Budget Resolutions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need that support to ensure that people can get from where they live in rural constituencies to other areas for work and education.

Growth is measured not by the number of new governance structures we create, but by whether people can find an affordable home, access GP appointments, travel to work, start a business and build a secure future in the place that they call home. For the Liberal Democrats, this Budget must meet three tests: democratic consent, sustainable local government finances and tangible improvements in everyday lives.

The first test is democratic consent. Devolution should bring power closer to communities. We should be careful not to mistake devolution for decentralisation. Power removed from Whitehall but concentrated in a single regional office, such as a mayor, is not necessarily power shared with local communities.

In Surrey, the home of my Guildford constituency, that distinction is becoming increasingly apparent. The Budget confirmed that the Government are in the final stages of agreeing arrangements for a mayoral strategic authority in Surrey, despite Ministers previously assuring the House that no area would be forced into a mayoral model. What has changed? There has been no vote of the councils that will have to operate within this structure, and residents have not been given an opportunity to express a view on what model they want. In fact, the bulk of the discussions appear to have been had with Surrey county council—a council that will be defunct in just six months—rather than the new east and west unitaries. How can the Government claim to be bringing power closer to communities when those same communities have had so little say?

Of course, a mayor is democratically elected, but representing an entire county or region is very different to representing a specific town, village or ward. Local councillors understand the character, challenges and priorities of the communities they serve; they are often the first people residents turn to when problems arise. I ask the Minister what meaningful influence locally elected leaders will retain and how the voices of villages and rural communities will be protected under the new arrangements. Devolution should not be forced on communities; it should happen with them.

My second test is whether the Budget delivers sustainable local government finances. The Budget contains announcements on strategic authorities, borrowing powers, business rates retention and new fiscal freedoms. Some of those measures may prove beneficial, but we must not confuse devolution with funding reform. Local government’s central challenge is not governance but financial sustainability. While Ministers talk enthusiastically about new structures and powers, councils across England face profound financial pressure. The Local Government Association has warned of a billion-pound funding gap over the coming years. Against that backdrop, many councils are struggling simply to maintain core services.

To return to my area of Surrey, the six councils coming together to form West Surrey will inherit £4.5 billion of debt while simultaneously facing rising demand for adult social care, children’s services and support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. My concern is about how implementing measures without funding reform solves any of those problems. How does the new governance structure address historical debt? How does it ease pressure on social care budgets? How does it help councils meet rising demand for frontline services?

The Budget includes a £1.5 billion borrowing facility for the strategic authorities. While borrowing may help investment, it is no substitute for financial stability. We must learn lessons from councils such as Woking, where serious financial failures—failures caused by previous Conservative administrations—have left residents paying the price. Nowhere is the gap between structural reform and real-life outcomes clearer than in special educational needs.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady is right to talk about local government finances. My local council of Harlow faced 70% cuts to core funding made by the Conservative Government, but does she recognise that when the Lib Dems were in coalition Government the funding was cut by nearly 30%? Does she also recognise that the Labour Government are introducing multi-year funding for local councils, which council leaders and officers in Harlow have been crying out for for a long time?

[Zöe Franklin]

I think we need to recognise that we are looking forward. Multi-year settlements are a positive step, but there is still ultimately no fix for local government finances, which is causing enormous problems for local councils.

Returning to the issue of SEND, families do not lie awake worrying about governance models. They worry about whether their child will receive the support they need, about delays to assessments and about whether an education, health and care plan will be delivered in time. I welcome the Government’s commitment to cover 90% of eligible historical high needs deficits accrued by March, but uncertainty remains about whether deficits accumulated in subsequent years will also be covered. This Budget also does not provide the scale of additional adult social care funding needed to address rising demand.

Finally on local government finance, I want to address business rates. I welcome the principle that more locally generated revenue should remain in local areas. Giving councils a stronger stake in local economic success is sensible. However, retaining more revenue does not necessarily mean receiving more funding. The reality is that councils only benefit from the share of business rates that they are allowed to retain. If a national policy decision reduces revenues, local government must be appropriately compensated. We must ensure that areas with fewer opportunities for growth are not left behind. Rural communities in particular should not find themselves disadvantaged by a system that increasingly relies on locally generated revenue. On my second test, the jury very much remains out.

My third test is whether the Budget will deliver tangible improvements to people’s lives. Good growth should mean growth that people can actually see and feel. It means a young family being able to afford a home and people being able to secure a GP appointment. It means reliable public transport and thriving town centres. It means ensuring that infrastructure arrives alongside development, rather than the reality we see, which is that the infrastructure arrives years afterwards.

My constituency of Guildford is home to a strong local economy, world-leading innovation and enormous potential, but beneath that prosperity, families are struggling with housing costs, children are growing up in poverty, and residents are frustrated by pressures on local services and infrastructure. That experience is not unique; it is being felt across the country.

If the Government genuinely want growth in every postcode, investment must translate into improvements. That means ensuring that the delivery of infrastructure comes with housing development, because people will support the development if they can see it. It also means growth beyond our major cities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) mentioned, it has to include our rural communities. Our high streets, of course, must also be central to that vision of growth.

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats believe that genuine devolution must mean more than transferring powers from Whitehall to an equally centralised regional mayor. We want decisions to be taken closer to communities, and we want growth that reaches every community. The Government recognise those things, but there is still so far to go. We want to see tangible change for our residents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

We have agreed, as part of the transitional arrangements, that the committee system will be allowed to continue for an extra year in the way that my hon. Friend describes.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the announcement by the Chancellor last week on supporting our high streets, which is welcome. What conversations has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues about the future of Poundland? We have two shops and one depot in Harlow, so this is hugely important for my constituency.

[Jim McMahon]

All of us are concerned about the announcement for Poundland and its 30,000 staff members. These are people in every one of our communities. I do not think there is a high street in the country that does not feature a Poundland. As confirmed this morning, the Government are in conversation with Poundland to ensure that it is supported where it can be, but I absolutely understand the community impact that my hon. Friend describes.

Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for opening the debate and, like many others, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for his extremely powerful and important speech, and for all the work that he has done to support the Grenfell families who so deserve that support. He is a fantastic champion for them. I also welcome the Bill, and the fact that those responsible for unsafe residential buildings will be held legally accountable. History has shown that these matters cannot be left unmonitored.

As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am forever honoured to stand in this place as the Member of Parliament for Harlow and the villages. To find myself listening to, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn)—of whom I admit to being a bit of a fan—is a “pinch me” moment. I have to say, though, that above all that, the biggest honour I have experienced in this place was when I spoke for the first time in a debate about Grenfell, some two years ago. I mentioned an incredible constituent, Rod Wainwright, who was one of the first responders on the scene at Grenfell. As you may remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, he witnessed at first hand the absolute horror that was caused by the unsafe cladding that had been used. That unavoidable tragedy that took so many lives has had a lasting impact not only on the families whom I have mentioned, but on heroes like Rod. He is an incredible man, both personally and professionally. People like Rod should not be suffering the consequences of others’ failings, and the Bill is just one step towards ensuring that that does not happen again.

I recently spoke to Rod, who, as I have mentioned previously, was medically retired owing to post-traumatic stress disorder. This is not an issue for the Ministers who are present today, but I hope that members of the Department for Work and Pensions team will listen. Every two years, Rod has to prove again that he has PTSD and that he should be medically retired. That has a massive impact on his mental health, and when I spoke to him I observed that impact at first hand. I do not think it right that heroes like Rod should have to go through this. He has to relive that terrible night every two years, again and again. It is very difficult for him, and it can be very difficult for his family.

I welcome the Government’s wider remediation acceleration plan, and the measures to protect leaseholders from unexpected costs and eye-watering bills to fix building safety defects that they themselves did not cause. In Harlow, there have been many cases of leaseholders facing such bills, and for many years this cladding was not seen as a defect. Criminalising those who fail to remediate or mitigate such important elements is a huge step in the right direction. It is clear that that failure costs lives, and I am glad that this Government are recognising the seriousness of it. I am pleased that the Bill provides for financial penalties to ensure that people are legally obliged to provide truthful information—which, as we know, did not happen in the aftermath of Grenfell—and will face penalties if they do not.

I also welcome the statutory duty to remediate multi-occupied residential buildings in England that are over 11 metres high or have at least five storeys. One of my constituents, Claire Miles, has talked about the tragic loss of her mother Daphne in a care home fire in April 2017 when building safety legislation applied only to buildings at least 30 metres high. Some consideration should be given to that during the Bill’s passage. While, as has been recognised, Harlow has great fire safety provision for high-rise buildings, earlier legislation has forgotten buildings such as care homes.

Finally, I thank the Secretary of State, the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith and the entire MHCLG team for bringing forward this legislation and for their continued championing of building safety—something that I think we can all agree is incredibly important. Everybody deserves a home, as we discussed yesterday, but more than that, everyone deserves a safe home.

Rough Sleeping and Good Growth Funds

Chris Vince Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi]

I join my hon. Friend in supporting Porchlight’s 50 years of work. May it continue with that support for many more years. He is right that we need that wider programme, working with different organisations, groups, charities, faith groups, civic society and businesses to look at that long-term, tailored support to help people off the streets.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. As someone who worked for a homeless charity, the wonderful Streets2Homes in my constituency of Harlow, this statement and this Government’s ongoing commitment to tackling rough sleeping are hugely important to me. The Minister has recognised the importance of the charity and voluntary sector to tackling rough sleeping in some of the answers she has given so far. That is not just Streets2Homes, but organisations such as Open Road, which helps to tackle alcohol addiction in Harlow. Often the funding for the VCS is sporadic, not long term and postcode dependent. What will the Minister do to ensure that brilliant charities such as Streets2Homes and Open Road get the long-term support and funding they need to tackle rough sleeping and the causes of rough sleeping?

[Florence Eshalomi]

It is always good to see my hon. Friend from Harlow recognising the many charities across his constituency. Many charities and voluntary groups right across the country are working on this important area. The hon. Gentleman and other Members will have seen many organisations saying that they wanted certainty in that funding. I hope that this increased funding will give those organisations that certainty, ensuring that this work continues not just up to Christmas, but after Christmas. This is a key commitment from the Prime Minister, and we will honour it.

Black History Month

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her opening remarks, and for her fortitude in delivering them. This year’s Black History Month focuses on honouring our communities, and I want to take the opportunity to bring hon. Members’ attention to the market town of Thetford in my constituency of South West Norfolk. A market town in rural Norfolk may not be the first place that Members think of when considering areas of social and cultural progress in the United Kingdom, but it was in my home town of Thetford that the UK had its first black mayor.

Allan Glaisyer Minns emigrated to England from the Bahamas as a child in the mid-1800s, and he began his story in London. After finishing at Nassau grammar school, he began studying medicine at Guy’s hospital, which is not far from here. Before the age of 30, he was already registered with the British Medical Association. Dr Minns moved to join his brother, who was practising medicine in Thetford. I have little doubt that the Norfolk weather did not quite match that of the Bahamas, and I am afraid that Thetford lacked sandy beaches. Regardless, there was something about our town and the community that made him want to stand for mayor.

Thetford’s community spirit and cohesion resonated with Dr Minns, because he decided to enter politics and was elected to serve on the town council. He was elected as a councillor in 1903, and he was elected by his peers to become mayor back in 1904. He served for 10 years as a local councillor, as well as serving as a local doctor, and he was elected as the mayor of Thetford twice. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: like Dr Minns, I have served as a member of Thetford town council. In my case, I was elected at 22. I am still there, some 19 years later—hon. Members can therefore work out my age. I, too, had the honour of becoming mayor of Thetford back in 2016, and I was proud to wear the same mayoral chain that was worn by Dr Minns all those years earlier.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for making an incredible speech and talking about a really trailblazing man in Dr Minns. I think we should all celebrate what he achieved in Thetford; it is a really wonderful story. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) about her experience of getting involved in politics. Does he share my concerns that, if Dr Minns put himself forward in politics now—with the horrible things that black MPs and black elected officials have to put up with online—it would be very difficult, and does he agree with me that it is the duty of everybody in this House to challenge the vile racism and disinformation that we see online?

Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

Chris Vince Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

You are not in your usual place, Chris Vince, but I can still see you.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was going to start by making a joke about always being picked last, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you have ruined it by picking me early on—thank you for that. I will try it anyway.

I am used to getting picked last in this place, but I was picked first when the new Prime Minister visited Harlow and my local pub. There, he had the opportunity to talk to Mr McMullen, the head of McMullen’s breweries, who said that this Government are doing more to support the pub trade than the previous one did. To change the subject, though, may I ask the Minister about how this tourist levy has been put in place in other G7 countries—where it has been very successful—and what he has learned from other countries?

[Jim McMahon]

As Members will know from their summer holidays in America, Europe or almost anywhere else in the world, some form of local sales tax or visitor overnight accommodation levy is generally accepted as part and parcel of going away. The difference here, I suppose, is that we did not believe that a flat rate would be fair or proportionate, for the reasons I have set out. A visitor levy has to be in line with the overnight rate that people are paying, to ensure low-cost family accommodation remains as such.

Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Chris Vince Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my experience as a social landlord.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for a major programme of social housing—150,000 homes per year—so there are elements of the Bill that we welcome and we will support it today. Extending the qualifying period to 10 years and cutting discounts will slow the loss of social homes, as we have been hearing. Protecting a newly built social home from sale for 35 years should give councils more confidence to build again, as will the improved right of first refusal. The protections for tenants fleeing domestic abuse are welcome and overdue, and we support them. So there are important steps in the right direction, but the Bill as a whole is nowhere near the scale of what is needed.

As other hon. Members have pointed out, right to buy was not on its own the biggest issue; it was the complete failure to replace properties, home for home. Thanks to the Conservatives, in Taunton and Wellington, as in the rest of the country, there are thousands fewer council homes than there used to be, all while the need for social housing has grown and grown. There are 4 million fewer council houses in this country than there were in 1980. Even taking into account replacements, social housing and registered social landlords, the number of social homes in this country has dropped by 1.5 million homes.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with the majority of what the hon. Gentleman has said so far; he may come on to things that I do not agree with later in his speech, but we will have to wait and see. Will he reflect on the fact that the impact of councils losing their council housing stock has been that they have had to spend more and more money on temporary accommodation? It is a zero-sum game for local councils and the impact on families and young people has been particularly difficult, including in my constituency of Harlow.

[Gideon Amos]

I thank the hon. Member for I forget where—he does not mention it very often, but maybe it is Harlow. He is right and I will come to exactly that point about temporary accommodation.

The Resolution Foundation found that only one home was replaced for every five sold. That is a direct failure of Governments of all persuasions to build enough social housing. The Conservatives reversed their policy of allowing councils to spend 100% of receipts soon after they introduced it. In comparison, in 2004, a Labour Government required three quarters of receipts to be sent straight to the Treasury. Homes were sold at around half their value, and what money there was from receipts went elsewhere, not into building new social homes, and building rates plummeted.

I am glad that the new Prime Minister talks a good game on devolution, but even under the measures in this Bill, councils will remain unable to stop the loss of council homes from right to buy. The Liberal Democrats would give councils that power to end right to buy in their areas, if that is right for them and their communities. The Government should trust councils to understand their communities and their own housing markets.

When it comes to the Conservatives, who seem to be chasing their ideological bedfellows in the Reform party, apparently the priority is not building housing; it is finding a minority to blame for the problem—a group to alienate as “the other” when we should be focusing on building for the whole of the UK and everyone who lives here. Their amendment banning people who are not full British citizens from social housing overlooks the fact that people subject to immigration control are already ineligible for social housing—that is the law—but they want to go further.

The nurse on the ward at Musgrove Park hospital, in my constituency, would not be welcome under this Conservative amendment and would not be allowed to have a social home or a council house. The care worker who looked after people during the pandemic would not be welcome under this Conservative amendment. Under a Conservative Government, they would have nowhere to live when it comes to council and social housing. That is ironic for a party that has produced two Prime Ministers born outside Britain. As the Member of Parliament for Taunton and Wellington, I do not know whether I should inform his grace the Duke of Wellington that the first Duke of Wellington would not fully be a British citizen under the Conservative amendment tabled today because he was born outside Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he does not agree with minimum energy efficiency standards? Is he saying that he does not agree with a modernised decent homes standard? These measures are driving up the quality and the safety of homes, and we can do that while increasing supply.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

T7. Having previously worked for a homelessness charity, Streets2Homes in Harlow, I welcome the Housing First approach that this Government are taking to tackle rough sleeping. However, would the Secretary of State, or whichever Minister answers the question, agree with me that, along with that housing, we must provide long-term support to ensure that people can keep tenancies securely?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important initiative in Harlow. Housing First is an important intervention, which evidence has shown can transform the lives of people with complex needs. We are funding Housing First and other forms of housing-led accommodation through our £2.7 billion homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant for areas like Harlow. That includes, as I have mentioned, the £442 million for the rough sleeping programme.

Representation of the People Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi]

I want to make some progress.

Government new clause 78 strengthens information-sharing provisions already in the Bill by establishing a reciprocal statutory gateway between the Electoral Commission and relevant public authorities. We have carefully considered recommendation 9 of the review, and we agree that if we are to expect the commission to regulate political finance effectively and respond to the emerging risk, it must be able to receive relevant information from the bodies it works alongside. The new clause enables the commission and relevant public authorities to share information with one another, where doing so assists the performance of their respective functions. The Government also recognise that information sharing must be accompanied by robust safeguards. That is why the gateway is tightly defined. It does not override express statutory prohibitions on disclosure and includes additional protections for sensitive personal information received from revenue authorities, backed by potential criminal sanctions for an unauthorised onward disclosure.

Government amendments 125 to 131 respond to recommendation 10 of the Rycroft review. They give the Electoral Commission greater powers to require the disclosure of documents, information, and the giving of an explanation outside an investigation. They also make minor amendments to ensure that former accredited recall campaigners can be investigated when they cease participation in the recall petition process. Currently, outside an investigation the Electoral Commission can only issue a notice to specific regulated entities requiring disclosure. To issue a notice requiring disclosure from anyone else, there must have been reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence had been committed. That places the commission in an impossible situation: the only way it can get such information is to take the serious step of opening a formal investigation. However, without such information it is unable to establish the reasonable grounds for suspicion that it needs to open an investigation in the first place. The amendments extend the commission’s powers outside a formal investigation, so that it is able to require the disclosure of information relating to the income or expenditure of regulated entities from any person or organisation.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister take an intervention?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I must make progress.

Government new clause 114 implements recommendation 7 of the Rycroft review by giving the Electoral Commission clear powers to require campaign spending returns to be submitted in a standardised format across the political finance regime. That will make spending returns more consistent and easier to scrutinise, supporting greater transparency and more effective oversight.

The amendments relating to “know your donor” measures make a series of technical and clarification changes to the aggregation powers in the “know your donor” regime. The “know your donor” provisions require recipients, in certain circumstances, to undertake a risk assessment where relevant, or where controlled benefits reach the specified threshold. In determining whether that threshold has been met, the Bill contains provisions that require benefits to be considered together. These technical amendments clarify the operation of aggregation rules, how the rules apply to the connected transactions, and when regulated transactions are entered into, in correcting a drafting error relating to regulated participants. The amendments also remove the requirements of the weekly donation report under section 63 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to include a declaration about carrying out a “know your donor” risk assessment in relation to donations accepted during the reporting period.

Government amendments 138, 139, 143 and 144 are minor and technical amendments that remove powers granted inadvertently in respect of a reserved matter to Ministers of devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales. The Government have been in constant contact with the devolved Governments throughout the development of the Bill, as well as ensuring they are in touch on specific points. Government new clause 113 closes a gap in current legislation whereby if an overseas elector ceases to be British, they could potentially remain on the electoral register, thus remaining eligible for up to three years. The new clause allows such individuals to be removed from the electoral register as soon as they cease to satisfy eligibility criteria, which essentially allowed them to register as overseas electors.

Finally, Government amendments 140, 141 and 147 to 150 extend the maximum duration for postal and proxy postal voting arrangements from three to five years. They also extend the maximum duration for the anonymous election registration to five years to better align with that, and to create a clearly defined reapplication window for postal and proxy postal applications. Together the amendments will make the lives of voters and administrators a lot easier—I speak from experience when returning my postal vote—particularly benefiting vulnerable electors, while maintaining the vital security arrangements that are needed to ensure the integrity of our democratic system.

As my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston said on Second Reading:

“We have a vital opportunity in this Bill to strengthen our institutions and processes and to ensure that they work for the people they serve.” —[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 693.]

The Bill delivers a modern, secure and inclusive electoral system that the public rightly deserve, bearing down on those who seek to harm or undermine our elections, protecting those who participate, and opening up our democracy to a generation of new and able voters. This is how we safeguard trust and ensure that every eligible citizen can take part freely and with the safety and confidence that they deserve. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Under our system, at constituency level, people have the opportunity to choose an individual to represent them. They can hold that person accountable, and can ultimately remove them, if they wish, at the next election. Under proportional representation, the decision on who gets to serve in Parliament would be made not by the people, but by the central offices of political parties.

[Chris Vince]

The shadow Minister will be pleased to know that I agree with her on this point. I proudly represent my constituency of Harlow, and it is really important that I have that local accountability; that means a great deal to me. Does she agree that we need to take foreign interference in our electoral system really seriously? It is important that the be Bill be—as I believe it is—really solid, detailed and willing to make changes, because we recognise that malign influencers will do anything they can to weave their way into our political system.

[Katie Lam]

It is never anything but a pleasure to allow the hon. Gentleman to put Harlow into Hansard again, and I am happy to repeat his words. He is right: we must be incredibly vigilant. We must not be naive about the extent to which foreign powers are actively pursuing strategies to undermine our democracy, and ultimately, our nation. That must be treated with the utmost seriousness.

While some of the suggested changes are being rushed through in a sweeping way, we feel that the Bill has shockingly little to say about the threats to our democracy that we already know enough about to take decisive action on. This includes the effective disenfranchisement of many British citizens living overseas. Our citizens abroad remain citizens and are often directly affected by decisions taken by this Parliament, but all too often they find it very difficult to register to vote, or to cast their ballot. To that end, we have tabled amendments that require the Secretary of State to make provision for overseas voters to cast their votes in person at British embassies, high commissions and consulates.

Chief among the threats to our democracy today is the rise of coercion, fraud and sectarianism in our democratic process. These are, in turn, most often the result of a poisonous separatism that has taken hold in far too many of our towns and cities. Migration to this country has been far too high for far too long, against the wishes of the British people. Many of those who have come to this country come from cultures with very different norms from ours. At the same time, Britain has been complacent about enforcing our cultural and democratic norms, and far too tolerant of those who weaponise group-based identity politics for their own gain. One consequence has been the rise of explicitly sectarian political campaigning, whereby candidates appeal not to the individual interests of voters, or to the national interest, but to particular ethnic, religious or cultural groups. This is profoundly poisonous, and we must do everything that we can to root it out.

One symptom of this emergent separatism in our society is the rise of so-called family voting, whereby a senior male family member directs other members of their family, particularly women, on how they ought to vote. At the Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this year, volunteers reported

“the highest level of family voting at any election in the past decade.”

Family voting was observed at more than two thirds of polling stations. It may have influenced the votes of more than one in 10 people who turned out to cast their ballot. In Birmingham, at this year’s local elections, polling station staff reported instances of family voting in 50 polling stations. Despite evidence being passed to the police by the council, no further action has been taken

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I thank the Government for, in particular, the proposals on 16 and 17-year-olds. I spent my summer conducting about 80 events across my constituency, meeting some of my youngest—and some of my oldest—constituents, and regularly hosting work experience students in my office and sixth-form surgeries at the schools in my constituency, and I have generally found more political maturity and wisdom in sixth forms than in the Northumberland county council Conservative group.

[Chris Vince]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, which enables me to welcome my two work experience students, Maja and Stacey, to the Gallery. I am sure they are enjoying his speech.

[Joe Morris]

I am very glad to have set up my hon. Friend for that.

I want to speak about money in politics, particularly with reference to new clause 17, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), for whom I have the utmost respect and admiration. It has been clear to me, not just over the summer but when I have spoken to voters since my election and beforehand, that the influence of money on politics is increasing. That is undermining faith in our democracy; it is an assault by algorithms on our democracy itself. The figures that were chucked around historically now seem relatively parochial. What we are seeing is a complete and utter oligarchic takeover of our voting system by those with the very deepest pockets. I hope that when she winds up the debate, the Minister will explain what more can be done and how the Government will work constructively, as the Bill progresses through the other place, to tighten the safeguards that are already in it. I sense the amount of disquiet in my inbox from people who think that more must be done in the Bill to guard against the influence of money in our democracy, and particularly to guard against the role of the international social media platform owners who are poisoning the very lifeblood of democracy. Indeed, we all read the conspiratorial narratives that often appear in our inboxes.

I know that new clause 31 is not in scope, so I will not major on it. Suffice it to say that it is the people who are losing faith with politics who feel the most disenfranchised, and we owe it to them to have a national conversation about how we can reform our voting. Let me end by pleading again with the Minister to provide more clarity on the pace of tackling the influence of money in politics and by again welcoming the Prime Minister’s commitment to electoral reform.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People in Old Bexley and Sidcup—just like those in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and, indeed, in many of the constituencies that are represented by Conservative Members—are concerned about a Reform party that is championing tearing up the green belt across our capital in pursuit of housing targets, and about the ambiguity that has been created by the Government’s position on grey-belt land. That description seems to be applied to any site on which a developer can argue that housing could be delivered because it has had some previous use. That level of ambiguity is another one of the reasons why we are keen to make the very strong case for brownfield being enshrined as the priority, and for the Government to accept that case.

I will now turn briefly to the Lords amendments dealing with the leader and cabinet model of local government. To be clear, as an Opposition, we do not have a strong view about what governance arrangements town halls should choose. Many of us will have had experience under the committee system or under the leader and cabinet model, some with executive mayors. However, the reason why we intend to push the Government on this issue is that it once again represents their centralising tendency—a view in Whitehall that the Government know best what structures should be used. I happen to agree with Ministers that the leader and cabinet model is the most effective and efficient model, but it is not for us to tell locally elected officials and councillors what arrangements they should make.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and congratulate him on his efforts yesterday. I am sure we are both struggling to bob in the Chamber this afternoon.

I agree with the shadow Minister about the cabinet model for local councils. I am sure he agrees that one of the advantages of that model is that there are fewer meetings, which makes being a councillor more accessible for those who have jobs and childcare commitments and means that we do not just rely on councillors who are perhaps retired. On his point about the Government’s approach to local authorities, does he agree that one good thing that this Government have done is ensure multi-year funding for local councils? When I was a councillor in Harlow—I got my mention of Harlow in—it was a real challenge for the opposition to do its shadow budgets and for the administration to do its budgets.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It would be interesting to know the timings of the shadow Minister’s marathon.

[David Simmonds]

Suffice it to say that I was significantly slower than the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), whose outstanding efforts will, I am sure, leave him a little bit sore when bobbing today.

The hon. Member will know the benefits of an effective leader and cabinet model, because he has a good Conservative local authority led by Councillor Dan Swords, and the work of Councillor Dan Swords and his team has driven forward the improvements Harlow has been able to enjoy over many years.

[Chris Vince]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Simmonds]

I am going to make a little progress, if I may.

The key point is to ensure that our local authorities can set out their governance arrangements in a way that reflects the needs of their community. The Government have already accepted the argument that we need to ensure a degree of nuance in the Bill for rural and coastal communities, and this is another example of exactly that argument.

On parish governance, I know we do not all have parish councils in our local areas, but they are a significant feature of civic life across the country and many of them run important local facilities such as leisure centres and car parks. It is clearly important to ensure that their role is enshrined, especially at a time when this Government’s wider agenda of local government reorganisation is leading to a significant transfer of services to parish councils from districts due to be abolished, so it is welcome that the Government are moving forward on that.

On the final two groups of amendments we are debating this afternoon, the so-called agent of change principle is the idea that a new arrival in a community should bear the cost of consequent changes on its gaining planning consent: if somebody opens a new music venue or builds a new residential development, that should not be at the expense of existing and long-established uses. Many of us as constituency MPs have had experience of when, for example, a property developer creates a new residential development and seeks to close down an existing venue such as a local pub—I had an example to do with a bus garage—because they are concerned about the impact it would have. Clearly those established uses with prior consent need to have a degree of priority, and that has already found its way into law in Scotland. We believe that it is reasonable to recommend that the Government take this forward and ensure that those existing uses have sufficient protection in the Bill that they are not subject to the unfair impact of new and subsequent arrivals seeking to pass the costs of mitigating the consequences of their activity on to them.

Finally, Lords amendment 98 is about the Secretary of State’s powers on changes to strategic authorities. It was hotly contested as the Bill made its way through Committee that it contains chapters and chapters of new powers for the Secretary of State to direct mayors or combined authorities, which very much speaks to the point that this is centralising legislation. While it introduces a new layer of local government, it none the less results in central Government having significantly more powers to levy a precept, to create a new housing development, to create zoning to ensure development takes place, and to bring together groups of local authorities and assume some of their responsibilities. All of those now fall much more strongly within the purview of the Secretary of State issuing directions from Whitehall about how things should happen locally.

It remains the Opposition’s position that, as supporters of and believers in devolution, we should not simply pay lip service to it in the title of the Bill, but ensure that those measures have the consent and support of the locally elected politicians whose mandate gives them the power to make those decisions on behalf of their community. We remain determined to push ahead in favour of that principle of consent and ensure that local communities continue to have champions who speak up for them in this Chamber.