West Sussex will serve for six instead of four years. That is not the “short period” stated by the Secretary of State. In 2021, the world was a very different place. We were at the peak of the Boris bounce. The electoral map and the world have changed dramatically since then. When public trust in politicians is low, it can never be right for those who are up for re-election to decide whether they want to face their electorate. Today’s decision undermines trust in elections and in democracy. Surely the Secretary of State can see that this plays into the hands of those who want to undermine our democratic institutions.

Local Elections

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a district councillor.

This is such a shambles. We have a local government sector on its knees as a result of decisions made by the Conservatives and, now, the Labour party. So much time and resource has been put into these mayoral elections by local government and officers over the past year; staff and venues for polling stations have already been booked. Does the Minister have any idea how much money has been spent on this over the past 12 months?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are very clear that no area will be worse off as a result of this decision. Again, we are talking about four areas within the devolution priority programme, and we will work with those areas. We are providing capacity funding to all of them to help them with this process and help them set up their institutions, and we are committed to ensuring that they will be no worse off at the end of the process.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is why fundamental reform of the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London needs to take place. Personally, I do not believe that we need the GLA. I believe we should transfer powers back to local boroughs, towns and communities. If we have some form of authority for London, it should deal purely with the capital—the central part of London. Frankly, do we need a GLA that goes all the way from Hampton Wick up to Havering-atte-Bower, and from Ruislip down to Biggin Hill? We do not; it is an unnecessary layer of government. I would prefer the authority, power and funding to go directly to our towns, villages and boroughs that are controlled locally by elected councillors, not a huge bureaucracy in City Hall that is unaccountable, undemocratic and has very little support among anyone I speak to.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I am interested in how far the hon. Gentleman would propose to go. Would he advocate the abolition for the Mayor of London?

[Andrew Rosindell]

Yes I would, personally. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will undoubtedly recall that our former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, abolished the Greater London Council. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will remember that very well, because he sat on the GLC at the time. In 1986, the GLC was abolished and what happened? The power went back to each borough across London. We did not have to pay a huge precept. We paid our way for policing and the fire brigade and so on, but generally speaking the powers truly returned—as I hope the Liberal Democrats believe in—to local communities. We did not have an overarching bureaucracy interfering in everything we do, from planning to transport to policing. I would hope that the Liberal Democrats believe that powers should be held as locally as possible.

The overarching bureaucracy in City Hall, which is so unaccountable, really needs to go. No, I do not believe we need a Mayor of London. I believe we need to have local authorities working together where there are strategic matters to be discussed—transport, planning or infrastructure—but we do not need to create a monstrous bureaucracy. Margaret Thatcher was right to abolish the GLC and Tony Blair was absolutely wrong to bring back the GLA, with all its paraphernalia, bureaucracy and huge costs to the council tax payers of the Greater London area. On that note, I ask Members to please support new clauses 85 and 86 to restore our Essex identity and to give us the democratic right to decide our own future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling]

I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said. In fact, I carefully drafted this speech to avoid attacking Wolverhampton in any way, because I recognise that the reasons for this situation are complex. That goes to my next point: overstretched councils cannot monitor conditions, let alone enforce them, for drivers operating hundreds of miles away. If there is an incident in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire involving a driver who is licensed halfway across the country, there is no way that their licensing council can properly investigate and do something about it. It would be like asking Police Scotland to investigate something in Cornwall; it just does not make sense.

Thirdly, there is a huge safety issue. Some councils have less stringent Disclosure and Barring Service checking requirements, they are cheaper, or they have no requirement for CCTV or emission-compliant vehicles, so both passengers and drivers are left without adequate protection when there are incidents. That was a key point of the recent Casey audit on child sexual exploitation and abuse, which identified that some councils go beyond statutory guidance as a means of tackling sexual exploitation, but were hindered by a lack of stringency from other authorities.

That problem was also raised in the 2014 Jay inquiry into child sexual abuse in Rotherham. That rings true with calls from all sectors, including from trade unions such as Unite and the GMB—I declare that I am a GMB member—in their long-running campaigns around this matter, to which I pay tribute. I am delighted that the Government have listened to me and others and adopted the proposals that were brought forward in Committee. I look forward to seeing the detail of what the Government propose for national minimum standards, and I will continue to engage closely.

At this point, I was going to talk about the importance of considering raising the licensing authority level to strategic authorities and transport authorities, so it was brilliant to hear the Minister say just now that we will be consulting on that, because that is the other key part of this story. Together, those two measures could have a profound impact on dealing with the issues in this sector.

Turning briefly to other amendments, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s new clause 45, which will remove the requirement for local councillors’ home addresses to be published. Given the security environment, this is excellent news. I am aware of more than one incident in my region over the past few years of councillors’ home addresses being publicised maliciously online by bad faith actors, encouraging people to intimidate councillors in their homes. Indeed, that has happened in my region on several occasions, so this provision will have a tangible impact on keeping safe those dedicated volunteers from our communities who are trying to do what is best.

New clause 79, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), talks about establishing local accounting officers and public accounts committees in each mayoral strategic area. The Government have been talking about this for some time, and there is a lot of support for these committees to hold local spending to account and provide some real oversight, so I would appreciate some thoughts from the Minister on why the Government are not bringing that forward at this time, and whether they are considering doing so more broadly.

To conclude, I really welcome the Bill. We went through it line by line in Committee, so I know what a difference it will make, transforming local government, pushing power out of this place and empowering communities to make decisions that make sense for their areas. As with the last Labour Government, we are spearheading the devolution we need to unlock the growth and opportunities that have for too long been overlooked.

[Alison Bennett]

My amendment 34 is simple but vital. It would strengthen the ability of all our communities not only to bid for assets of community value but to make informed, responsible decisions when doing so. At present, communities have a right to bid, yet, absurdly, no guaranteed right to view. We ask our town and parish councils to act as prudent stewards of public money, to conduct surveys, to secure financing and to follow proper decision-making processes, yet we deny them the basic opportunity to inspect the very asset they may be committing taxpayer funds to purchase. This is impractical, illogical and unreasonable.

A recent case in my constituency of Mid Sussex illustrates the problem well. Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common parish council sought to bid for a former church building listed as an asset of community value. I can attest to the value that this building had for the community, because when my children were tiny, they went there during the week. It served as their pre-school and I must say that Cottis pre-school was and still is a wonderful facility, led by Sam. I am still grateful to the staff there for their support and the best start they gave my children.

Throughout the six-month moratorium, despite repeated requests, the parish council was refused access to the building. Only after the moratorium ended, when the property was placed in an auction, did the auction house permit inspections. This left the council with just two weeks to carry out surveys, complete its internal procedures and secure public works loan board financing. No responsible authority could compress such due diligence into that timeframe. Predictably, the parish council was unable to bid, and the building—an asset that it could have afforded, based on the eventual sale price—has now passed into private ownership and been converted into flats, removing a much-needed community venue from village ownership.

My amendment 34 would correct that oversight. It would simply guarantee that community buyers had an early and fair opportunity to view an asset so that they could undertake proper due diligence. It would impose no unreasonable burden on vendors. It would merely ensure a level playing field. If we believe in empowering communities, and if we believe that assets of community value should genuinely remain available to those communities, we must give them the practical tools to act. A right to bid without a right to view is a hollow promise. I urge the Minister to support this amendment and give our councils and the communities they serve a fair chance to preserve the places that matter most to them.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

I very much welcome this devolution Bill, and today I speak in support of Government new clause 45 and amendments 153 and 107 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher).

New clause 45 and amendment 153 relate to the essential role of our local councillors. As a recent councillor and leader of Worthing borough council, I can attest to how hard my fellow councillors work for very little remuneration—contrary to public perception—and how much they contribute to the health and wellbeing of our local communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) alluded to, as the temperature has risen in politics in recent years, these local residents who have put themselves forward with the aim of contributing positively to their communities have increasingly found themselves the target of online and in-person abuse. While it is no more acceptable for them than it is for us in national politics, we must do all we can to ensure that they and their families are safe. It is therefore good to see that recognised in new clause 45 proposing that council members’ home addresses will no longer appear in published registers of interests.

Amendment 153 acknowledges the different forms of council structure, and there has already been some debate on this matter today. My constituency of Worthing West houses two councils—Worthing borough council is a leader and cabinet system; Arun district council is a committee system. Again, as a former council leader, my preference and experience tells me that the leader and cabinet system is highly effective, but I acknowledge that the committee system can potentially allow greater involvement in decision making across the councillor groupings. With that in mind, I am supportive of the intent stated in amendment 153 that if the local authority’s committee system is protected, a review should be undertaken to see whether it is in the best interests of that local authority to move to the leader and cabinet system.

For my constituency, which is also undergoing local government reform alongside moving to a devolution model, our councillors in Worthing and Arun will need to consider the best option for the area as part of our new unitary authority when these footprints are agreed.

Amendment 107 asks that environmental interests be considered as criteria for community right to buy, provided that the land is not allocated in the local development plan. It is positive to hear already from the Minister today about the protections for local sports grounds. The environmental wellbeing of local communities, alongside economic and social benefits, is an area close to my heart as a public health consultant living on the south coast. Worthing has the smallest amount of green land per head of population in the UK—less than a snooker table per person. We have limited green land left in our constituency’s urban areas, and even though we are undoubtedly blessed with the English channel to the south and the south downs to the north, people do not live in the sea and very few of us live in our national park. Our wellbeing is therefore determined by our densely populated urban strip bordering the coastline.

Our remaining green spaces in this area are incredibly precious for our mental and physical health, air quality and climate mitigation measures. Green spaces can help to reduce our ever-increasing flood risk. I therefore would welcome any additional guidance from the Minister in this area for our current and soon-to-be devolved regions, such as my own in Sussex. The health of our population should be our No. 1 priority, and devolved government is ideally placed to help deliver those much-needed protections and improvements for our communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the thoughtful, constructive and robust interventions from hon. Members across the House.

I will start with a theme that has been raised once again by the hon. Members for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) —that this is a centralising Bill that seeks to take power away from communities and impose on them. I completely and utterly reject that idea. I made this point yesterday, and I will labour it again today: this Bill represents the biggest transfer of power from Westminster and Whitehall to our regions, local authorities and communities. The Government believe that we change the country by putting power in the hands of people who know their patch. That is the principle behind the Bill, and that is what we are determined to deliver.

Let me address the point on local election delays, which has been raised head-on in new clause 69. We understand the democratic necessity to hold elections. People have the right to vote—a right that we absolutely support and will absolutely protect. Labour is up for elections as much as any other party, and our clear intention is to press ahead with elections next year. The decision to postpone elections is never taken lightly, and was not taken lightly when it was made. It is a decision that we will always take with great caution, as it is one that we want to avoid.

However, we cannot accept the new clause, because it is neither rational nor reasonable. It does not allow for extenuating circumstances at a national level, such as a pandemic, or for exceptional circumstances locally that create a challenge for holding elections. While we are keen and determined to press ahead with elections, we are the Government of the day, so we will always take a considered and reasonable approach to this matter.

I turn to the point raised in new clause 17 by the hon. Member for Guildford on the funding of strategic authorities. The hon. Lady was right to highlight the pressure that local government is under. However, I would point out—again, I note the complete cheek of the Opposition here—that that is a consequence of 14 years of austerity and under-investment. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner talks about the plight of local government, yet fails to recognise the terrible inheritance that his party left—the huge legacy of denuding and undermining local government that we are now trying to rectify. In 2025-26, the local government finance settlement provided £69 billion for councils—a 6.8% increase in the core spending power for local government. We are moving to multi-year budgets, consolidated funding and a fair funding review, all in order to reverse the decline and under-investment of the previous Government.

[Alison Bennett]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress, as we are almost out of time.

On the key question of funding our strategic authorities, we absolutely recognise the vital role that strategic authorities and mayors can play. We are seeing this across the country—that is why we support devolution to mayors and strategic authorities.

On the point about Surrey made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), we want to see strategic authorities and mayors across the country, including in Surrey. However, we are also clear that if we want them to drive the change that we believe they can drive, we must equip them with the resources and powers to do the job that is required of them.

I have a lot of sympathy for the intention behind new clause 17. However, as I said yesterday, there is a new burdens assessment, which will always apply. When new responsibilities are placed on strategic authorities and mayors, the new burdens assessment will be applied to ensure that they are funded appropriately. Indeed, for the priority areas in which we are moving forward with devolution, we are providing capacity funding up front to make sure that they have the capability and resources to do the job at hand. This basic principle will always hold: when we give out responsibility, we will ensure that the resources are there to take on that responsibility well.

Members spoke eloquently about the need to ensure that we are providing strong neighbourhood governance, and we share that ambition. Some Members talked about town and parish councils, and others talked about neighbourhood committees. We are clear that it is down to communities to decide the form and function of neighbourhood governance. We want to see neighbourhood governance in every part of the country, and we will provide regulations that set out the principle of neighbourhood governance and what it should look like. In addition, we will provide non-statutory guidance to support communities as they embark on neighbourhood guidance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend is tempting a Member of Parliament for Nottingham to say something nice about Derby, which is slightly challenging for my prospects when I go home on Thursday. I do recognise the characterisation of the exciting plans ahead for Derby, and I share exactly her point on policing. We can have the most vibrant community possible, but people will not participate unless they feel safe. We are talking with the Home Office, and I would tell my hon. Friend to watch this space.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Last week, Hurstpierpoint’s former Methodist church received permission to be converted into flats, despite the parish council registering it as an asset of community value and expressing its sincere wish to purchase it. Does the Minister think that the regulations for assets of community value are fit for purpose? How can they be improved?

Residential Estate Management Companies

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Residents in Mid Sussex continue to fall victim to sky-high management fees and poor customer experience on a grand scale by companies such as McCarthy Stone and FirstPort. We need good quality homes for people to live in. We need them for first-time buyers, for growing families and for older people looking to downsize.

Those looking for suitable housing in their later years in Mid Sussex often look to flats run by McCarthy Stone. Sadly, many of them and their families are being badly let down. Perhaps the most shocking example involves a constituent of mine in Corbett Court in Burgess Hill, where McCarthy Stone charges up to £14,000 a year as standard. An elderly Corbett Court resident was charged £8.54 for an on-site staff member to come to their flat and pick up a remote control.

People in all stages of their life are finding themselves living on estates run by management companies like FirstPort. Constituents from Hassocks to Lindfield have written to me, setting out a raft of issues that residents are facing. FirstPort refused itemised breakdowns of fees despite huge increases, and in one instance a constituent was told that they had been incorrectly charged and were immediately told to pay £575 within three weeks—clearly a totally unreasonable timeframe, not least because the mistake had been made by FirstPort. All of that while residents tell me, “FirstPort’s communication has been non-existent and they are not completing their duties.”

People have been through enough. If we want to successfully and sustainably grow our housing offer for future generations—young and old—something needs to change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

The hon. Member will be aware that there is a massive housing shortage and that there are challenges around supported housing. We need to ensure, as we are doing, that victims of domestic violence get the support they need, which is why we provided the additional uplift of £30 million, to a total of £160 million. We are working across Government to tackle the root causes of violence against women, within which work economic and housing support are crucial. I look forward to working with her and others on this very important agenda.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

11. What steps she is taking to ensure that town centres can support growing communities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)]

We all want to see our town centres thriving. Through our plan for neighbourhoods, the Government are investing £1.5 billion in the future of towns and communities. The Government have also committed to strengthening the developer contributions system to ensure that new developments provide the necessary infrastructure. To address vacancy in town centres, we have given councils the powers to force the auction of empty shops.

[Alison Bennett]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Burgess Hill is fast-growing, and the Lib Dem-run council is working hard with Homes England to deliver 3,500 new homes, hundreds of which will be affordable. However, after years of Conservative failure, my constituents are worried that housing growth will go hand in hand with the hollowing out of the town centre. My Lib Dem colleagues want to deliver a buoyant town centre through a public-private partnership, so will the Minister visit Burgess Hill to see the innovative approaches we are taking to make it thrive again?

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for that question, and for the spirit in which Burgess Hill is taking on the need to build housing in its community. We believe that sustainable housing with complementary infrastructure will drive the local economy—it will drive footfall to town centres and help bring private investment to high streets. Clearly, something interesting is happening in Burgess Hill, and I would very much like to visit.

Construction Standards: New Build Homes

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Michelle Welsh]

I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman.

When moving into a new home, a high quality and safe living environment is expected. We should not be expecting anyone to live in properties that do not meet these standards.

What has further shocked me about this case is the treatment of my constituents by Harron Homes. In an email, Kelly and Simon were described as “a pain” and they have had to wait weeks for repairs, and even just for a response. They deserve better, yet they are not alone in their experience.

Sara, a constituent in Hucknall, got in touch with me immediately following my election in July, regarding her ongoing case with Persimmon Homes. Like Kelly and Simon, Sara walked into her new home to find it completely below standards, with over 117 different faults and damages across the property. These included damaged flooring, poor insultation leading to cold spots, and plumbing issues. The company had even left my constituent with a broken patio door that had large gaps around the side, leaving her and her family fearing for their safety as the door could not be locked. This has understandably been extremely distressing for Sara and for her elderly mother. While Persimmon Homes has offered Sara some money to put towards the cost of repairs, it will not be enough to cover the full extent of the damages and faults in her home. Over 70 defects still remain. It is wrong that Sara was ever in this position, and that the construction standards of her home were not properly monitored. How many more families like Sara’s have to battle just to get the quality of home they originally paid for?

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and for the case she is setting out. This is something that I have experienced with residents in Mid Sussex over a number of years, particularly in the village of Hurstpierpoint. The village has taken considerable numbers of new houses, and there have been houses among those developments that have been substandard. I think in particular of a family who had a brand-new house where, if you ran your hand down the wall, you could tell there was a film of grey mould. It took years of hassling the housing association and the developer for them even to admit that there was a problem and that they were are at fault.

Does the hon. Member agree that if we are to win the hearts and minds of people who are sceptical about housing growth in their villages and towns, confidence in the quality of new build housing must be beyond question?

[Michelle Welsh]

I completely agree. I was pleased that the Government announced they are accepting some of the recommendations in the Competition and Markets Authority’s housebuilding market study. I am particularly pleased that we are implementing a statutory UK-wide new homes ombudsman scheme and supporting the development of a voluntary ombudsman scheme to improve consumer protection ahead of the statutory scheme’s launch. For too long, customers have felt like they have nowhere to turn, are not being listened to by the big developers, and do not know their rights. I hope this is a step towards changing that.

I ask the Minister that when drafting the new UK-wide scheme, the Government put quality at the heart and ensure that people have all the necessary protection in cases such as those of my constituents. We must also have better oversight and accountability for companies that do not deliver high-quality construction standards. It is vital that we showcase what good practice looks like. I know there are many builders who do an exceptional job, and take great pride in their work. We cannot let the reputation of new build homes be ruined by a few rogue companies.

I mentioned earlier that I am proud that this Government have committed to delivering 1.5 million quality homes. In my constituency, the quality has sometimes been very lacking, the infrastructure has been very lacking, and the local Ashfield district council has been gerrymandering with its local plan, which continues to put precious historical land at risk, while there are more than enough brownfield sites to be used across the district. I ask the Minister that when we deliver these homes, the necessary steps are taken to ensure that the right companies and builders are selected to complete this work; that we work to provide the infrastructure that is needed; and that when councils let their communities down, like Ashfield district council has, the Government will step in.

I ask the Minister to ensure that the Government and local authorities have the necessary oversight powers to ensure that quality is maintained throughout the house building process. We have a real opportunity to build the homes we desperately need, while beginning to close the skills gap and shutting out rogue companies that underperform. Tradespeople need protection so that they are able to do a high-quality job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which, as usual, is spot on. He is quite right, and I have had loads of these problems over the years. In fact, I had a big project running on a few of my new house builds in Ashfield a few years ago, and I was getting exactly that problem. People think they have a 10-year guarantee, but when they try to get in touch with the NHBC to get the work put right, they find it is next to useless. That is why the people on these new housing estates are contacting their local councillor and their local MP in great numbers.

While I am here, I will give right hon. and hon. Members a tip. Because of what the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest has said, if they get a new housing estate in their patch—I am getting one shortly—they should go and knock on the doors, deliver a snagging leaflet or do a survey to ask people whether they are satisfied with their house builder. Hon. Members would be surprised how many surveys we get back from constituents who are deeply unhappy with the state of their house.

[Alison Bennett]

I have done exactly that. I sent out a street letter and flushed out all sorts of problems with new build estates. Problems with management companies sometimes come up in those surveys. Is that something that the hon. Gentleman wants to comment on?

[Lee Anderson]

It is. We have had problems with management companies in one of my estates in Kirkby-in-Ashfield over the maintenance of a local park and some of the green spaces that come with these new house builds.

I want to touch on what the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest said about our problems with Ashfield district council. We have not had a local plan in Ashfield for nearly 25 years. Each time the administration changes, it falls out over a local plan. That has meant that developers can apply to build anywhere in Ashfield, and they are attacking our green spaces at great pace. In 2018, we were promised a local plan to protect our green spaces within three years by the current independent-led council, the Ashfield Independents, because they had ripped up the old plan. Fast forward seven years and there is no local plan. One has been put in, but it does not protect our green spaces. It will allow developers to run roughshod over our green spaces in Ashfield. It will allow developers of new houses to come in and build their shiny new houses on green fields, which will lead to loads of problems. In my constituency, we will get loads of people complaining about their new build houses.

As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) said, people expect to have the internet connected to their houses these days, and some of these housing companies are deliberately misleading their customers. They do not admit that there will not be any broadband in the houses they are selling. Most people assume that in this day and age, it is another utility like their gas, electric and water. It has been a complete nightmare for some of my constituents on the newer estates. I will close there, and I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest once again for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree, and that point has been made by the hon. Members for Sherwood Forest and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson): once someone has purchased a property or is tied into a contractual relationship, dealing with those snagging issues is a huge challenge. Where can they go from there? They have been taken out of the local authority’s remit to deal with it, because it has approved the planning application—having probably not carried out any enforcement action at all. That is the problem I observed with Bradford council’s lack of any attention to the challenges that we faced in Keighley, Ilkley and the wider area that I represent.

The problem is that, when someone is locked into a contractual relationship, or has even moved into a property, and there are snagging issues, they are effectively trapped and there is no real ability for any organisation with any weight to deal with that. Will the Minister address in her closing remarks what action the Government will now take to deal with cases where new developments have been constructed of a poor quality and concerns have been consistently raised?

It should not take a Member of Parliament to deal with those concerns—it seems that only housing developers only then suddenly realise they have to do something about them. What will the Government do to provide more weight to these concerns that are being raised, so that people with snagging issues can have reassurance that those problems will be sorted out?

I will conclude my comments by discussing the challenges associated with dealing with section 106 moneys. When planning applications have been approved, there is then effectively a negotiation that takes place between the developer and the local authority. I again have to rely on Bradford council negotiating the best deal for whatever that section 106 money is contributing to. Section 106 money is effectively a payment to deal with any mitigating factors that have been negatively imposed on our community through that development. I give the simple example: if those negotiations are not robust enough, that disadvantages the communities we represent. If that section 106 obligation is not spent or enacted within a reasonable time, our constituents are significantly disadvantaged as a result of a local authority—such as Labour-run Bradford council—not responding well enough. That disadvantages the communities we represent.

[Alison Bennett]

I have no knowledge about the workings of Bradford council, being a Sussex MP, but in my experience—and I should declare an interest in that I am a district councillor in Mid Sussex—local councils do not necessarily have the powers needed to move swift enforcement action. In section 106 negotiations, they do not necessarily have the deep pockets of the development sector to lawyer up and get those good deals. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Robbie Moore]

I would politely push back on that. My understanding is that local authorities do have the powers available to them throughout the planning process to challenge the planning application put before them and to have a robust level of negotiation with the developer, resulting in a section 106 obligation being firmly and robustly constructed to deliver residents’ best interests. It is up to the local authority whether it chooses to utilise the powers awarded to it. In my case, I feel that Bradford council does not use any such powers in the first place.