Local Government Reform: Cambridgeshire

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered local government reform in Cambridgeshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Following the publication of the English devolution White Paper in December 2024, on 5 February Cambridgeshire and Peterborough’s district councils were invited to develop proposals for the introduction of unitary authorities within the county, expected to come into effect in April 2028. A detailed collective proposal for what the future unitary authorities in Cambridgeshire should look like is to be submitted to the Government by 28 November.

I applied for this debate to outline the sizeable concerns in Huntingdonshire about local government reorganisation. These concerns are potentially echoed across other areas of Cambridgeshire, and I encourage other MPs to whom I have spoken about the proposals also to voice their concerns.

Cambridgeshire residents have been presented with just three options on which to give their opinions. Proposal A is referred to as the north-west, south-east option, with Peterborough, Huntingdonshire and Fenland in the north, and Cambridge, East Cambridgeshire and South Cambridgeshire in the south. Proposal B is the north-south option, with Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire together, and then Peterborough combined with everywhere else—Huntingdonshire, Fenland and East Cambridgeshire. Proposal C is east-west, with Peterborough, East Cambridgeshire and Fenland in the west, and Cambridge, Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire in the east.

These proposals were apparently narrowed down from six options. However, these have not been published, and it is difficult to know, even as an MP, how they were decided and why the possibility of a breakdown by Westminster constituency, county division or district council ward was ruled out. My own Huntingdonshire district council stated that:

“We are taking an evidence-based approach. Inevitably, the different needs and local identities of our areas will have a significant impact on the preference of our own councils, and we must respect that”.

However, what evidence is there? The consultation by each of the district councils appears to be little more than a paper exercise. How are residents expected to feed back an informed decision regarding a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape the future of local government without any actual information on what the impact of expressing their preference might mean? Martin Hassall, the independent councillor for Buckden, Diddington and Southoe, said:

“The proposals are complex, poorly communicated, and offer little reassurance that the end result will mean better services or genuine value for money.”

In a written answer, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), said:

“We expect there to be wide engagement with local partners and stakeholders, residents, workforce and their representatives, and businesses on a proposal.”

But how can Cambridgeshire’s district councils credibly be expected to develop a robust proposal without realistically understanding the preferences of their residents? The only feedback prior to the final proposal being submitted is an engagement survey that bears little resemblance to the three options that have been put forward. They are in effect situating the estimate, having already decided one of three answers, and will tailor the results to fit.

How will the Government ensure that any decision reflects the wants and needs of local residents? Moreover, if the Government overrule the proposals submitted by the council, upon which evidence will they ensure that the voices of local people are considered?

The Huntingdonshire district council website says:

“All proposals will be assessed against all the criteria in the invitation. Decisions on the most appropriate option for each area will be judgements in the round, having regard to the statutory guidance and the available evidence. That evidence will include information provided by the councils as part of their proposals, representations received during the statutory consultation, and other relevant information available”.

A written answer to me on Friday said:

“a consultation could be launched in early 2026, likely closing at some point after the May local elections”.

Could the Minister clarify whether impacted residents across Cambridgeshire will have their say? If so, is the late May date the first opportunity they will have? If the statutory consultation is not until after next year’s local elections, can we assume that district council elections in Huntingdonshire will definitely go ahead?

The Government are in the process of botching this local government reorganisation with their hands-off approach. Every question to the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution has so far been met with a deflection to the relevant local authority, but this has left a situation where local authorities seem unsure of the detail, local residents have endless unanswered questions, and we are on the cusp of making enormous changes that will have a lasting impact on people’s lives, their prospects and their quality of life, all because nobody had bothered to think through the detail.

In March, a joint statement from council leaders across Cambridgeshire stated:

“We look forward to further discussions with each other and with government, and when the time is right, with residents, Members of Parliament and our partners”.

When will Members of Parliament be engaged on the initial proposal? I have not been engaged thus far, and I do not believe any of Cambridgeshire’s other MPs have been officially engaged either. What is the plan? I appreciate that is more of a rhetorical question than one for the Minister, but the point still stands. I am sure this debate will be watched by council leaders, and some of my questions are more for their benefit.

Last week, I wrote to each councillor in my Huntingdon constituency to seek their input on the potential impact of the changes, and hon. Members will hear a selection of quotes peppered throughout my speech. I was very pleased to receive a range of responses from across the political spectrum, with Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and independent councillors highlighting their concerns. Councillor Nathan Hunt, Liberal Democrat, Huntingdon East ward, said:

“throughout the process, communication from central government seems to have lacked required detail and has generally been poor”.

It is highly notable that, despite our political differences, the responses highlighted the same broad concerns: a rushed process, short timelines, lack of rigour, unclear criteria, poor communication, inadequate information, analysis and evidence, and no clear identification of what is best for residents.

The engagement survey currently in flight, led by East Cambridgeshire district council as communications lead, is not clearly signposted or easy to locate. It will be interesting to see once it closes whether there has been significant uptake. There has been no indication from Huntingdonshire district council of whether there is a minimum viable response rate. If sufficient responses are not received, will they be considered at all? Will that extend to the whole of Cambridgeshire and to other district councils? Prior to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority mayoral election in May, a booklet was sent to every household, so why has a similar effort not been made to engage residents with a posted survey? Most people have no idea that the local government reorganisation is happening, and that is as much the fault of the Government as of the local authority.

The engagement survey closes on Sunday 20 July, so in less than two weeks, residents in my constituency and across Cambridgeshire will have had what initially appears to be their only opportunity to influence the process, and it will have passed most of them by. The three shortlisted options were sadly published only as maps and with no additional information, and all local authorities published the same survey at the same time. To what extent will the Government take into account the results of the engagement survey from residents in each district council area? To what extent will the Government take into account the submission from the district councils regarding the preferred option? If the Government decide that they simply do not like the unitary structure proposed by the Cambridgeshire district councils, which criteria will they use to override them and impose their own solution?

It is inconceivable that residents are being asked to make a decision on the future structure of Cambridgeshire without any financial information. No information is publicly available that compares the finances of councils, and we have seen no information on council income, expenditure, debt or council tax.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

My neighbour and hon. Friend is making an extremely effective case illustrating just how cosmetic the consultation is. His councillors’ concerns are shared by councillors in Fenland. Specifically, there is no detail on the different assets of local authorities, and no detail on key services that matter hugely. In Fenland, for example, we have free car parking. It is strongly valued by residents, but there is no indication of how that would be protected. There is no alignment across the strategies. The council tax relating to Fenland has been frozen for the last seven years, but the approach in Peterborough has been very different. This lack of detail makes the consultation deeply flawed, and my hon. Friend is right to set out his concerns.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. I will come on to the division of assets. There is such a staggering lack of detail that I do not know how residents can possibly hope to make a good decision based on all the information.

To gain an insight into the current finances, I have had to turn to the House of Commons Library, a resource to which the vast majority of people do not have access. Huntingdonshire, which my Huntingdon seat sits completely within, is the second largest non-metropolitan district council in the country. Last year, it had a negligible notional overspend, with a £2.175 million contribution to general reserves. It also has £35 million in the earmarked general fund reserves. To our north, Fenland has a growing budget shortfall from an overspend of £350,000 last year to a projected £1.4 million this year, rising to over £4.5 million by 2029-30. Nearby Peterborough has a projected budget gap of £4.1 million next year and £7.3 million the following year.

It is unacceptable that my constituents should have to bail out the spiralling debts of other councils. This would see revenue raised in Huntingdonshire being largely spent elsewhere. Cambridgeshire residents should be aware of the projected budgetary overspend of these councils before they are asked to express a preference on how they would like the new unitary authority to be structured. It is frankly irresponsible for councils to gloss over the financial implications of this decision without full transparency.

From the look of the finances as they stand, Huntingdonshire could well find itself propping up financially unviable unitary authorities, meaning that the work we have done and are doing to make Huntingdonshire a fantastic place to live and work may be undone, with revenue raised here used to pay for services elsewhere. Councillor Ian Gardener, Conservative, Alconbury and Kimbolton division, said:

“The major concern for me is that HDC could lose control of its well managed financial reserves, which could be used to mitigate the losses of less well run councils in the newly formed unitary authorities. Which would be to the detriment of HDC residents.”

Councillor Simon Bywater, Conservative, Sawtry and Stilton division, said:

“There is a real risk that HDC’s reserves could be pooled and redirected…forcing them to subsidise areas that may not have shown the same level of financial responsibility.”

What steps do the Government plan to take to implement a pre-nup so that current districts are protected? If they choose not to do so, we are likely to see a spending splurge, lest we have to spend money elsewhere after the reorganisation. It is imperative that it is clearly explained to residents how the different combinations of district councils will look from a financial perspective. How will the assets and liabilities of Cambridgeshire county council be disaggregated? On the one hand, a lot of the assets are held in South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge city, including development opportunities; on the other hand, there is circa £450 million-worth of damage on Fenland’s roads. Are assets and liabilities to be shared equally or kept in their geographical location?

I am keen to hear from the Minister on whether the Government will write off any of the debt currently held by district councils or the county council. What work have the Government done to look at how that will be distributed? Can he address my concern that this is being hidden from the general public, and that it should be made statutory that finances, particularly inherited debt, be published? To that end, what transitional support will be available to new unitaries that inherit significant debt, or are projected to inherit significant debt, between the decision this year and the implementation in 2028 and beyond?

Furthermore, a new funding system will be implemented in the 2026-27 financial year, with fundamental changes in the needs distribution, council tax equalisation and, crucially, a business rates baseline reset. It is therefore essential to model the proposed options on these forthcoming changes in order to understand how they will impact each unitary in 2028. Initial independent modelling suggests that Cambridge city council may lose 25% of total resources and South Cambridgeshire district council 35%—combined losses of £18 million due to the baseline reset.

That illustrates just how important a published impact assessment will be. To date, no impact assessment has been published. Cambridgeshire residents have no idea how local services will be impacted, for better or worse. Given that the issue is regularly raised by constituents in my mailbag, it is difficult to see how councils could fail to engage with their MPs as key stakeholders. We have no idea how the differing combinations of district and county council wards and divisions will be affected.

How will the new unitary authority boundaries affect school places? Will parents suddenly find themselves outside the catchment areas for their desired schools? Will a school on the other side of the unitary boundary suddenly no longer be an option? How will special educational needs and disabilities provision work? Will the two new unitaries be resourced adequately to enable the timely provision of education, health and care plans? Cambridgeshire currently has a terrible reputation for meeting the statutory timeframe.

Social care is a key factor and consideration for any new unitary authority. Cambridgeshire as a whole is lucky in that it has lower social care needs than many other areas of the country. However, given how other formulae work against Cambridgeshire, owing to the area’s population growth outstripping the outdated modelling for these formulae—often by 10 to 20 years, when we look at the Carr-Hill formula, fire and rescue service funding formula or police allocation formula—the impact of social care costs on Cambridgeshire should not be underestimated, even if the relative needs formula looks more favourable. With regard to the proposed options, what consideration will district councils be obligated to give to service scale versus financial viability?

From a healthcare perspective, we have already seen that Cambridge and Peterborough integrated care board is set to merge with Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes ICB and Hertfordshire ICB. The 10-year health plan, announced only last week, makes it clear on page 13 that, under the proposals for a new operating model, the Government

“will streamline how local government and the NHS work together and make ICBs coterminous with strategic authorities by the end of the plan”.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Part of the Government’s plan for local government reform is to align the ICBs with new mayoralties, as he just mentioned. Does he share my concern that the plan to merge Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB with Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Milton Keynes, despite there being no plans for a mayoralty to cover that area, is a complete waste of time and money that could be better spent fixing local healthcare gaps and patient care?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wholeheartedly agree. We saw that only last week, when the 10-year health plan was rolled out. The Government would have known full well that this contradicted their previous stance. How does the Government’s merging three ICBs together to make one of the largest in the country chime with the need to reorganise those same ICBs to reflect the 10-year health plan? Can the Minister confirm what the future of the new mega-ICB that includes Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB will be under local government reorganisation? Currently, this is completely contradictory.

Analysis of the proposed Greater Cambridge unitary of Cambridge city and South Cambridgeshire has shown that it would have a high share of total relative needs formula from environmental, protective and cultural services. Greater Cambridge would have the highest total share after the City of London, and it would be ahead of Westminster. The same analysis shows that the balance of service in any unitary containing Cambridge city would be very focused on non-demand-led services, and thus there would be a greater share of service delivery based on resident services and services for visitors and commuters.

Huntingdonshire district council states on its website that the new unitary authority should have a population of around 500,000, though that has since been confirmed by the Minister as a “guiding principle”, not a target:

“We understand the need for flexibility, especially given our ambition to build out devolution and take account of housing growth”.

Given the proposed housing growth across Huntingdonshire, it is vital that the council does not max out the population size.

Huntingdonshire’s projected growth shows that it will be one of the fastest-growing regions in the fastest-growing county, but with several parts of Cambridgeshire expected to grow in the near term, with an increasing tax base and business rates, what modelling have the district councils conducted to ensure that the proposals put to the general public are balanced? The Government have suggested that population size is the main measure of sustainability for new unitaries, but to what extent has the projected growth been factored into those current proposals, particularly on the question of whether two or three unitaries would be preferable within Cambridgeshire? Even if the option were taken for three smaller unitaries, each between 275,000 and 300,000 people, what assessment has been conducted to ascertain the population size of each unitary in 2028, when they would actually come into effect? Furthermore, what would their size be once we see some of the projected growth? We could easily see the new smaller unitaries approach the 350,000 minimum size quite quickly.

Between 2021 and 2041, the Greater Cambridge unitary is projected to grow from 318,000 to 381,000. We could potentially see comparative growth across other parts of Cambridgeshire, where development continues at pace. In Huntingdon alone, we will see another 4,000 houses built at Alconbury Weald, with no commitment from the Government regarding a new east coast main line station at Alconbury Weald—a request I have made multiple times. I have discussed that with the Transport Secretary and asked for the current status of the plans from Network Rail, sadly to no avail. We will likely see up to 4,500 homes at RAF Wyton, now that the surplus Ministry of Defence land there has been designated as an MOD Trailblazer site. Between the two, we also have potential development at Hungary Hall. In excess of 10,000 homes in the area potentially means 20,000 to 40,000 additional people over the next 10 to 20 years. Coupled with the new defence technology cluster nearby, the travel to work areas will likely change dramatically. Going forward, we will potentially see Huntingdon as a centre of employment rather than a dormitory town for Peterborough, Cambridge or even London.

In 2032, we should theoretically be due a constituency boundary review. We will then see further disruption as constituency boundaries straddle new unitary boundaries, meaning yet more burdensome administrative upheaval, potentially leaving residents confused about who is representing them. Can the Minister confirm the smallest size of unitary that the Government will accept? To what extent will the Government include projected growth in their decision-making process, and over what period? In the event that current and/or projected growth figures do not meet the threshold, to what extent will a sound business case outlining the financial viability of the unitary take precedence?

There is much to cover on the various pitfalls of LGR—too much to cover today, arguably. There are still significant questions about how new unitaries will affect travel to work from one extreme to another, for those whose work takes them to Cambridge or Peterborough. There are questions about how unitary boundaries will impact school places and catchment areas for pupils close to the boundaries, how the availability of social housing will be impacted by different combinations of districts, with some owning their social housing stock and others not, and how South Cambridgeshire district council’s ridiculous new four-day week for five days’ pay will translate to the new unitary. Will the new unitary be a four-day week, or will those now on four-day week contracts be mandated to work five days? Will the whole thing be ripped up because SCDC will not technically exist any more?

Brett Mickleburgh, Liberal Democrat councillor for Godmanchester and Hemingford Abbots ward, has raised concerns that,

“a unitary authority will have huge seats/divisions with a single councillor struggling under an unreasonable case workload—compounded if they have a cabinet role. I fear the members allowance will only be sufficient to allow those retired, of independent wealth or aspiring career politicians to take office”.

Brett makes an important point. To what extent have the Government considered that? How big will each unitary council seat be? How many councillors will there be? How will the seats be divided and boundaries drawn? Will they be bigger or smaller than the county divisions? Will there be one, two or three councillors per area now that district and county council functions will be merged? Will we have district council elections in 2026? If we do not get an answer until the end of the year, we are doing a disservice to the candidates, who could have had months’ more time in which to campaign.

I could go on. To roll out LGR with such little detail and so few answers does not augur well. It gives me and other Cambridgeshire MPs and councillors little confidence that this will be a smooth transition to larger councils that everybody feels is an improvement on the current structure.

I will leave the last word to one of our local councillors, and my main opponent in last year’s general election, Labour and Co-operative Councillor Alex Bulat for St Ives South and Needingworth division:

“Among all these voices, Huntingdonshire local voices seem sidelined at best, if not ignored at worst.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. She is absolutely right: everyone should feel safe while on public transport. That is why we have developed an ambitious programme to help make the transport network safe for women and girls. The British Transport police use overt and covert policing techniques to target offenders who are using the network, promote the reporting of sexual offences, and have committed to tackling violence against women and girls in their 2025-to-27 policing plan, which, with her experience in this area, she may be interested to discuss with them.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

On Friday, my private Member’s Bill is due for Second Reading. It calls for the Government to publish a strategy to tackle interpersonal abuse and violence against men and boys. The strategy would ensure that male survivors of crimes considered to be violence against women and girls, such as rape, sexual assault, domestic abuse, forced marriage and honour-based violence, are given dedicated support, and also prevent male survivors from having to be in spaces that should be for women. Currently, male survivors are to be included in the strategy for women and girls, due to be published this summer. Can the Minister reassure me, and male survivors in desperate need of support, that the Government will introduce a dedicated strategy for men and boys, and if they will not, why not?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. It does affect women and girls more, but I take the points that he raises, and it is important that all people get the support that they need. I look forward to looking closely at his private Member’s Bill.

Chinese Embassy Development

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

A planning inspector is assessing the case as part of a public inquiry. Although I recognise why the hon. Gentleman has asked the question, I am afraid it would not be appropriate for me to comment on national security matters.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

“China is likely to continue seeking advantage through espionage and cyber-attacks, and through securing cutting-edge Intellectual Property through legitimate and illegitimate means.” Those are not my words, but the words of the Government’s own strategic defence review. Given the sub-threshold threat posed by China and its starring role in the SDR, where it is referred to explicitly alongside Russia and Iran, why has China not been included in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme ahead of any potential approval of its super-embassy?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend the Minister for Asia and the Indo-Pacific tells me that that particular report is coming forward in due course. Again, on the planning application, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific national security issues but, as I have said, material planning considerations, including those relating to safety and national security, will be taken into account.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The aspect of the Bill I would like to focus on is the nationally significant infrastructure project reform. This Labour Government claim that their reforms will make

“targeted and impactful interventions to the consenting system,”

but that will come as scant consolation to the local residents on the receiving end of the projects being foisted upon them. Having fought for my constituents against a solar NSIP, I know how difficult it will be to navigate for the average person, and the Government appear determined to make it even harder

The Government are moving the goalposts to reach their ideological aims, and it is my constituents who are paying the price without being heard. They are receiving nothing in the way of direct compensation as a result—no firm commitment to cheaper energy bills, with the Government only assessing zonal pricing, and no firm commitment to ensuring that community benefit funds appropriately compensate local communities.

This Labour Government have already forced through six solar NSIPs since July, compared with just three under the previous Government. The largest of the three approved by the Conservatives was 1,200 acres; the smallest solar farm approved by this Government is 1,300 acres, while the largest, so far, is 2,800 acres. The current threshold for solar development to qualify as an NSIP is only 50 MW, which has been the case since 2008. While the Government have legislated to raise the existing solar threshold from 50 MW to 100 MW, it is still a laughably low bar. Point 2.10.17 of national policy statement EN-3 clearly states that

“a solar farm requires between 2 to 4 acres for each MW of output.”

Such a low threshold will potentially allow hundreds of acres of good-quality farmland to be brought into scope.

Cambridgeshire is seen as a target-rich environment by the Government. We have already seen the Sunnica energy farm approved in the east of the county, and now East Park solar farm has been proposed in my constituency on an excessive scale—it is bigger than Gatwick airport, at 1,900 acres and spanning six miles. Nearly 75% of the site is graded as best and most versatile land.

In answer to a written question about how many consented nationally significant infrastructure projects use greater than 50% best and most versatile land. I was told by the Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who is in his place, that

“no nationally significant infrastructure projects have been consented which will use greater than 50% best and most versatile agricultural land.”

Last week, when I challenged the Secretary of State on the same point, quoting point 5.11.34 of the national policy statement—that he should

“ensure that applicants do not site their scheme on the best and most versatile agricultural land without justification”—

he suggested that

“the decision makers will be looking closely at the issues”—[Official Report, 18 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 164.]

But will they?

The Government have pledged to achieve a target. They have moved the goalposts to make that target easier to achieve and stacked the deck in their favour at the expense of local residents, suggesting that achieving the goal

“is going to require our NSIP system to be firing on all cylinders.”

The Government will remove the requirement to consult category 3 people, who would be able to make a claim under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, while maintaining the requirement for notification at the acceptance stage. The first that residents will know about land being taken from them is after an application has already been accepted.

The illusion of statutory consultation appears to be nothing more than lip service. For all the questions I have asked—written questions, oral questions—I have not once heard a response from the Government that the views of local people will be taken into account nor explaining how the highest-graded land will be protected from development. I note that in her opening speech, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that the Government would be protecting agricultural land, but gave no detail on that. I would be interested to hear what the Government are going to do.

It is particularly telling that the forthcoming solar road map will not break cover until after the Bill has progressed. Yet again, it appears that this Government will do anything to achieve their plan for change without any thought to the consequences of said change.

The Bill requires the national policy statements to be updated every five years, but those providing policy guidance on energy infrastructure were last published in January 2024. Although that should mean they will not be updated again until 2029, the Bill proposes that Parliament can make changes to the NPSs outside the rhythm of those updates. Given the clear desire of the Government to force through NSIPs wherever possible, my concern is that they are being given a window of opportunity to implement rolling tweaks in order to manipulate the NSIP process to better suit their own agenda.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

Effective regulation of political finance is crucial for maintaining trust in our electoral system and our democracy. The UK already has a strong framework that makes clear that only those with a legitimate interest in UK elections can make political donations, but the Government committed in our manifesto to strengthening the rules on donations to political parties in order to protect our democracy from foreign interference. We will bring forward proposals in due course.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

T7. I recently spoke to Chris Dodson, a local thatcher in Sawtry, who raised with me the shortage of thatching straw, and particularly long straw thatch. With Historic England insisting that grade II listed properties should use like-for-like materials in replacements and the chance of listed building consent to change from straw to water reed unlikely to be granted, will the Minister confirm what the Government are doing to ensure that thatchers are not hindered by the current guidance and the shortage of thatching straw?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I confess that that is a question to which I do not have the answer. The Government intend to amend building regulations later this year as part of the introduction of future standards, and it sounds like this issue, which I think came up in the debate on a private Member’s Bill on Friday, is one that we need to consider. I am more than happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman and have a further discussion about it.

English Devolution

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

This was one of the reasons why we were so keen to complete the map of the north of England. Most would accept that strategic transport, certainly, crosses county boundaries. If we think about connectivity in the north of England, how Lancashire, Greater Manchester, the Liverpool city region, Cheshire, Cumbria and the rest are joined up, and then even into Yorkshire, requires co-ordination. We want mayors and strategic authorities to work together across that pan-region, so that even more powers can be devolved to address the type of issues that my hon. Friend talks about.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

According to the White Paper, a constituency like mine will see Cambridgeshire county council and Huntingdonshire district council merged into a unitary council as the principal authority, under Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority as the strategic authority. How will unitary councillors fulfil the roles of multiple district and county councillors in a part-time capacity, and what does it also mean for the forthcoming combined authority mayoral election in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough?

[Jim McMahon]

The forthcoming election for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will go ahead as planned. There is no proposal to change the boundary of what is currently a combined authority that will move to being a strategic authority. Local government reorganisation where there is an existing mayoral combined authority, providing that it is coterminous in terms of the review it has undertaken, will not have an impact at all. All that happens is the membership of the combined authority will change to reflect the new council structures as they appear.

Building Homes

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the ever-patient Ben Obese-Jecty.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister today launched the NPPF in my constituency of Huntingdon, at Alconbury Weald. However, that development was planned and built under the previous Government and phases 2 and 3 will see a further 4,000 homes and significant brownfield development at scale, but it has nothing to do with the revised NPPF. It is a shame the Deputy Prime Minister did not travel the extra couple of miles down to the Envar medical waste incinerator approved by the Minister on her behalf, against local wishes, a couple of months ago.

The Minister talks about guaranteeing infrastructure. When I asked the Government about a new east coast main line station to support the 6,500 homes at Alconbury Weald, they fobbed me off with talk of an internal review. How will the NPPF unlock the infrastructure that large developments desperately need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answers on that point.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I agree that we should be moving towards doing everything we possibly can to be efficient, and there will be consultations on that issue. One of the things that shocked me in bringing this Bill forward was that the standards are so low for some; we need to really ramp them up. The bottom line for me in bringing this Bill forward is that people should have safe, secure homes that are free from hazards. We can then build on that. We are doing much more as a Government on our ambitions to do that, working with landlords.

The database, alongside greater guidance and support from the Government, will also help landlords to understand and meet their legal duties. Good landlords should be supported and helped. In addition, the database will provide local authorities with the information that they need in their enforcement activities to drive out rogue landlords. In this Bill, I have also taken steps to support local government in its crucial role in keeping tenants safe and rooting out bad actors from the sector. That is why, as well as setting up the database, the Bill will give local authorities stronger powers to root out and punish the small number of landlords who deliberately flout the law, and will increase the maximum civil penalties, so that we punish offenders and further support local authorities.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Where I previously lived, there was a huge number of illegal houses in multiple occupation. Those residents are potentially not protected by this legislation. In giving local authorities more enforcement powers against rogue landlords, how exactly will we define a rogue landlord, and protect people who will potentially be off the radar?

[Angela Rayner]

There are separate rules for HMOs, but we are also extending ringfenced civil penalties to support councils more, because we need to make sure that there is enforcement. A database will be important when we are looking at what we face, and also in making sure that we can take action. The problem is not every landlord. Most landlords act in a reasonable way, but we need to make sure that action is taken against those who do not.

We recognise the important role that tenants play in holding their landlords to account, and we want to incentivise them to do so. That is why we have significantly strengthened rent repayment orders. To empower tenants to take direct action against unscrupulous landlords, the Bill will add new rent payment order offences, double the maximum penalty for offences, and ensure that offenders will more often pay the maximum penalty. When landlords break the rules, tenants must have recourse to action.

Finally, I want to mention pets. It is a shame the Speaker is not here, because this was my bit for him! Our reforms are aimed squarely at improving the lives of people and families, but I trust that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that pets are not just animals but family. That is why this Bill will make it easier for tenants to request the ability to have a pet in their home. It will also allow landlords to require insurance covering pet damage, so that everyone is covered and no one is left unfairly out of pocket.

Building Homes

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is right to mention the haphazard way in which the green belt has been built upon under the last Government, although some of the responses that I have had from Opposition Members give the impression that that never happened. I am clear that brownfield should always be the first port of call, which is why we have been making brownfield development easier under the NPPF. We will also take firm action to limit the scope to game the system, and consult on how to stop developers who have paid over the odds for land using that as an excuse for negotiating down their section 106 contributions. A number of measures, including our golden rules, will ensure that we push towards brownfield. The release of grey belt has to be within our golden rules.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Yesterday, the Secretary of State made the decision to approve the appeal by Envar Composting in relation to a proposed medical waste incinerator on the edge of St Ives, despite the initial application being rejected by Conservative and Labour members of Cambridgeshire county council. Residents in St Ives, as well as the impacted rural villages of Somersham, Bluntisham, Colne, Pidley, Woodhurst, Old Hurst and Needingworth, are hugely concerned that their opposition and concerns have not been heard by the Secretary of State. Given that NHS England’s 2023 clinical waste strategy states that there is a need to

“reduce the use of incineration”,

and details a strategic priority that

“requires in-house waste processing capability”

to be developed, why has the Secretary of State approved a medical waste incinerator against local wishes? Will she meet local residents to hear their concerns?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I have not personally dealt with that specific case, but when we make such decisions, we weigh up the advice and planning expertise that we have, and decisions will be made based on the evidence we have. It is an objective way of making a decision.