Petitions

Debate between Andrew Cooper and Vikki Slade

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Mid Cheshire pertaining to unadopted estates in my constituency.

Around 4,700 households—equivalent to more than 12% of all properties across Northwich, Middlewich and Winsford—are on new build estates where basic infrastructure such as roads, drains and sewers remain unadopted by public authorities. The petition, alongside an accompanying online petition, has been signed by over 720 people.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the constituency of Mid Cheshire,

Declares that homeowners and tenants in newly built properties are waiting too long to see their streets and sewerage infrastructure adopted by the relevant authorities; and further declares that residents are living with years of uncertainty and potential financial liabilities.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to (a) develop a clear standards framework for infrastructure adoption; (b) ensure that housing developers, local authorities and water utilities work together to bring about the timely adoption of infrastructure; and (c) if necessary, legislate to ensure infrastructure is adopted.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003219]

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I wish to present a petition on behalf of residents in Wimborne about road safety in the Walford Mill area. This location is on the route of three local schools, is close to a nursery, GP surgery and local shop and sits alongside elderly residents’ flats. The area includes a complex junction and an ancient bridge that has a pavement on just one side. Despite two large housing developments increasing both the use of the route by pedestrians and traffic, no meaningful improvements have been made to the ability for people to cross the road.

The installation of a zebra crossing and a pedestrian refuge would provide a clearly defined, protected point for crossing Wimborne Road. This would not only enhance safety but offer reassurance to families and the wider community, reducing the likelihood of accidents, encouraging more people to walk to school and improve traffic flow.

While work is finally expected to take place to introduce pedestrian crossings elsewhere, this does not present a solution. My constituent Rosanna, who is in the Gallery today, started this petition, which now has 1,766 signatures.

The petition states:

“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the installation of one pedestrian crossing and one pedestrian refuge near Knobcrook Bridge and the BP garage on Wimborne Road.

And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole,

Declares that Wimborne Road is a bustling thoroughfare used by a mix of vehicles and a significant number of pedestrians each day; further declares that despite its heavy use, there is an insufficient number of zebra crossings and refuges along Wimborne Road; further declares that an insufficient provision of safety measures poses a daily risk to all pedestrians, including the hundreds of school children who traverse this road en route to one of the multiple schools that Wimborne Road connects.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the installation of one pedestrian crossing and one pedestrian refuge near Knobcrook Bridge and the BP garage on Wimborne Road.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003224]

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Andrew Cooper and Vikki Slade

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The name of the Bill promises devolution and community empowerment, yet a number of its clauses cause the Liberal Democrats some concern, and this is one. A key principle of democracy, local or national, is to have elected people—Ministers, Members of Parliament or councillors—delivering for the people who elect them. It makes little sense that a mayor of a combined county authority or combined authority, with dozens or scores of skilled constituent councillors and council leaders beneath them, might instead choose to appoint a commissioner to such an important role.

We heard in oral evidence from Councillor Bev Craig about the model used in Manchester, where the leaders of the constituent councils perform one of the portfolios. That strikes me as much more appropriate in a large strategic authority, where each of those individuals has skin in the game. There is no reason why a mayoral authority should not operate in the same way as large unitary authorities do. Mine represents more than 400,000 people and does not require a commissioner to look at planning, although it does have a head of planning—a paid member of staff. Policy decisions have in the English system traditionally been made by politicians, so I struggle to see why creating a new layer of authorities, further away from people, should take away the principle that such decisions should be made by elected people.

Some have suggested that there are not enough constituent council leaders in some areas—perhaps areas that have only three or four council leaders. There are some incredible deputy leaders and portfolio holders. There may be a case for drawing from a broader pool, but suggesting that those people are not sufficiently qualified in understanding their area or area of expertise could damage the respect that council leaders have in their area, as well as the connection between a constituent council and the strategic authority that sits above it. If we want constituent councils to drive better strategic decisions and better strategic outcomes for all residents, it would be much more sensible to give those individuals a real role in the authority. Given the way that additional responsibility allowances are scheduled, that can be a lot cheaper, because the Bill does not provide for people to have the double allowances that we already have in other parts of the system.

If we bring in external individuals as commissioners, there will be few checks and balances; they are not democratically accountable. The mayor may well be able to remove them, as is detailed in the Bill, but the public cannot remove them. Fundamentally, the people who are making policy decisions should be able to be removed by the public. They should also be held to the standards regime, as well as the other elements of conflicts of interest and financial declarations that councillors must follow.

I think that is all I want to say, but I feel really strongly that a model is there, such as the one in Manchester. We have heard about London evolving over time, but we have some great models running in the country. To me, it seems a sensible way forward to look at what they are doing in Greater Manchester, which is already incredibly successful.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

As the hon. Lady refers to Greater Manchester, I am minded of the role that Chris Boardman has played in Greater Manchester in rolling out active travel. He is unelected, and I think it would be a shame if we could not take advantage of such a person’s expertise. Does she accept that is a risk with what she proposes?

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Andrew Cooper and Vikki Slade

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Vikki Slade]

No power is being lost, because parish councils have few powers in the first place. What we are suggesting—what we feel should be at the heart of devolution—is about consent: actually consulting those local organisations that have a role. They are tax-raising and grant-giving organisations. They are, in reality, taking on a lot of those services yet their voice is silent. We are not asking for their powers to be changed; we are asking for their voices to be heard. That is all that the amendment requires.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I was a town councillor for a good decade and a half before I became an MP. We went through unitarisation in Cheshire in 2008, so I recognise a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying about town and parish councils being asked to take on more services—I saw it under the last Conservative Government as funding was taken away from Cheshire West and Chester council.

The reason why I am mystified is that my experience of town and parish councils is that they are not shy about expressing themselves. I am not sure what the hon. Lady is looking to achieve with the amendment, because town and parish councils are perfectly free to express their view in the consultations that already happen when these authorities are set up. Is she suggesting that town and parish councils should have a veto? From the way her amendment is worded, that seems like an entirely different proposition. Could she clarify that?

[Vikki Slade]

Nobody is suggesting a veto; we are suggesting a voice. There is a big difference. We have already heard that district councils felt that they were pushed around by the county councils, and the experiences of town and parish councils are simply an acceleration of that; when these proposals were being put forward by the Minister earlier this year, there was absolutely no role for those councils. We are simply saying that there are layers of local accountability that we believe should be on the list of people who are consulted.

This is a simple amendment that says, “You are already consulting other organisations in the chain of command. You should also include the town parish councils in that chain.” That is why we believe that amendment 33 is critical, as it

“would require the Secretary of State to consult local councils prior to proposing the area in which they are situated is added to an existing combined authority”,

and why we will push it to a vote.