Budget Resolutions

Debate between Chris Vince and Zöe Franklin

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.