Local Government Finances: Surrey

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Spencer]

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

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for letting me take the debate from Surrey to Staffordshire. There is concern in Newcastle-under-Lyme about what a potential new unitary may look like and about whether the debt of current councils will be carried over to it. I want to add my concerns to his. This is not a party political issue; it is about ensuring that people are not forced to pay off the debt accrued by others.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is exactly right: through local government reform, all areas could be affected by the debt and other commitments of neighbouring authorities.

That brings me to the point I was about to make, which is that it really is not fair that my constituents in Runnymede could have to pay for the failed decisions of Woking politicians—both those in power and those who failed in their duty to scrutinise decisions—because those constituents never got to vote for them. The scale of the remaining debt, when combined with the debt of other local authorities, means that the new west Surrey unitary will be bankrupt from day one. New local authorities should be established on a sound and equal footing, so that the provision of services can be determined by local need. The Government need urgently to introduce a sound long-term financial plan for both unitaries in Surrey.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his impassioned and powerful speech on this matter, with which I wholeheartedly agree. I think he is being somewhat polite in the way he describes what this unitary authority is going to be. Essentially, if it is saddled with the debt from Woking and a number of other boroughs, it will essentially be stillborn from the start, and residents in my areas of Farnham, Haslemere and the other Surrey villages that I represent will be worse off because of it. Does he not agree that the Government must write off that legacy debt, or at the very least ring- fence it, so that our constituents do not face the problems —to be frank, the absolute mess—left by other boroughs and their politicians?

[Dr Spencer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Pinkerton]

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

[Dr Spencer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I would do no such thing as tease with announcements that sit with the Chancellor. What we have said to partners on the ground in the local authority is that this is a shared problem and we are committed to working together to find a resolution. We understand the pressure that the historical debt will place on the new authorities. It is incumbent on all of us to find a way through that ensures that, on the other side of it, we have local authorities that are sustainable, can survive and can deliver the quality of services for the local residents that is required.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

I think the Minister said a moment ago that she would work with the west Surrey authority to resolve the issue. At what stage in the process does she anticipate a decision and resolution? The west Surrey authority will not be an operational statutory unit until spring next year. We have elections to the shadow authorities this year. As I understand it, those shadow authorities will not have any powers until vesting day, when they are transferred to the full-fat authority, so the current county council and the district and borough councils will still have statutory powers.

Is the Minister saying that there will be no debt resolution until the west Surrey unitary authority is set up? Is she saying that there will be a resolution when the shadow authority is in place, or will we have a resolution before the elections this May? That is really important for our residents, who need to know what set-up the councillors they are voting for will have to deal with. Can she guarantee, or even say that it is her ambition, that she will get this resolved before we get to those elections?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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

Local Government Reorganisation

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I am seeking to ensure that we remain on track by responding to the comments I have had from councils, and ensuring they have the resources so that the process goes ahead as everyone intends it to.

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

I support unitarisation and the efficiency savings it brings, but may I caution the Secretary of State a little on his language? A lot of the waste he is talking about is people’s jobs. Many hard-working council workers, who have huge uncertainty about what will happen to them over the next couple of years, will be concerned to hear that sort of language used as we discuss this in the Chamber. What support is he giving local authorities to help those council workers find new jobs once the LGR process is complete?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member makes a very important point, and he is right to be concerned about people working for councils. Of course, the overall increase in funding for local authorities means they have more resources to support their staff members, who may be concerned about their jobs in these circumstances, and I urge affected councils to focus on precisely the issues to which he has brought to our attention.

Quarries: Planning Policy

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for his highly technical and broad speech, and particularly for his points about the environmental concerns about quarries.

I want to talk about Whitehall farm and the surrounding area, in which there have been several applications for gravel extraction by Cemex. That part of my patch used to be entirely in the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency but, as a consequence of the boundary review, is now on the border between it and Windsor. The area is a wholly inappropriate place to build a gravel pit for a whole range of reasons. The need for gravel extraction at the site remains to be seen, bearing in mind that we are expecting the River Thames scheme, which will produce a lot of aggregate as part of the construction process. The traffic in the area is highly stretched, to say the least. Inappropriate HGVs going down small roads in Egham with level crossings are already causing traffic carnage.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The picture the hon. Gentleman paints is very familiar to me. There was recently an application on the edge of a village in my constituency. The heavy lorries would cause vibrations on the narrow roads. However, as well as the environmental impact, there is the economic impact on rural areas, where agriculture is trying to diversify. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a tension between the tourism industry and the need to diversify, and the impact of quarries, which discourages people from coming to an area?

[Dr Spencer]

That is a very good point. Of course we need aggregates to be produced, particularly for the construction sector. I find it confusing that there has been such a push for the site at Whitehall farm. Industry and the residential sector need to work with each other. We need industry because people want jobs, but there are egregious examples, such as the one I mentioned in my constituency, that just do not make sense. I will expand on that point later. To go back to the issues with Whitehall farm, the broader traffic impact would be highly problematic, as would the pollution impact, particularly for a local school that is downstream. There would also be a flooding risk if gravel extraction goes ahead.

Aside from all the problems with the site, which I have been campaigning against, it is a really good example of the importance of community and elected representatives working together to stop something that does not work. Over the years, several applications have been made for the site, and I have worked closely with other elected representatives and the community group to oppose them. I pay particular tribute to Residents Against Gravel Extraction and Professor Moreton Moore, who has done a huge amount of technical work to fight against the site, and local councillors, particularly Councillor Jonathan Hulley, who has worked to oppose the developments. I am pleased that, as a consequence of the boundary review, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) will join us. I know that he will also work to prevent the site.

It is clear from the intervention from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and from what my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire said that this issue affects a lot of constituencies. The best defence against inappropriate development is close working among community groups and elected representatives. Will the Minister comment on how Labour changes to planning infrastructure will hamstring our ability to stand up for our local residents?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on.

In relation to decision making, the framework requires mineral planning authorities to

“ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety”.

The cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites or a number of sites in a locality should also be taken into account. Mineral planning authorities should also make sure that

“any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties”.

As well as policies specifically on minerals, the NPPF includes policies in relation to air quality, which was raised by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and pollution. They make it clear that both planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of air pollution.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Samantha Dixon]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on with my speech.

The NPPF further states:

“Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality…Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects…of pollution on health, living conditions”—

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Thank you, Dr Murrison.

I know that the issue of increased HGV movements and congestion is important to hon. Members. Although quarry development can often result in additional HGV movements, where necessary, access roads can be constructed and routeing agreements can be made to reduce the impact on local roads, residents and the environment.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

Will the Minister give way on that point, please?

[Samantha Dixon]

Yes.

[Dr Spencer]

Brilliant. I am so grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I am glad that she has reflected on the importance in our democracy of Members being able to raise points with Ministers—something that I mentioned in my speech in terms of local representation. Given that she is explaining, in effect, that the system is perfect and there is nothing to see here, could she comment on why so many Members decided to participate in the debate?

[Samantha Dixon]

I will come to that point in due course.

Proposals in respect of transport impacts should be supported by a detailed transport assessment, which is considered as part of the decision-making process. Further information to support the implementation of the policies set out in the national planning policy framework is provided in planning practice guidance.

To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, I should highlight the fact that the Government are about to launch a consultation on a revised national planning policy framework, including a clearer set of national policies for decision making on mineral extraction and other matters. This is a great opportunity for all Members and the communities they represent to engage. In the light of the concerns that they have raised today, I encourage them to take part in that consultation.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

If we truly believe in democracy and if this Government are genuine about devolution, my borough could easily change and become part of the Greater Essex combined county authority. All I am asking is for us to have that debate, and to be given a choice. There are differences of opinion: some people think we are better off in Greater London, and others would prefer to be part of an Essex authority. Surely every Member of this House believes in democracy—I hope they do—and every Member of this House should allow boroughs such as mine, right on the extremities of Greater London, to at least have that choice. I am asking for a referendum to be considered, and I am asking for my constituents to have the democratic right to make the decision about where we truly belong and what best suits our local borough.

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

My constituency is on the outskirts of London—we are not in London; we are very much in Surrey—but we suffer from the fact that many decisions that affect my constituents on a daily basis are made in London, often to our detriment, and we have absolutely no control over them. I recognise the strong point my hon. Friend is making, but even if he is able to withdraw from the administrative unit of London, he will not escape negative decision making by the current Mayor of London.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Dr Ben Spencer.

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

Yesterday, my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), asked the Minister whether Surrey will get a mayor. He did not get much of an answer—we can only imagine what has led the Government over the past year to get cold feet on the election of mayors going forwards. I want to talk about new clause 1 and amendment 2, on consent for change, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on behalf of the official Opposition.

Surrey and others have been working with the Government to maximise the opportunities of devolution locally. As part of that, there has been quite a debate over the unitary model and whether there should be two, three or one unitary authorities. On the face of it, ideally, going for one unitary would mean savings, but the Government have decided that is not possible, so, through various processes, the decision has been made to have two unitaries. That has all been done in pursuit of a mayor.

A mayor would make a big difference in ensuring that Surrey can, as the Government put it, unlock devolution. It is frustrating that we have got to this stage—all this work has been done—but there has still been no firm commitment that Surrey will get a mayor, particularly when a unitary model is being adopted purely to seek a mayor when, actually, a better model locally would be a single unitary. I see the Minister nodding; I am sure she can see that conundrum and how there is frustration about the fact that a mayor has not yet been announced.

A mayor would bring huge benefits in leading on strategic projects such as the River Thames scheme that I have been trying to push to be built as soon as possible. It would also bring benefits in health, with accountability for integrated care boards—again, I have been calling for that—and on transport locally. I have been calling for a duty to co-ordinate, which I think a mayor with powers would also be able to deliver for Surrey. In housing, I am calling for the prevention of inappropriate local development, which is blighting areas across Runnymede and Weybridge and which will affect both the east and west unitaries when they are set up. In policing, given that the Government have announced that they will wrap up the police and crime commissioners, we need a mayor to take on the role at the cut-off date of 2028.

I beg the Minister to announce, either in winding up, via a written ministerial statement or otherwise the confirmation of a mayor for Surrey and a guarantee that next year’s elections will go ahead. Will she also explain how my constituents can be shielded from other councils’ debt as part of the unitary reforms that are going ahead?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Ben Spencer Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Our planning system is critical and should protect against inappropriate development, including on the green belt and flood plains. It needs to protect and enhance biodiversity, and it needs local democratic and community input. Rather than dictating to communities, the Government should work with them. We need not only houses but homes, and that means infrastructure, roads, schools, health services and sewers. Whether through “infrastructure first” or making them all statutory consultees, it has to work. Planning enforcement must also work, but it is an ongoing issue in my patch despite recent changes and improvements.

On the changes proposed to the NSIP system and development consent orders, I will speak about the experience in my constituency because we have had DCO complete, have one ongoing and hope to have one in the future. I will start with the one that has finished, which is the Esso pipeline project. It ended up blocking access to homes and ripping up green spaces, with poor communication and no compensation to the residents affected. When I asked for compensation, the answer was, “Well, it’s not in the DCO.” Reform must ensure greater protections for communities affected by a DCO project.

The M25/A3 DCO, which many Members will know about because of the M25 closures, one of which over the weekend, is a fantastic project that will improve local connectivity, but it has wreaked havoc through diversion routes and problems at the Painshill roundabout, which National Highways admitted was deprioritised in favour of the works. It has caused problems with kids getting to school and to their exams. When I tried to raise this to get enforcement, including through, among others, the Office of Rail and Road, no formal investigation was even opened, and it has been pretty much impossible to find a meaningful way to get enforcement when things go wrong.

We hope to have—we must have—a DCO in the future with the River Thames scheme, which will massively reduce my constituents’ flood risk and make it far less likely that we see a repeat of the impact of the 2014 floods. We have had countless rounds of consultation. I am concerned that, because of the current system, perfect has become the enemy of the good, and I am worried about the problems with local council reform and the impact they will have. Will the Minister in his wind-up explain and give advice to people putting together a DCO as to what they should do given the Bill’s impact when it gets Royal Assent?

Renters (Reform) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I support amendments 138, 139, 143 and 144, which would require evidence to be given when using grounds 1 and 1A. While that is important, I again think—I always live in hope—that some clarity from the Minister about the courts being required to obtain at least the first part of that evidence could achieve this without that necessarily being written in the Bill. I believe that the second part would need some legislative clarity, which is why the amendment is useful.

However, let us be clear: it is a crime to knowingly make a false statement to the court. We need to make it clear to landlords that that crime will be followed up. It can only be followed up if we then determine that the property was not then taken into possession and that there was no malicious element to it—there can be other reasons, of course. Without that element of enforcement, and therefore knowing what has happened in a number of months’ time, that will never happen. This could quite easily be implemented through the property portal sending automatic messages to the court, which would not overburden our court process. I again ask for some clarity from the Minister that this is how the property portal and court reform is intended to work. That would probably alleviate some of these issues.

I have tabled a number of other amendments in this group, which I would also like to speak to. The first one would provide for the six-month protection to be renewed on the basis of rent renewals. At the moment, a lot of assured shorthold tenancies—not all of them, Mr Gray, I grant you, but probably the majority of them—have rent renewal clauses, such that that when the rent is increased, there is a new tenancy. The landlord will say, “I’m increasing your rent. Please sign the new tenancy for the year ahead.” Every year, the landlord says, “Well, you’re moving on to the periodic. I would quite like you to sign the new tenancy with the new rent.” That is what happens for most of my constituents who are in the most precarious part of the market, which we are trying to address. That gives them six months’ protection every year, on an ongoing basis, every time their rent is increased.

I know that the National Residential Landlords Association has described this idea as bonkers, but I think that is because it does not quite understand what I am trying to get at here, which is to retain what we already have currently. Although it seems that the Bill is increasing the protection of tenants—and the security of landlords, by knowing that the tenant will be there for a period—the danger is that it will reduce it because, de facto, most tenants currently have six months protection in every 12. The proposed change would provide six months’ protection over an indefinite period, which is clearly far less. Six divided by infinity is an impossible mathematical equation, but it is clearly less than six months divided by 12.

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

It is zero.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Quite right: zero protection—well, it is mathematically zero, but I think we all know that six months’ protection is a bit more than that—so there needs to be something.

When a landlord comes along on that annual date, the landlord might say, “I don’t want to make any changes. I don’t want to increase the rent.” Then, to some extent, the question is: why should any further protection be afforded? But if the landlord comes along and says, “I want to increase your rent,” and the tenant agrees that they are going to increase the rent—it does not go to a tribunal; it is all agreed—it seems quite reasonable to ensure protection on both sides, for example to provide for a new six-month protection period, just as happens at the moment.

That is why I have tabled these amendments, because I do not think it is in anyone’s interest for tenants suddenly to be leaving. Although the six-month protection does not prevent tenants from leaving, it does produce a mindset that the tenancy is now at least fixed for six months, based on what the landlord is offering and the higher amount that the tenant is now offering to pay. I do not think that is unreasonable, and I would love to see the Government accept the principle of it. If not—of course, I am not foolish, but there is always wishful thinking—it would be useful to hear an indication from the Government of which measures they think might be put in place to ensure that rolling protection.

The other amendment that I wish to speak to concerns the ability for a tenant to be offered the property before it is for sale. If it is a genuine sale, on the open market—the amendments would require a solicitor’s letter or an estate agent’s letter; I think that is reasonable and fair enough—no landlord would have any problem with making this offer for a short period. In my experience of selling houses, it takes more than four weeks between interest and getting it on the market anyway. I am talking about the landlord offering it to the tenant at the rate at which they are going to initially list it on the market. The landlord might reduce what it is on the market for later, because of market factors. I am not saying that that needs to be taken into account. All I am saying is that the initial listing should be offered to the tenant—a right of first refusal—in those four weeks. Again, I do not think this is unreasonable. Of course, in the majority of cases, the tenant will not be in a position to buy; but if, in a small number of cases, we can prevent turmoil and give the landlord a quick sale, it is in everyone’s interest to do so.

Again, I am not delusional and do not think that the Minister will accept this proposal, but I hope that the Minister might indicate how he will be encouraging, through court papers, potentially, and court reform, all those questions to be asked, just as we saw during covid, when court papers required the landlord to ask whether the tenant had been affected by covid. That was not a Bill change—a law change—but it was in the court papers. I am talking about how the question could be asked in court papers. There does not necessarily need to be a change in the discretionary grounds, but the very fact of asking the question could change the mindsets of landlords and, I think, is important.

Finally, under amendments 204 and 203, which I have also tabled, no rent would be required for two months—

Renters (Reform) Bill (Third sitting)

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

I am the joint owner of a property that is let out.

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

May I take your advice, Ms Fovargue? My understanding was that we only have to make our main declarations at our first meeting. Do we have to reiterate them each time?

[The Chair]

You will have to reiterate them each time.

[Dr Spencer]

In that case, I declare an interest: I receive support, in particular as set out in my entry under category 2(a) on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, from individuals with an interest in this area.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I am a vice-president of the LGA and I let out a property.

Examination of Witness

Judicaelle Hammond gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

Q I have a quick question about insurance, which you touched on briefly. Who should pick up the tab: the landlords or the tenants? Should there be something on that in the Bill?

Jen Berezai: I think it is good that there is the option for either. We ran a survey with the NRLA and Propertymark called “What’s the Damage?” because we wanted to drill down a bit deeper into the landlord’s experience. Those who saw insurance as the way forward were pretty evenly split between the landlord paying for the insurance, or the tenant paying the landlord, or the tenant actually buying the insurance policy. That seems to be determined by portfolio size and, to a degree, average rent. I think it is good that there is the balance, because some landlords want one thing and some want the other.

At the moment, if you find a pet-friendly landlord, the likelihood is that they are going to charge you pet rent, which they can do under the terms of the Tenant Fees Act; it is only the deposit that is capped. The average is about £25 per pet per month, which means that you are paying £300 extra rent per pet per year. That is just per pet, whereas an insurance policy covers an address, so you can have a cat and a dog or a couple of cats—whatever it might be—and your premium is less than pet rent and the cover is greater.

[Dr Spencer]

Q I am also a massive cat lover—thank you for the work that you and Cats Protection have been doing in this area. It strikes me that some of this is about landlord attitudes. Are there any other ways in which the Government could reassure landlords with regard to taking on tenants who have pets? Could there be guidance on the interpretation of the reasonableness clause? What are the other ways and mechanisms we can use to help landlords not to be so afraid to take on tenants with pets?

Jen Berezai: One thing that needs looking at is the current “yes pets” or “no pets” option. If you go on any of the search portals, those are the only options you get. There is no option for “pets considered”, but there needs to be because each case needs to be considered on its own merits.

As far as encouraging landlords goes, it is a bit utopian, but there could be some sort of incentive for a landlord not to discriminate against a pet-owning tenant. At the moment, if a landlord has 11, 15 or 20 applications for a property, they can choose the course of least resistance, take the easy option and ignore the pets. There could be some way of incentivising that, but I do not know what that might be or what might be realistic. I think it is more of an education exercise.

[The Chair]

As there are no further questions from Members, I thank our witness for coming to give evidence.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Mr Mohindra.)

Renters (Reform) Bill (Second sitting)

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q So the property portal should be accessible for you to see that detail of it—potentially in public generally, or for the potential tenant?

Fiona Rutherford: Importantly for the tenant. It is there that transparency matters the most. I think that there are possibly bigger issues with making it fully public.

Professor Hodges: One of the points about the portal is that it is a very effective self-regulatory—or indeed managerial—system, because it says, “Have you got an insurance certificate? Have you got a fire certificate? Well, upload it.” It is done, and then you get a reminder saying, “You’ve got to do the next one.” Everyone should be able to see that. There is nothing secret about that information, but it delivers a baseline of regulatory compliance—“Are you compliant with the decent homes standard? Where’s your certificate?” or whatever. It is self-policing, and provides a very simple mechanism for doing that.

Just to give one dramatic example of sanctions, the Civil Aviation Authority never fines airlines in relation to safety issues—although it fines them now and again. It has an incredibly good culture among all the players—air traffic control, the airlines, engineers, and so on—and has constructed that deliberately, and it is the only reason why planes stay in the sky and we have confidence in them. It never fines anyone, but it uses the ultimate sanction—rarely—that I was talking about of saying, “I’m going to stop you operating your aircraft or your airport.” That concentrates the mind and gets the result of them saying, “Okay, we’ve fixed it,” very quickly.

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

Q Elaborating on that point, would you do that based on a landlord or based on the property itself? Would there not be a danger of evasion through the property group being put in someone else’s name, or using a different landlord, to escape that enforcement?

Professor Hodges: Personally, I am in favour of the broadest possible enforcement powers, but not necessarily their regular use. Therefore, whoever is involved in management and responsibility should be within scope of the discussion, and then of the potential response or intervention.

[Dr Spencer]

Q I am just thinking that in terms of the aviation sector, which you gave the example of, it is very difficult to evade that—but I wonder whether in practice, with what you are describing, that would be easy to get around.

Professor Hodges: Well, whoever owns, or shadow-owns, a building, if you stop people letting the building, that will have an effect on anyone, will it not?

[Dr Spencer]

Q Then you have a different problem: if you sanction by property, the property essentially gets blacklisted. How do you switch that if it genuinely does change ownership?

Professor Hodges: You would have other powers against beneficial owners by saying, “You’ve done this several times; you’re out,” or, “Do it right otherwise you’re out.” That is a regulatory power.

[Dr Spencer]

Q Then you would need a separate database of people who are registered landlords.

Professor Hodges: Not necessarily. I think one database is enough, frankly. You should be able to capture all the data about, “Who owns this?” We have been talking about foreign-owned companies and things in other contexts, and there are techniques for identifying them.

Fiona Rutherford: I am going to make a point in relation to enforcement that I referenced earlier. Local authorities have been brought into this as we are talking about the widest panoply of options that might be available. I am going back to the penalties that I referenced earlier, so forgive me—I am moving out of the ombudsman perspective and the regulatory questions—but this is possibly related to enforcement. While there is a plan with the penalties as and when section 21 can be moved forward, and while the local authorities get a benefit from those penalties, a rate of £5,000 probably does not go far enough to act as any kind of incentive, in so far as you want enforcement to work in that way. Of course, there are other examples: £30,000 is the maximum financial penalty for a breach of the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022.

The other thing to say about local authorities is that while they benefit from the financial gain of any fixed penalties as a result of section 21 breaches, there is a real problem with local authorities’ resourcing. I am probably not saying anything that is particularly new to the Committee, but we are asking local authorities to do something more: it is not only enforcing section 21, but the other obligations to investigate antisocial behaviour appropriately. I again reference a report on behavioural control orders that we have looked into and the poor quality of data and understanding around antisocial behaviour. This means that the resources required are quite simply not going to be delivered through the proposed fixed penalties. We very much urge serious consideration around proper resourcing in a wider sense, but specifically in relation to antisocial behaviour and the section 21 enforcement regime.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Briefly on the breaches and penalties, how extensively do you think rent repayment orders should run through the Bill as a back-up? I am talking about the clause 9 and 10 breaches and the ombudsman portal registration breaches. Do you think we should have a much wider inclusion of rent repayment orders—probably as a final resort; we do not want to throw all the onus on tenants—as another deterrent?

Professor Hodges: Following the principle that the pathway and the process should be as simple as possible, we should not have a system in which people have to go to different institutions—a judge, an ombudsman, a regulator or a local authority—to get everything fixed if that can be done in one place at one time. The logic of that takes you towards giving power to the ombudsman, the judge and the regulator to issue rent orders at the end of a case. Why should anyone have to start again and go somewhere else to get that result? They should say, “Okay, on the proposition, the landlord was wrong—badly wrong, probably—in this particular circumstance. Fix it and we will come and make sure you’ve done all this stuff. The right result is to repay the rent.” Give them the power to do that and to be holistic.

Renters (Reform) Bill (First sitting)

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before I forget, let me ask members of the Committee whether they have any interests to declare. I am not sure whether the Chairman has to do so, but I own two buy-to-lets, not that that particularly matters.

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

I declare an interest in that I receive support, in particular as set out in my entry under category 2(a) on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, from individuals with an interest in this area.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I am a joint owner of a property that is let out for residential rent.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

This is an excellent and very important Budget for people in Runnymede and Weybridge and across the country. There is lots to talk about in it, but I want to focus on a couple of key points that are maximally important in tackling the challenges we have today—the need to halve inflation, grow the economy and reduce debt—and some of the interventions that this Budget makes to drive that forward.

The first thing I want to talk about—No. 1—are our reforms and improvements to childcare. I have an interest of sorts to declare, as I am a recipient of 30 hours of subsidised childcare and a user of the tax-free childcare scheme. Childcare is one of the biggest issues that comes up on the doorstep in my constituency. It is clearly a barrier to parents—mums and dads—returning to work, and the interventions we are making to increase the number of hours and improve the rate and the supply-side reforms will make a big difference. I have had meetings with many of my early years providers and nurseries, and they have raised just how challenging it is and how challenging the rates are in particular. These reforms and changes will make a huge difference. There is also a recognition in the measures being brought forward that supply-side provision will be difficult. In bringing the policy forward, there will be challenges in growing the workforce, and that is why it is being introduced in a sensible, staged way.

My second point is the investment in science. In Runnymede and Weybridge, we are proud to have the SuperFab quantum lab at Royal Holloway. I have visited it, and it is absolutely brilliant. It is an awesome high-tech research lab. The quantum strategy we have announced, with £2.5 billion going into it and a 10-year plan going forward, is critical for UK science. It will help the quantum ecosystem and it will continue to consolidate our position as world leaders in science, which is so important for the medium to long-term ambitions of our economy as we move more towards a high-skill, high-tech economy. We very much see that in Runnymede and Weybridge and the businesses we have locally.

I speak to businesses all the time, and I say, “Why did you set up originally in Runnymede and Weybridge?” They talk about proximity to an international airport—Heathrow—and to motorways, the commute time into London and of course being in Surrey, a wonderful place to live and work. Through that, we have a whole host of big life science and high-tech companies located in my constituency. I am working to drive forward further investment to consolidate us as a world-class location in which to invest. So I say to those watching at home, “If you’ve got a company that is in the tech and life science sector and you want to invest in Runnymede, come on over.” We are a fantastic place to set up, and the Government’s reforms will help consolidate that even further.

While I am on a roll, in my last 30 seconds I am going to talk about the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is in my constituency. In the first Budget I was at as a new MP, the Government committed £1.4 billion towards it, and I am looking forward to seeing that being delivered as we go forward. It is critical for our security in defence against zoonotic diseases and for our trade. It underpins the Northern Ireland framework, or what I would like to be called the Runnymede agreement, as it was actually signed in my constituency, and on that, I will finish.