Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

13. What steps she is taking to support first time house buyers.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The Government remain determined to revive the dream of home ownership. In the Budget, the Chancellor confirmed £4.7 billion for the Your First Home scheme, providing equity loans to help those who cannot rely on the bank of mum and dad to buy their first home. The Chancellor also announced a new first-time buyer ISA and reduced the lifetime ISA withdrawal charge to 20%.

[Andrew Cooper]

House prices in Mid Cheshire are nearly £20,000 higher than the regional average and have continued to rise over the last year. The Your First Home scheme will be a big help for my constituents, but it is also important that we increase the number of affordable homes being built. The National Housing Federation estimated that we could have delivered an additional 41,000 homes outside of London in the latest round of the social and affordable homes programme. What steps is the Minister taking to increase the funding available in the early years of the social and affordable homes programme?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Chancellor committed an additional £1.5 billion for the social and affordable homes programme at the Budget, taking its total allocation to over £40 billion. In August, we announced initial funding allocations for the programme, with £9.58 billion being awarded to 33 strategic partners outside of London. Over £16 billion remains available outside of London across the lifetime of the programme. Homes England will confirm scheme-by-scheme allocations via the continuous market engagement route in the usual way.

Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her passionate advocacy on behalf of her constituents and others around the country on housing issues generally. On shared ownership, I know the pressures that shared owners face; I see them in my own constituency postbag on a daily basis. We have already taken positive steps to improve the shared ownership model such as introducing new expectations for landlords who bid for shared ownership grant funding to improve fairness and transparency. We are supporting shared owners affected by specific challenges, such as building safety issues. Clause 13, which hon. Members might be aware was added to the Bill in the other place, requires a review of the shared ownership model to be carried out within 12 months of the Bill passing. We do not believe a review is necessary as we are already actively considering specific issues that have been raised in debates, including data and long-term affordability for customers, and we will of course consider what more we can do to act on those issues within our wider programme to improve shared ownership.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make some progress.

I am immensely grateful to my noble Friend, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, for the customary skill with which she oversaw the passage of the Bill through the other place and for the extensive engagement she undertook with peers throughout the initial Lords stages. A number of important issues were raised during the debates in the other place and, as a result, my Department is undertaking rapid policy work to determine whether there is a case for strengthening the Bill further in a series of areas.

For example, in response to concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and the noble Lord Best, we are giving serious consideration to what more might be done to provide greater security of tenure for social tenants who are fleeing violence, including serious youth violence. We are also considering what more can be done to bolster public control of social housing to ensure that it serves and supports those who need it most.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I am mindful of time, so I will make just two points. First, no one would dispute that the right-to-buy scheme has helped many families achieve the dream of home ownership, which might otherwise have been beyond their reach, but its ideological implementation has had consequences.

More than 2 million social homes have been sold since the scheme was first introduced, yet far too many of those properties were never replaced. The result has been a significant reduction in the stock of good-quality affordable social housing available to meet today’s demand. The risk that newly built homes could be lost before the investment costs can be recovered has weakened the confidence of providers to invest in new social housing at anywhere near the scale required. We have more than 1.3 million households on social housing waiting lists, while close to 180,000 children are growing up without the security of a stable home.

I welcome the measures that seek to place right to buy on a more sustainable footing, protect existing social housing stock, encourage new house building and ensure that more people can access the decent, safe, secure and affordable homes that every family deserves. However, I would like the Bill to go further in ensuring that homes sold at a discount through right to buy do not immediately end up being let out for private profit. The New Economics Foundation estimates that 41% of homes sold through right to buy are now in the private rented sector—that cannot be justified as a good use of public money. I hope that the Government will consider amendments to prevent this from occurring in future, at least for a period of time after a property is sold. I would be happy to speak to the Minister about how we can bring that forward.

Finally, I turn to the introduction of meaningful safeguards for survivors of domestic abuse. These measures recognise that access to safe and secure housing is often fundamental to a survivor’s ability not only to escape, but to rebuild their lives afterwards. We know that perpetrators can exploit housing insecurity as a means of control, leaving victims facing an impossible choice: remain in an abusive situation and continue to endure harm, or leave and risk homelessness and further insecurity. No survivor should ever be forced to make that choice.

It is therefore a significant step forward that we are giving social landlords stronger tools to respond, particularly in relation to complex cases involving joint tenancies. Giving survivors the ability to seek the removal of an abusive partner from a tenancy, and enabling them to remain in the safety and familiarity of their own home, is extremely positive. However, I would like the Bill go further by introducing specific measures to tackle furniture poverty among survivors.

Escaping an abusive relationship often requires people to leave home at extremely short notice, taking with them little more than a few personal belongings. Worse, many survivors have been subjected to financial abuse, leaving them without savings, access to credit or the means to replace the items needed to create a new, safe and secure home. While it is fundamentally important that victims of domestic abuse are always given priority access to social housing, the reality is that many of the allocated properties are entirely unfurnished. As a result, families who have already experienced trauma can find themselves moving into an empty property without beds, kitchen appliances, flooring, curtains or other basic household items. In those circumstances, the challenge is not simply accessing housing, but being able to live in it. A safe and secure home should be the foundation from which survivors rebuild their lives, not the start of another period of hardship.

The Bill is an important pillar of the Government’s work and commitment to create a social housing system that is fairer and more secure and that works better for the people who depend on it. I am proud to support the Bill and the positive changes it seeks to address across our social housing sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Cooper]

Is my hon. Friend aware of how difficult it is to sell a shared ownership home when the previous owner is deceased? The estate can end up paying service charges and rent for quite a long period. Will she consider whether there is further action that the Government could take on that?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I think that will be one of the areas that we consider when my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister looks at shared ownership.

A number of right hon. and hon. Members mentioned domestic abuse and debt. It is really important to know that this is a key area for survivors of domestic abuse. The Government are committed to addressing this issue in their national plan to end homelessness. We believe that the best route for doing so is to ensure that the regulations are amended and the relevant legislation is looked at. My understanding is that the Housing Minister will look at that. I am due to meet the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), and I would welcome other hon. Members attending that meeting.

A number of hon. Members mentioned council disposals. I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on this matter. I want to reassure hon. Members that we take the issue very seriously. We want local authorities and housing associations to, where possible, retain homes in the social housing sector. We believe the new disposals notification requirements in the Bill will help to maximise opportunities for social housing providers to retain homes. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister highlighted: housing associations remain independent organisations, responsible for their own asset management decisions. However, we will continue to explore what further steps we can take to stop social housing stock being sold.

Our right to buy reforms will mean a net gain of 18,000 social homes over the next 10 years, whereas there would be a loss of 26,000 homes if we retained the current system. The right to buy remains a crucial route into home ownership, but we must also confront the reality: social house building has struggled to keep pace with sales under the right to buy, and that has resulted in an increase in the number of families in costly temporary accommodation and expanded social housing waiting lists across the country. Our right to buy reforms, notably the new build exemption, will give councils the confidence to get building again.

We refute the accusation that we are doing nothing to ensure that social housing is being used effectively. The Government expect social housing landlords to maximise the use of existing homes, as well as to build more. We have launched a review of how effectively social housing providers use their properties. We will report on its findings later this year.

On the Opposition’s concerns about the allocation of social housing to non-UK nationals, the Government do not support restricting social housing solely to British citizens. Such an approach would be unworkable and would cut across legal obligations, including obligations relating to EU citizens with settled status and the Equality Act 2010. Eligibility for social housing is already tightly controlled by local councils. If a person’s immigration status does not allow them recourse to public funds, they are not eligible for social homes. The racist rhetoric and the demonising of people who want to work has to stop. The vast majority of those allocated social homes in the UK are UK nationals. That is a fact, so I hope that the Opposition will withdraw their amendment on the issue.

When the Prime Minister stood on the steps of No. 10, he put building more council homes at the heart of this Government’s agenda. For far too long successive Governments have failed to deliver the homes that we need up and down the country, while simultaneously failing to protect our housing stock. We know we can and must go further.

The Bill is about bringing an end to the era of failure on social housing; it is about protecting the homes that we have and supporting the building of the new homes we need; it is about ensuring that the system works fairly for those who need it the most; and it is about reducing the overreliance on temporary accommodation that is crippling so many councils, up and down the country. Collectively, London councils are spending £5.5 million a day on temporary accommodation. That is unsustainable.

We need to turbocharge social housing, up and down the country. Social housing is not just about a roof over people’s heads; it creates strong connected communities, enables families to live happily, enables healthy lives and provides long-term sustainable housing. The Government are making progress to reverse the decline of social housebuilding, as represented by the latest figures from Homes England showing a 65% increase in social rent completions.

Across the country, almost 180,000 children are growing up in temporary accommodation. As many hon. Members have mentioned, over 1.3 million people are on the housing waiting list. That has a devastating impact on the wellbeing of our children and families, who are facing poor conditions, lacking the space to grow. How can we expect those young children to contribute to society in later life when they do not have a safe place to call their home? The Bill brings an end to that failure.

The Bill provides the crucial step that many families want to see—the same step my family was given many years ago. It ensures that when families face homelessness and women are fleeing domestic abuse with their children, they are not the ones who are evicted—the perpetrator is. The Bill ensures that we restrict right-to-buy sales, and that 100% of the receipts go back to councils so that they can reinvest in their local areas.

The Bill will ensure that we turbocharge and bring a new lease of life to local council building across the country, working with our councils, providers, housing associations and private developers to get the housing right. It is important that we continue to progress the Bill. I commend it to the House.

Estate Regeneration

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) on securing this debate. I want to speak about the importance of housing-led regeneration. Done well, it transforms lives, rebuilds communities, unlocks economic growth and creates places where people want to live, work and raise families. Yet for many communities across the north, that aspiration remains out of reach.

Too many families live in ageing homes that are expensive to maintain, difficult to modernise and increasingly unfit for today’s needs. In many neighbourhoods, outdated layouts and ageing infrastructure no longer meet the needs of the communities they serve. Without significant intervention, 100,000 social homes could be lost over the coming decade, further reducing the supply of affordable housing. It is against that backdrop that the interim findings of the Renew inquiry are so important—I declare my interest as chair of the Westminster group for the inquiry.

Led by the Northern Housing Consortium, the inquiry highlights the vital role that regeneration can play in addressing housing needs, supporting economic development and strengthening communities across the north of England. The Renew report found that more than half a million good-quality homes could be unlocked through regeneration and renewal programmes, demonstrating the scale of the opportunity before us. The report highlights the transformative impact that regeneration can have on people and places. Beyond increasing housing supply, it offers an opportunity to create healthier, more sustainable communities, to reduce energy costs for residents, and to improve the overall quality of life in neighbourhoods that have experienced years of under-investment.

Importantly, regeneration delivers benefits that extend far beyond housing alone. Investment in homes can help attract investment in infrastructure, town centres and local services. It creates jobs, supports skills development and gives communities greater confidence in their future. The impact therefore reaches well beyond the development site itself, generating wider social value and helping to create vibrant, sustainable places. However, successful regeneration cannot simply be done to communities; it must be delivered with communities. Residents should be at the heart of regeneration plans, helping to shape the future of the places they call home.

A good example can be found in the Gleadless Valley regeneration project in Sheffield. Residents’ involvement has shaped the vision for the valley to include commercial and community space, improved parks, paths, and jobs and training for local residents. Lara Joyce, from the Gleadless Valley tenants and residents association, described the process as

“making hope feel safe again”.

That clearly demonstrates the importance of building trust with residents and ensuring local voices are heard throughout the process.

What is particularly encouraging is the growing recognition that the success of regeneration should not be measured solely by the number of homes delivered. Its value can also be seen in a stronger local economy, improved wellbeing and a more resilient community. The challenge now is to turn that ambition into delivery. If we get regeneration right, we will not simply build more homes. We will rebuild neighbourhoods, revitalise businesses and restore pride in communities. That is why housing-led regeneration matters, and why it deserves our continued support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of development that can come forward and be funded through our new social and affordable homes programme. We are ensuring that that programme has the necessary flexibility to fund provision across the country, whether it is community-led housing or rural housing. Our new homes accelerator is doing precisely what the hon. Gentleman says, by going in and unblocking problems site by site to get stalled development going.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

T8. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has just published a report on social housing conditions, warning that just under 430,000 social homes are non-decent. Additional research shows that in the north, more than 100,000 social homes will reach end of life over the next 10 years. I am chairing the Westminster group of the Renew inquiry, which is looking at how housing-led regeneration in the north can improve housing conditions and support the delivery of new homes and growth. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the Northern Housing Consortium to discuss this important issue?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have met Northern Housing Consortium on a number of occasions. My hon. Friend will know that funding from the social and affordable homes programme can be used to support the regeneration of existing social housing estates. If he wants to write to me with further details about some of the recommendations he has suggested, I would be more than happy to respond.

Local Government Finance

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his description of his unusual and wonderful area. I do not recognise the figures he mentioned just then, but I will happily meet him and any colleagues he wants to bring, and we will go through the numbers together in detail.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and welcome her commitment to restoring fairness to the heart of the local government financial settlement, giving our councils the long-term certainty they have been crying out for. The Conservatives were a disaster for local government. In both Cheshire authorities, 70p in every pound is now spent on looking after vulnerable adults and children, leaving the remainder to fund every other essential service. That is to say nothing of the ballooning dedicated schools grant deficit. The Conservatives left our communities struggling with deteriorating infrastructure and under-resourced essential services. Can she say more about what this settlement means for my constituents in Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich? Can she possibility provide us with an indication of when councils will get some certainty over what the future holds for the statutory override, so that we can see those dedicated schools grant deficits cleared?

[Alison McGovern]

It is extremely important that we properly fund authorities in Cheshire to help support those communities. I can confirm that that is what we are doing today, with significant increases in spending power for those authorities. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and colleagues across the county to ensure that we do as he says and get social care back on a firmer footing as we move forward through the years.

National Plan to End Homelessness

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and through him I would like to give my own thanks to the organisations in his constituency that he just mentioned, which I am sure are doing vital and important work. One of the biggest challenges for local authorities in recent years has been living hand-to-mouth, with year-to-year funding, which they then pass on to the organisations that they fund. Having three-year settlements, which ensure a level of predictability, will not only help organisations to plan better, whether they are a council or a voluntary sector organisation, but will mean that they can engage more in preventive work, because they will have enough time to see the benefits.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her commitment on this issue and on the child poverty strategy, which is not unrelated to this work. I welcome the strategy she has announced today as a good first step in the right direction. The focus on prevention and the duty to collaborate are particularly important, as is the new money for supported housing. The lack of a Homes England plan for supported housing has been a real gap, and we have seen supported housing units close as housing associations have struggled to balance what they have to do on compliance, responsive repairs and new developments with wanting to offer supported units. Helping people to deal with the trauma of homelessness and the underlying reasons they became homeless in the first place is the best way of preventing recurrence, and we have seen that with Housing First programmes elsewhere. I was wondering whether the Minister will commit to monitoring the success of the supported housing element of the strategy and whether she will look to expand it in future if it proves successful.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for his apposite question. There is extra money for supported housing in the strategy, and we will be monitoring the success of that. There is also money for recovery, because there is no doubt that people live with the trauma of homelessness for many years, and we need to help them move forward.

Local Elections

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I reiterate that these are inaugural elections, and therefore we are not cancelling elections. [Interruption.] These are inaugural elections that were always subject to us laying a statutory instrument and subject to the consent of places. To the right hon. Member’s specific point, it is really important that we bring the House back to why we are going through the process of local government reorganisation. We are not doing it because it is fun, or just for the sake of it; we are doing it because of the state in which local government was left by the Conservative party—[Interruption.] Absolutely—take responsibility! We had a decade and a half of under-investment, leaving local government on its knees. The Conservatives ducked the decisions they needed to make.

Now we are gripping the mantle, and at the heart of the reorganisation process is the simple premise that we want stronger unitaries. We believe that is the way in which we can organise services to deliver for communities. The Conservative party should have got a grip and done that. It did not; it ducked that. We are now having to pick that up, so I will not have Conservative Members talking to me about the pros and cons of reorganisation. We are doing it because we understand that we need to. If they were more serious, they would have cracked on and got on with it themselves.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

May I welcome the additional £21.7 million per year announced today for the Cheshire and Warrington combined authority? I know my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is on the Front Bench, has campaigned for that for many, many years. Our region has massive untapped potential in life sciences, chemical manufacturing and digital. For too long we have watched while our friends in the Liverpool city region and Greater Manchester have been able to build a transport network and a skills strategy fit for the 21st century. Does the Minister agree that this is the difference that a Labour Government make?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out the funding. Just so that the House records it, let me say what we are investing in. In the Cheshire and Warrington combined authority we are investing £21.7 million. In Cumbria we are investing £11.1 million. In greater Essex we are investing £41.5 million. In Hampshire and the Solent we are investing £44.6 million. In Norfolk and Suffolk we are investing £37.4 million. In Sussex and Brighton we are investing £38 million.

This is about investment in places. At its heart, this is about resources and power so that local leaders can work in partnership to deliver for their people. I will not apologise for that; it is absolutely the right thing. I will come back to this point every single time: at the heart of everything we are doing is ensuring that we have strong institutions that can deliver for their people. I know that the Conservatives do not like me to talk about it, but the legacy we have is that huge swathes of our country have been held back—growth and investment have been held back. That is not a reality that we are willing to contend with, which is why we are doing the hard yards and the graft in order to unlock powerful institutions that can deliver for their people. [Interruption.] The Conservatives can bluster all they like, but at the heart of this matter is investment in places. We are committed to that, and it is a shame that the Conservatives failed to do that.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting)

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Lewis Cocking]

Not as many under this proposal. The Government do not have a mandate for this. They said lots of things in their manifesto about what they would and would not do, but they have done lots of things that were not in their manifesto, which is really damaging for democracy.

The Government should be asking local people what they want, as I am sure we all do when we go out and speak to our constituents. I have two district councils in my constituency, Broxbourne and East Hertfordshire, and not one person has told me, “Do you know what we need to solve lots of the our problems and day-to-day challenges? We need to reorganise the council. We need a bigger authority. We need to be further removed from it.” This policy does not stack up, and it has been rushed.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman’s argument. In many ways, it is the ultimate Conservative argument that the status quo is exactly right and exactly what we need. Has the hon. Gentleman done any research on public opinion of local government reorganisation in London in the 1960s, or the 1974 local government reorganisation in. I read a leading article in The Times from April 1974 in which there was a criticism of planning being at the district council level and highways being at the county council level, as that created problems between the two. Things change, do they not?

To suggest that the state of local government is optimal as we have it right now seems ridiculous to me. It is divorced from our experience, and many of us Government Members served as councillors. Surely we need to reorganise things so that they can run more efficiently.

[Lewis Cocking]

I have served in the two-tier system and know it is not perfect, but nor is what the Government are proposing in the Bill. There are some unitary councils, such as Slough, that face really difficult financial challenges. Just having all the levers of two councils around the same table does not make for better service delivery. I served on a county council covering over 1.2 million people, and I have been in meetings to discuss where we should invest for roads infrastructure in places that I had never even been to. That is what will happen with these large-scale unitary councils, and there is evidence for that.

When councils go through a reorganisation, why do they set up service delivery arms based on the old district boundaries? Why do they set up area planning committees, if everywhere is interlinked? What we are failing to understand or consider is how we will do planning and place, and how we will bring our communities with us. There are loads of areas around the country— I can speak for Hertfordshire on this—that have several significant towns all of the same size, and lots of people do not travel between those towns. My constituency probably feels closer to London, which is where lots of people commute for work, rather than to the county town of Hertford, which is just 10 minutes up the road in a car, if I can get through the traffic. We are not thinking about how we create communities and place.

I fear for the democratic deficit; no one ever says to me in my constituency, “Lewis, you know what? We really feel like a part of Hertfordshire. We are on the edge of the county. We want a single unitary council. We want to go through that process. We are going to get better services because of that.” I do not believe that is the case. This is being forced upon local councils. They were told in the letter that they had to reply to it. The timescales are just astronomical. I have led a council, and I know that sometimes it is really difficult to get things done. The timescales for the rest of the country, outside the initial wave of the six plus Surrey, to be reorganised are astronomical.

We are not doing this in a sensible and pragmatic way, and mistakes will be made. At the end of day, we should think about how to set up local government that is fit for the future. We should try to take the best bits for that, not create large super-unitary councils. The Government want to build 1.5 million homes, but they also want to rip up the existing planning committee system and put councils through this reorganisation. That will take a lot of work.

I was leader of my authority in 2021, when we were nearly marched up the hill by the previous Government. Some have commented, “Why didn’t you speak up then?” but they can read my press releases from that time and see that I was against it then, so it is not a party political point. We need to do best by existing councils and the councillors who work day in, day out, for their residents. Making big strategic unitary authorities covering large geographical areas and hundreds of thousands of people, is not the best way to do that. The Government need to look again. If they think this is so popular locally, why not commit to having local referendums where reorganisation is proposed and letting local people have their say? The Government could hold their head high and say, “We let local people have their say. They have agreed with us,” or, “They have not agreed,” and go from there.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Siân Berry]

Amendments 312 to 314 aim to achieve the same thing: formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system, which is already being legislated for, at next year’s local mayoral elections, including the newly established combined authority areas of Greater Essex; Hampshire and the Solent; Norfolk and Suffolk; and Sussex and Brighton, in which my constituency lies.

The Government have clearly admitted, accepted and legislated for the need to return mayoral elections to a more proportional system—in this case, supplementary vote, which achieves a majority vote for whoever wins. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said on Second Reading:

“We are backing the ambition and untapped potential of local areas with a more ambitious role for the mayors representing them. That must be underpinned by elections that command public confidence. Because of changes made by the last Government, mayors can be elected on just a fraction of the vote, despite serving millions of people and managing multimillion-pound budgets.”—[Official Report, 2 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 185.]

I will give a few examples of the election outcomes we might expect if we go ahead with next year’s elections under first past the post. I remind the Committee that the results will be baked in for four years in each case and have serious implications.

[Andrew Cooper]

We have established a principle in this country of changing our electoral system via referendum. We had a referendum on the alternative vote system during the coalition era. The Bill is going to switch the system back to single transferable vote as it was when it was originally envisaged, so I believe that it is fair enough to go ahead without a referendum. But what the hon. Lady is proposing would be to change to an entirely different system without any democratic mandate to do so.

[Siân Berry]

I want to clarify that I am talking about the supplementary vote for mayoral elections in clause 59.

To return to some examples of mayoral elections under first past the post with results that are not optimal for democracy or public confidence: the 2025 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayoral election saw Paul Bristow elected on 28.4% of the vote, with a turnout of 32.9%. That gave 9.3% of the entire electorate a satisfactory result.

In none of my examples am I saying that the result was wrong, but they are not results that clearly command the confidence of a majority of the people in the area —that may well have been the case had a second vote been counted, but no second vote was allowed. I do not think that is a good way to conduct things. The 2025 West of England mayoral election saw Helen Godwin elected on 25% of the vote. With turnout at 30%, that gave 7.5% of the entire electorate a satisfactory result. The 2025 Hull and East Yorkshire mayoral election saw Luke Campbell elected on 35.8% of the vote. With turnout at 29.8%, that gave 10.7% of the entire electorate a satisfactory result.

In contrast, the last election held under the supplementary vote system in 2022 for South Yorkshire saw Oliver Coppard elected with 71.4% in the second round, up from a first round vote of 43.1%. That is a sea change in confidence and mandate compared with some of those marginal wins on a small turnout that we have seen in other areas.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Seventh sitting)

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Manuela Perteghella]

Local growth plans are rightly a key part of the devolution agenda, because the plans guide inward investment and set priorities for economic growth, as we have discussed, as well as development and regeneration in combined authority areas. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about the importance of inclusive economic and growth plans. Inclusivity is necessary. Consultation and engagement are necessary. Currently, however, there is no statutory requirement for mayoral combined authorities to formally record or engage with town and parish councils in the creation of these plans. These amendments aim to address that gap, increasing local accountability and inclusivity.

Amendments 352 and 355 would require any mayoral authority making a local growth plan to include the views of local town and parish council. Amendments 353 and 356 would go further, requiring active engagement with those councils by, for example, sharing draft proposals and the evidence behind the proposals for local growth plans, and giving councils a real opportunity to provide feedback before local growth plans are made. By requiring consultation at a parish level and genuine involvement in devolution decisions, and by valuing local voices, these provisions resist the top-down approach.

In my constituency we have brilliant parish and town councils. When the district councils are abolished and a new unitary council is made, it is likely that towns and parishes will be asked if they wish to take on more services and assets, including possible development sites.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

We are about to embark on a devolution deal for Cheshire and Warrington. The county of Cheshire alone has more than 330 civil parishes. Is the hon. Lady not concerned about the burden that would be placed on a mayor? Her amendment would require the views of all those parishes to be set out, so requiring the mayor in statute to report on that seems like a big ask.