Local Government Reorganisation

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Dispatch Box, and I thank her for early sight of her statement. I am not sure that this was the triumphant return to the subject of devolution that she had in mind, because our councillors and the communities that they represent are looking aghast at yet another shambolic U-turn from this Government. Ministers have repeatedly given assurances to this House from that Dispatch Box that have not been honoured, and it speaks volumes for the Government’s sense of priority that, this far into this Administration, only Surrey has proceeded with its reorganisation—despite all those assurances.

The Secretary of State has already told the House that she is not satisfied that the process that was followed by her predecessor was lawful. Can she tell the House from the Dispatch Box why she is not satisfied that it was lawful, and will she place all the non-privileged documentation and correspondence relating to this debacle in the public domain and in the Library?

Given that the Government have agreed to pay the legal costs of councils that have challenged them on this matter, can the Secretary of State tell us what assessment has she made of the legal costs that will be borne by taxpayers as a consequence of this U-turn? Given that the Government have been banking on millions of pounds in savings—we have challenged them on those savings repeatedly across the Dispatch Boxes—to mitigate costs, which include the massive rise in national insurance that has driven many councils to the verge of bankruptcy, what assessment have Treasury colleagues made, and what advice have they given to the Secretary of State about how they will need to mitigate this further delay in any of those savings being achieved, should they ever materialise?

The Secretary of State has told the House from the Dispatch Box that elections will go ahead. We have all heard that promise made at the Dispatch Box before; indeed, in some cases it has been reversed literally the following day. Given the promises made and that all our political parties have selected candidates who have been campaigning for mayoral elections and new unitary authorities that the Government promised were coming into being, with elections to take place next May, will she give a categorical assurance that those new authorities will be in place, or promise the House clearly that they will not be? Will she tell us what is the timetable—if there is one at all—for bringing those new mayoral combined authorities into existence, particularly given the store by which the Government have set those as their path for devolution?

Finally, I appreciate that the Secretary of State has returned to the role after others have been stewarding it, but will she apologise to all those councillors, all those local government officials, all those political candidates and activists and all those businesses who have engaged in good faith with the Government’s process? All of them have been shamefully let down by this betrayal of local democracy.

[Angela Rayner]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place and thank him for his constructive comments. It is disappointing that I have had to come to the House to make this statement. I recognise the work that local authorities, Members of the House and others have put into getting us to this point, but when I took over the role recently and the Prime Minister asked me to look again at the reform, and upon receiving legal advice, I wanted to satisfy myself as the Secretary of State that the process was robust and legally sound. That is why I have made this decision today, but I understand why hon. Members will be disappointed.

I was asked about legal costs. Those will be determined in the usual way. Local government reform is often contested in the courts. It is right and part of our democratic system that important issues can be challenged. The Government engage legal advisers to defend decisions whenever challenges are brought; that does bring costs.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about savings. The Government have made savings in the past through local government reorganisation, but for me it has got to be about not savings but the outcomes for people in their local area. That is what has driven reorganisation from my point of view.

In terms of the new mayoral authorities and what will happen, I am really clear that it has to be done correctly and right. As Secretary of State, I have to believe, in good conscience, that I have dotted every i and crossed every t. That is why I have made the decision I have today.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Planning permissions for new homes, of which there are already around 1.5 million, are one thing, but getting those units built is another. With Savills reporting that two thirds of London boroughs have seen net zero new housing starts under the Mayor of London, what proposals do the Government have to ensure that units with permission actually get built, rather than concreting over our green belt?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Minister is absolutely right that house builders across the country face challenges with viability, not least owing to the implications of the ongoing conflict in the middle east. London has a number of challenges particular to itself that the rest of the country does not face; that is precisely why we brought forward an emergency package with the Mayor of London, specifically to get those stalled sites in the capital moving.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I allowed the question on the basis that it was about funding that follows housing growth, so I think it was fair.

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

With the Government having earlier today briefed the media that much of their devolution programme is being paused, with only Surrey looking like it is going to get its way—I am sure it is the subject of relentless lobbying by Labour Back Benchers—can the Minister tell us how many of the new mayors promised by this Government after their election will be in place by the next general election?

[Sally Jameson]

Following questions, the Secretary of State will be making a statement on that very issue, setting out what we will be doing in going further with local government reform and with mayors.

Draft Nature Restoration Levy regulations 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 General Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. As the Minister set out in his introduction, there was extensive debate during the Committee on the Bill that has brought this set of regulations to life. There was certainly a lot of cross-party debate about the provision; that reflects the public interest in the impact that development can have on nature and wildlife in particular. Although there was a degree of political disagreement about the policy itself, I think we all shared the objective: having a more functional system. That is clearly the Government’s objective, so we will not seek to divide the Committee this afternoon.

However, I have some questions for the Minister. When we debated the issue in Committee, he was clear that in due course this legislation would come forward and there would be an opportunity to look at the points of detail that Members had raised. My first question is about any assessment that he has undertaken of Natural England’s capacity to administer the process. We heard in the Committee evidence sessions from different development organisations that talked about how difficult it sometimes was to get a decision from Natural England because of its lack of capacity when a development had been approved but there remained elements that Natural England needed to sign off. Clearly, this legislation envisages a significant role for Natural England in the planning process—much larger than it currently occupies, and one that it said in evidence to the Committee it would welcome. But making those decisions and the financial underpinning will come at a significant cost, in terms of both people and skills. Will the Minister set out what assessments have been undertaken to ensure that the provision does not lead to further delays through the administration of the levy scheme?

The second question relates to a point that we touched on in Committee and is not, as far as I can see, fully addressed in the papers: the treatment of levy payments in kind. We heard examples of when developers had said that, rather than make a cash contribution, they would seek to offer another site where they would create an appropriate wetland habitat, habitat for birds or whatever, which would have a value attached to it. In the normal course of events, the Government already negotiate to determine whether a financial contribution can be made in the form of an asset that has a value, rather than in cash. It is not immediately clear how that type of situation would be handled, especially given that Natural England will be separate from the planning authority making the decision on the scheme. It would be helpful if the Minister told us how the Government envisage dealing with that.

Finally, in Committee a point was raised that I do not think the papers entirely address: how the policy will operate where we are talking about cumulative impacts. It is straightforward for a developer that has needed to raze a woodland to demonstrate that it is financing an alternative site, to be managed by Natural England, that will recreate that habitat elsewhere. But what about developers with numerous smaller sites? How will their accumulated contribution be used to ensure that there is appropriate remediation? When those sites are in different planning authorities, how can there be an appropriate negotiation so that things are not held up because one planning authority is trying to determine the impact and another has a separate application, but the contributions from both are key to ensure that the remediation is sufficient?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank both my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and the shadow Minister for those questions. Let me deal with them each in turn. It may be useful if I set out in plainer terms how an EDP will be made and how the levy will be set.

The shadow Minister asked first about Natural England capacity. We debated that at length during the passage of the Bill: we believe that Natural England is the appropriate delivery body for the NRF, given its internal expertise and ability to operate effectively across the whole of England. It is also worth saying that when carrying out its functions under the nature restoration fund, Natural England remains bound by its wider statutory duties and general purposes, as set out in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2026. Those include promoting nature conservation and protecting biodiversity.

We think that Natural England is the appropriate body. It will be supported to take strategic action to deliver the conservation measures set out within individual EDPs, using income from the nature restoration levy. This is a really important point: the levy is based on full cost recovery. As I made clear in my opening remarks, the levy can be used to support administrative duties tied to the EDP, but is primarily to fund conservation measures that EDPs will bring forward, on a full cost-recovery basis. The regulations also enable targeted use of levy funding to cover management, maintenance and other things. That will enable Natural England to build and maintain the capacity and capability needed to design, implement and monitor EDPs effectively.

The important point to convey to the Committee is that each EDP will be subject to public consultation. In line with the commitment we made in the other place, we have been working for many months with Natural England and DEFRA on the first EDP, which deals solely with nutrient pollution; we thought that was the best constraint to take the first EDP forward on.

In bringing forward an EDP, Natural England will have to project and estimate the maximum amount of development that that EDP can cater for and set a levy rate based on what is necessary to deliver the conservation measures required to discharge and meet that overall improvement test; I will come back to that in a second. Natural England will set a levy for each individual EDP. That will be subject to public consultation. Environmental groups, local residents, local authorities and developers will each have a say on the particular levy being consulted on. That gives the public a chance to have input into what is taken forward.

[David Simmonds]

The Minister has helpfully set out how we expect the EDP process to work in practice. When he was talking about how it would be financed, he described what could be extensive and lengthy public consultation, requiring expert input in designing habitats and so forth. Clearly, that will come at a significant cost. Will the cost to Natural England of administering the scheme be paid for out of the levy income itself or is there a separate funding mechanism that will enable Natural England to carry out that work?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is an appropriate question. The shadow Minister may recall that during the passage of the Bill we committed to some upfront funding for Natural England. However, we have come to the regulations before us: the point is that the levy is designed to operate on a full cost-recovery basis. Rates are required to reflect the cost of delivering the necessary conservation measures, as well as covering the costs of monitoring and maintenance activities. Some of the levy can be used on the cost of setting up and consulting on an EDP but it is primarily for bringing the conservation measures forward.

The shadow Minister also asked about payments in lieu—off-site payments, as I took it. The regulations do not provide for that. That is not the assumption that we are working on.

I come back to what an EDP means in practice. Let us take the case of nutrient pollution, which will be the first we consult on. Natural England will have put together a suite of conservation measures across a designated area that it can call on to ensure that the overall improvement test is met. As I said in my opening remarks, each individual developer can still decide to discharge relevant environmental obligations under current arrangements if they do not feel that the levy rate provides value for money. However, we hope that the workings of the EDP will show that it is a very effective, efficient way to discharge those obligations. We hope that more developers will come in.

As the levy payments come in, Natural England will begin to draw on the suite of conservation measures available to it. We are taking forward separate regulations on the prioritisation of conservation measures: as part of an EDP, Natural England will have to set out in general terms a prioritisation and sequencing of conservation measures. Those are not mutually exclusive; some might be relevant and used in different instances. This is about what it brings forward to meet those requirements. As more developers come within the given area where the EDP is operating, Natural England will be able to leverage economies of scale. That is the big win here: allowing those economies of scale and that strategic approach. The regulations are not designed for payments in lieu.

I hope that I have dealt with the cumulative impact. When it comes to individual planning applications, developers will have to indicate that they wish to discharge their obligations through the EDP. At that point, there will be a commitment to pay on the part of Natural England. The developer can then use that commitment to take that through the relevant planning process. The planning process may not be successful, but if it is, the liability to pay is ensured and there will be payment into the scheme.

In terms of cumulative impact, a particular developer may seek to discharge its obligations on a site-by-site, project-level basis, using EDPs only on some sites in the catchment—again, we would hope not; we want as many developers to be using EDPs as possible. That is probably unlikely if developers see that EDPs are working for them as an efficient way to discharge the obligations. I am sure that developers will start to make better use of the scheme.

Let me address the points that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire raised, including on changing the levy without consultation. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 sets out the circumstances where reconsultation on an EDP is required, such as where new conservation measures are proposed or the amount of development coverage is increased. There are a couple of scenarios where that might work. Say the projected development of homes or infrastructure increases; there might be a need to amend the EDP. Alternatively, additional conservation measures might be required.

Under the powers in the Act, the Secretary of State may direct Natural England to reconsult when there are changes to the EDP’s charging schedule. That allows the levy rate to change to meet the cost of the EDP, in line with the overall improvement test, but it does not require reconsultation in all circumstances. We would not want a wholesale public consultation on minor changes to the levy rate; when there are significant changes, the Secretary of State has the power to do that. The levy rate for developers is set at the point where Natural England accepts the commitment to pay. If the levy rate subsequently needs to be increased to ensure that the required conservation measures can be delivered, the new rate will take effect only for future requests made to the EDP.

In terms of independent oversight, EDPs will not be black-box exercises; as we said, they are subject to public consultation. In the very near future we will launch the consultation on the first EDP, which is on nutrient neutrality. Before an EDP can take effect, local authorities, environmental groups and others will have a chance to scrutinise it in its entirety. Natural England must then consider the consultation responses before finalising the EDP and the Secretary of State retains statutory oversight through the approval of the EDP itself and whether it meets the overall improvement test. I do not want to relitigate the extensive debates in Committee, but that overall improvement test is the test that must be met. In the case of the first EDP that we bring forward, it will be the DEFRA Secretary of State who makes the judgment on whether the EDP is to be made following consultation.

I have covered whether the levy funds are not required to meet costs in full. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire raised the absence of a legal route to exit a commitment if circumstances change, but we have designed the draft regulations to accommodate the changing circumstances that developers might face. The regulations allow for levy-related commitments to be cancelled in specified scenarios, ensuring that the system can respond when a development does not proceed as anticipated. That reflects a proportionate approach to provide certainty for Natural England in delivering the necessary conservation measures, while recognising that plans can change over the lifetime of a development.

[David Simmonds]

I want to test the Minister’s thinking on that point. As constituency MPs, many of us have heard about section 106, where a significant number of contributions may be attached to school places, road improvements or whatever it may be. When the money is not spent within a specified period of time, the developer can reclaim it so that it cannot be redirected to other purposes, depending on what is in the agreement.

Another challenge is what happens when developers in a new town, for example, prefer to pay the levy, but the total of all the payments exceeds the value of the work that Natural England is undertaking because of the extent of the development, so something else needs to be substituted. Will the Minister set out briefly how the Government propose to address such issues so that the legislation does not, in practice, turn out to be a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare for many of the communities involved?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for his question. That brings me back to my point about how the levy is set and how it is tested through public consultation. It will be for Natural England to judge the quantum of development to be taken forward and to divide the individual charge on a per-hectare or per-dwelling basis in the most appropriate way. However, at the point when the developer seeks to discharge its environmental obligations through the use of the levy it will have consented to pay that levy amount.

We will test the levy amount through public consultation, but the test of whether the levy is set effectively is that it allows for the conservation measures to be deployed. There is a statutory ringfence on the funds, so it is not as if the funds could be diverted to other uses. As we made clear repeatedly throughout the passage of the Bill, EDPs will be based on the best scientific evidence available and on all the expertise in Natural England to allow it to judge whether it has the levy rate right. As I said, that will be tested in consultation. To answer the shadow Minister’s point, I should say that the value should not be exceeded.

I think I have responded to all the points. I thank Members for their questions. To be clear, this draft statutory instrument sets out a framework for the nature restoration levy and provides Natural England with the tools it needs to implement the nature restoration fund effectively. The draft regs are a necessary precursor to that first consultation, which as I have made clear will concern nutrient pollution only. That is the commitment that we gave.

We will return to the House with an evaluation of how that consultation worked before we proceed, although Natural England and DEFRA are working on the early stages of the EDPs for other interventions—great crested newts are a priority for colleagues in DEFRA. I hope that the draft regulations will be welcomed by the Committee and I commend them to it.

Question put and agreed to.

The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 General Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am sure that Members will be pleased to know that, because the Opposition agree with the principle underlying the statutory instrument, we will not seek to divide the Committee.

The Minister has brought his usual clarity to introducing the order. Although I am sure that there are many questions that could be hotly debated, because there is always discussion about whether measures have the correct boundaries and powers, I would simply like to ask him a few questions that my colleagues have raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne touched on the impact of local government reorganisation on the proposed development corporation. One issue is that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 envisages that new mayors will take on many of these development powers. Given that a decision on local government reorganisation structures in greater Cambridge and many other areas is likely to be imminent, what thinking has there been about how the powers of the corporation will be transferred to the new mayoral or combined authority once it comes into being, if at all? The Minister might have already decided that that is not going to happen, but it would be helpful if he clarified how that will work.

As the instrument establishes a new development corporation that transfers planning powers that currently sit with two district-level authorities, how does that sit alongside the amended planning regulations that the Minister set out to a Delegated Legislation Committee last week, and on which a deferred Division took place earlier today? In particular, what impact will the changed numbers and the changed responsibility for members have, given that the instrument will aggregate planning responsibilities that are covered by legislation on political balance in each of the constituent authorities? How will that democratic capacity be carried through so that the new authority reflects that legislative requirement?

How will the new planning authority that the instrument brings into being handle accumulated section 106 balances? As greater Cambridge is a very economically vibrant part of the world, a significant number of housing, economic development and transport projects are already in train. Many of those involve existing legal agreements that determine if a section 106 or community infrastructure levy contribution will be paid. Some of that will be paid at commencement, and some at milestones during those projects. Given that there will be residents’ expectations about what those contributions will fund, how will the process operate?

Excellent as he is, the Minister is not the Minister responsible for local government reorganisation. A brief glance at the map reminds us that greater Cambridge sits at the boundary with numerous authorities, including Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Essex and Suffolk, that either envisage or have recently gone through a process of local government reorganisation. A good many politicians, including some involved in that, hold the view that the boundaries of the zone will need to be larger if the process is to achieve its potential, particularly given the zone’s location in the Oxford-Cambridge arc. Will the Minister set out his thinking on the future of the zone? How can we provide a sense of certainty to those who have that concern, and to investors who may be wondering about the contribution to the development of new transport links that would attract their business to invest in this location? What is the timeline for that?

Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on the way in which he introduced this complex debate.

Let me start by addressing the issue that prompted the petition that we are debating. Many of us will have heard of Councillor Robert Alden, the leader of the Conservative group in Birmingham, who called on voters to “help keep extremists out” of Birmingham city council. We have heard examples from a number of different parties of how, in response to a high-profile individual with a very serious conviction, there was a sense across the political system in that city that they would not welcome division into their local politics. Although some in the ward voted for that individual, the community exercised what I think most of us would respect as being good judgment.

That leads to the broader question of how, particularly in local elections where turnout can be extremely low—sometimes as low as 20% at ward level—and in complicated politics with sometimes five or more political parties and a number of independent candidates, we ensure that people who wish to bring extremism into politics do not use those types of elections to leverage public office to pursue extremist aims.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) represents a community that has had to face and deal with some tensions, and he has led the response to that extremely effectively. He set out in his clear contribution that we need to ensure that in our politics and democracy—how we come together to collectively make the best decisions to support our communities and national interest—we do not see people seeking to leverage political office to create division.

This debate comes at a time when there is a bigger picture when it comes to those seeking to import disputes from other parts of the world into our politics. All of us, as constituency MPs, deal with that on a daily basis. Sometimes there are heartfelt requests for the intervention of the British state. I recently met constituents who wanted to talk to me about access to reservoirs and water in Sri Lanka. They felt that people in their country would respect the intervention of the British Government and that it would produce a positive impact on something directly affecting the lives of their friends, family and relations in a community with which they, like Britain, have a strong connection.

However, there are also those who seek to use British politics as a means of pursuing conflict and division, and clearly we do not welcome that. In considering cases like that of Shahid Butt, we know that Yemen is a country beset by terrible conflict and violence that have cost the lives of many thousands of innocent people. We do not want that conflict to be pursued either in Birmingham city council’s town hall or in any other part of our politics.

The challenge for the Government, who currently hold the responsibility to address this issue, is how we strike the right balance when seeking to draw boundaries around who is eligible for public office in our country. We are a country that respects and cherishes freedom of speech, and we support the right to the freedom of religion and belief. We believe, and it is enshrined in our rules, that there should be a path to redemption and reconciliation for people who break the law or the norms of our society. However, as politics becomes an increasingly contested space, we need to ensure that we balance those principles with preserving the integrity of our politics.

People could seek local office not to benefit the wider community but because they want a decision to be made in favour of a planning application, a grant from the council or the sale of a piece of land to the benefit of them and their associates. People could also seek election to this Parliament to try to change the policy of the British Government in respect of interventions in conflict, wars and disputes in other countries. None of those things is about the longer-term interests of the British people.

Given the rising tide of antisemitism, which most of us will have heard about from our constituents—the Maccabi football team case in Birmingham was a classic example—we need to ensure that our governance and local ethics are free from the taint of extremism, wherever it may be found. The official Opposition support the Government in seeking to take forward their policies on this area.

I reflect on what the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) set out in respect of the complex history of Northern Ireland. It must be difficult for members of that community to find themselves face to face with people who are not only terrorists but may have been involved in the murder or harm of their own relatives. I have personally heard about that from Northern Ireland politicians. They have told me what it is like to sit in a council chamber knowing that somebody there was directly involved in the killing of someone very close to them, and trying to work out how to put that dispute behind them and move forward in the interests of the community, while not disrespecting the memory of those they loved.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I would add that this is not complex, in so far as terrorism is always wrong. All communities in Northern Ireland knew and understood that throughout the troubles. When it comes to the wholesale rewriting of history, our job now, through the Representation of the People Bill, which we are taking through Parliament, and the debate on the petition today, is to ensure that those who continue to endorse and glorify terrorism are dealt with.

[David Simmonds]

The hon. Member has set out clearly, and I think boosted, the point about the complexity. She is absolutely right that we should not have a situation where someone feels that their election to office overrides their obligation to the basic good conduct and due process we expect of all politicians—the basic respect for human rights, the lives of other people and everything that makes this country strong.

We need to make sure—I am sure the Minister will—that the Government reflect on the long-term lessons from Northern Ireland. This is not just about what Shahid Butt may have done in Yemen in 1999; it is about our experience as a country of terrorism influencing our politics and our communities, and about making sure those lessons are taken into account, so that we can be better protected for the future.

The Opposition will support the Government in seeking to bring forward whatever policy changes are necessary, and some suggestions have been made in the debate about what those might look like. That could include a test specifically around convictions for terrorism or around crimes of violence that would impact on the suitability of someone for public office. It could include how we work with other countries to ensure that convictions abroad are captured through the nominations process, so that we know what people may have been convicted of and are able to make an effective appraisal of the soundness of that conviction—recognising that a conviction in Russia or China may not carry the same weight in the view of our politics as a conviction in France, Germany or Ireland.

We pledge to work with the Government to seek to address this issue and make sure that all of our communities, for the long-term future, can have total confidence in the integrity of our political system.

Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 General Committees

[Chris Curtis]

I thank the shadow Minister for making that point because it was the last point I was going to briefly make before wrapping up. This is the key point: it adds not only uncertainty, but delays. If uncertainty has costs in the housing system, the developers might go to the Planning Inspectorate, but that adds extra delay and costs.

Most of the developments in schedule 1 are very small—often up to just 10 properties. The margins that a developer would make on that project are much smaller than the costs of that delay and of having to go to the Planning Inspectorate in the first place. That means that most developments across the country have effectively stopped construction altogether. The big consequence of that is that SME builders, particularly those in local communities who have generally been building smaller sized developments, are going under. One of the only ways to fix that is by bringing certainty back into the system, given that uncertainty is one of the reasons why they have been facing challenges.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Curtis]

I have taken up too much time; people really want to get off.

We all accept that we should be focusing on smaller sites because, as the Minister set out, the bigger sites should be decided and focused on by the planning committees. This measure will free up more of their time to focus on those bigger sites and issues. However, schedule 1 sets the size of small sites at nine properties or fewer, which I think is at the lower end of people’s expectations. I appreciate that the Minister has done lots of consultation work on the draft regulations, but given that just 69% of the properties built each year would fall into that category, can he please give us some information on how he has settled on that number? Will he consider raising that number in future, if he is convinced that it would lead to more benefit and more good-quality homes being constructed?

Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 General Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.

As the Minister set out, the order makes a relatively straightforward technical change, but I have a couple of questions arising from it that relate to the specific circumstances in which the legislation is coming forward. Historically, the policy has been that local government reorganisation would take place where there was unambiguous local consent for that to happen. We are all conscious that, as part of the devolution priority programme, some disputes are already arising—which I think the legislation is designed to address—between the new authorities that are coming into being and the prior authorities that are being abolished.

Local authorities operate to a specific financial process that is quite tightly controlled in legislation, and that is where my questions for the Minister arise from. First, the provisions in this legislation set out that the Secretary of State will designate a person who will be required to give consent, or will have the opportunity to give or withhold consent, when transactions covered by the legislation are envisaged. It would be helpful to understand what process will be followed when there is a dispute. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne gave an example of where the disposal of an asset might be seen by one authority as hugely beneficial because of a capital receipt, and by another as hugely controversial because it pledged to protect it from excessive development. We need, then, clarity about how disputes of that nature will be resolved.

The process is significant because many of the capital sales that will be caught by the provisions are also determined by other processes. Will the Minister set it out for the Committee, in particular regrading authorities that are subject to exceptional financial support rules? If a local authority in Surrey—such as Spelthorne or Woking, which have very significant capital debts—has entered into an agreement with the Government to undertake a programme of disposal of assets, and the disposal of those assets is opposed by the successor authority, how will a decision come to be made, given that the outgoing authority is effectively obliged to undertake those asset sales but the new authority may not wish to do that?

A good example of where the nature of the assets may be material to the dispute is car parks, which are an asset to the parking-revenue account of a local authority, so are ringfenced from its general fund. One authority may see a car park as an opportunity to raise revenue, whereas another authority may see it as a capital asset to be disposed of to secure a capital receipt. Especially where there is a capital programme over many years with, in some cases, the capital expenditure having already taken place, to be funded from future asset disposals, there will need to be a process to ensure that the budgets can be balanced. We will all be aware of local authorities in our own areas that have borrowed to build new leisure centres or new schools, or to invest in public transport hubs, parking or whatever it may be—important public assets to be funded from the future sale of those sites for disposal. We therefore need that sense of clarity.

Can the Minister tell the Committee how the provisions will be dealt with when the assets in question arise within an arm’s length management organisation for housing that is owned by a local authority trading company—such as Brick by Brick, the housing development company in Croydon, of which there are a number of alike organisations across the country—to which assets have been transferred for development or disposal? There is no explicit clarity, certainly not within this legislation, about how that will be managed.

What about asset disposals within a programme relevant to the Department for Education? These may be school sites or non-school sites whose asset value is designed to support the development of school sites and which sit within the dedicated schools grant. Would the decision to determine who gives consent to that process be a matter for the Department for Education, rather than the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government? I think especially of situations in which a school has been transferred under the standard 99-year academy lease. Who will be the decision maker if the academy trust wishes to dispose of all or part of that site?

I would like to put the question about how overage clauses, which will exist in many of these agreements, will be treated. Clearly, the upside of some of these disposals, which are often controlled both through the planning process and through the original transaction, will say that, in the event that the acquirer of the site returns to gain planning permission for a higher-density development, or something that yields a higher amount, they have to pay a proportion of the increase in the value of the site to the local authority that disposed of it. That is designed to avoid a situation in which a site is sold for 20 houses and ends up with 150 flats on it, and the developer basically cleans up. That is a common clause contained within site disposals by local authorities. To whom would the benefit of that overage clause accrue? Especially in circumstances where the benefit was intended to be taken into account as part of that prior capital programme, what provisions will there be to resolve those disputes in the event that they arise?

Draft Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 General Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. On this hot afternoon, the Committee will be pleased to hear that, having debated a lot of the detail underlying the Minister’s proposals in Committee for the Renters’ Rights Act, the Opposition will not be seeking to trot out lengthy speeches or a long list of questions—although I hear that one or two Back Benchers may have come with 90 minutes of material prepared.

In Committee, we debated at great length the proportionality of the measures that are now fleshed out in more detail in this set of proposals, not least because, while there are some egregious examples of poor landlords, the private rented sector still enjoys the highest resident or tenant satisfaction of any form of housing tenure. It remains the view of the Opposition that some of the measures set out in the 2025 Act go well beyond what is proportionate to the experience of the vast majority of private tenants. This is a sector that is absolutely critical to providing housing, especially for younger people who are looking for more flexible housing options as they develop their working lives.

The Minister has set out a little bit of his thinking. I think it would be helpful if he could touch briefly, in summing up, on how the Government propose to ensure that that level of proportionality will be maintained when this scheme translates from a set of legislative proposals into reality. In particular, could he address how we will ensure that the costs to landlords—and indeed the costs that would thereby be passed on to tenants—remain within reasonable limits? How do the Government propose to ensure that the cost of any financial awards arising from these measures is met? Will that be a cost taken out of, in effect, the collective fees paid by landlords, or by tenants through their rent, or through some other arrangement?

It would be helpful if the Minister could touch on the points made about the reliance on local authorities using powers that they have gained under the Renters’ Rights Act to carry out enforcement where breaches are identified. One point that we raised in Committee was that local authorities already struggle to carry out enforcement on issues such as trading standards and environmental offences, partly because of resourcing and partly because of the burden of proof. We were not satisfied at that stage that the proposal for levying significant fines would result in a significant additional level of resource to carry out that work. We drew attention to the experience in Wales, where a slightly different version of the same system operates and where those concerns remain live issues for local authorities charged with this responsibility.

In summary, while we all agree with the principle of making effective and practical redress available to people who are tenants in the private rented sector, we do not want to see an overly complex and costly bureaucracy that does not make it straightforward for people to seek the redress that they need and deserve.

Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 General Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their considered contributions and questions, which I will try to address in turn.

It is first worth making clear that the two minor and consequential amendments before us do not implement the new strategic plan-making system. We will bring forward a package of statutory instruments in the autumn to switch on the main provisions of that system. As I made clear in my speech, the two minor and consequential amendments do two very simple things. One provides for the Lord Chancellor to make examination rules. The final content will be clear when we lay those rules, which we intend to do in the autumn; they will be largely technical and procedural in nature. The other simply requires marine plan authorities to notify strategic planning authorities as well as local planning authorities that they intend to make a marine plan. I hope that that clarifies what the two amendments are about.

On the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, I do not want to relitigate all the debates we had in Bill Committee; I well understand the concerns expressed by Opposition Members about local input. It is important to reiterate a couple of things. Spatial development strategies will not allocate individual sites. As I said, they are high-level frameworks for housing growth and investment—they are not big local plans. Local plans will have to conform with them, but local planning authorities still have to develop local development plans. That is where decisions about which sites are appropriate come within the context of national planning policy—a “brownfield first” national planning policy.

As the shadow Minister knows, we strengthened the policy requirements on previously developed land in our December 2024 update to the national planning policy framework. We have gone even further in the new NPPF, on which we have just consulted, and we will respond in due course to that.

These are very high-level spatial development strategies. We do not want them all to be London plans; if they were, that would not represent success. London has very particular development needs. The legislative basis for SDSs is the London framework, but as I have said these plans are much more high-level. We are not aiming to replicate the London plan across the country.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

The Opposition are grateful to the Minister for the Government’s shift on prioritising brownfield.

I seek clarification. The Minister touched on the preparation of marine plans. How do those engage the role of the Crown Estate, which owns the seabed and foreshore around the coastline of the UK? Let me pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex. If, for example, an infrastructure project required the extraction of gravel, the construction of a new port, access to ferries or the construction of a bridge, all those could engage the Crown Estate. Have the Government considered that?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have, to the extent that marine plans impact on spatial development strategies; I will outline the relationship when I respond to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes. To be clear, the regulation power that we are talking about is a simple notification requirement on SDSs to ensure joined-up plan making. The Crown Estate is involved with marine plans, obviously, and I will set out how many there are across the country and how that relates, but this is a simple change in scope.

I touched on brownfield land. I want to make clear where the democratic input comes from and who has to produce spatial development strategies: combined authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral; combined county authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral; upper-tier county councils; and unitary authorities. All will have a duty to produce a spatial development strategy. Those authorities, as I said, are known as strategic planning authorities.

The Government, however, will be able to group any of those authorities together to jointly produce a spatial development strategy, through a committee known as a strategic planning board. In those areas where, for example, a mayor is not in place and there is not an obvious geography to take forward an SDS, a combination of authorities will be put together to come up with an SDS through a strategic planning board. Each authority will have a voice on the planning board.

I should touch on the geography of an SDS. As hon. Members will know, in February and March the Government undertook a national consultation seeking views on proposed geographies for which spatial development strategies should be produced. That included proposals about which authorities will be grouped together under a strategic planning board. We intend to publish a response to that consultation in the summer.

Regulations will be needed to establish each strategic planning board. Before the regulations are laid, the affected authorities must be formally consulted. We intend to begin laying regulations to establish those boards after the summer recess, as I said; at that point, we will confirm the geographies. Local people will have a chance to input into the strategies, whether they come through the individual authorities involved or the mayoral link.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes knows, marine planning is the process for managing the use of marine resources in a sustainable and co-ordinated manner. It ensures that the right activities happen in the right place, at the right time and in the right way. To encourage sustainable development, marine plans guide those who use and regulate the marine area, while considering the environment, economy and society.

Marine plans operate alongside land-use planning systems to ensure a holistic approach to managing the coastal and marine environments. The six marine plans in England cover 11 marine plan areas. I come back to the specific change we are making through this amendment: it is just a notification—no veto is involved on the part of the strategic planning authority. It is being made so that we can ensure that, in areas where a marine plan abuts a spatial development strategy area, there is co-ordination and that the marine plan can be taken account of in decision making by the strategic planning authority producing the SDS.

I consider these to be simple, straightforward, minor and consequential amendments. We will have a chance to debate more fully the more substantive amendments that come when we establish the new strategic plan-making system.

Local Government Reform

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also share my congratulations with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing today’s debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) on his appointment as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department. We all know that he has been a champion for local government and we all recognise that his constituents—like mine—benefited from an enormous vote of confidence in their local Conservative council at the recent elections. I am sure that he will be once again sharing the insights of benefiting from that in his role at the Department.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), my right hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all shared valuable insights about the impact that the local government reorganisation process is having on the communities that they represent. A lot of those frustrations reflect the simple fact that at the start of this process, the Government—perhaps because it was not in their manifesto—did not ask what, in their view, local government is for.

Essentially, this is an instruction to do what is being done at the moment, but a bit less of it, at lower quality and at a higher rate of tax. That is certainly something borne out in the local government reorganisations in places like Somerset, which a number of Members used as a reference point for the concerns that their constituents have.

As a country we already have the fewest elected representatives for our constituents of any major democracy. Our constituents have less elected representation in the decisions that affect their lives than their counterparts in the United States, France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Yet we have a Government bent on a path of reducing that local democratic voice even further.

Just last week the Government announced that, in a planning system where 98% of decisions are already made under delegated powers, even fewer of those decisions will hear the community’s voice, whether local councillors, planning committees or a public forum where people can express concerns—as Members have proudly expressed today—about the impact on towns of overspill and concreting over green spaces. They will further lose the opportunity to share those concerns.

That is based on a policy that is underpinned by no independent financial analysis. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire referred to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report commissioned by the County Councils Network to support its case for county-based devolution. That was an entirely reasonable exercise to undertake. One would expect that central Government would then say, “If that is the case being made by one side, let’s see what the case is for unitarisation, for district-based and for reorganisation along some other lines.” None of that has happened, which is perhaps why there is a high level of concern in places such as Leicestershire that the impact will be higher taxes, poorer quality of services and less ability for local people to share their concerns.

In a moment I will put specific questions that I know the Minister will want to consider, but let us reflect on where we are. The streets of Belfast are on fire and last week there was a massive rise in community tension in Southampton. Last year, my local authority of Hillingdon had to deal with a murder on the street of a local individual walking his dog, by an asylum seeker housed in the local area. The ability of credible local leadership to respond to those challenges is critical at such moments. We are all learning the significance of that.

This is not purely about the administrative convenience of Whitehall. This is not, in the words of a former Local Government Minister, about councils as a delivery mechanism for central Government policy. It is about the leaders of those communities and neighbourhoods having a powerful and credible voice locally and the ability genuinely to affect the decisions that make a difference in that area. By failing to ask what local councils are for, the Government are setting up the new authorities to fail.

As a number of Members highlighted, housing is one of the most obvious examples. The Government have set a target of 1.5 million new homes to be delivered over the course of the Parliament. Those 1.5 million new homes already have planning permission. Local authorities have been granting those consents over many years. In Broxbourne, Leicester and South West Hertfordshire there are sites ready to go. They have been designed, laid out, and discussions have been had with utility companies. Yet the economic conditions created by the Government mean that that development is simply not happening.

Rather than addressing those economic conditions, the focus is on removing a bit more local democracy from the planning system. That risks a situation, highlighted by the impact of the expansion of Leicester and Southampton, where many treasured green fields will have planning permission for unbuilt homes, while old mills in city centres remain undeveloped. That is due to a failure of leadership by a local Labour city mayor and a Government not creating the economic conditions for housing development to happen. When there are so many challenges, to which local government delivering on average 800 different services to local residents could be the answer, whether in public health, education, housing, transport and the environment, the fact that we have what is essentially a reductive exercise about how can we do this, but a bit worse at a higher cost, is simply not the answer.

I will conclude with these questions. At the heart of much of this debate has been the fact that elections were promised and cancelled, and mayors committed to and their elections deferred. It would certainly help us all to understand the decision making in the Department if the Government were willing to release the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the local authorities about the cancellation of elections. That has been the subject of freedom of information requests and questions in the House. The Minister, who I know is committed to local democracy, will understand that it would build confidence if the Government were willing to share how the Secretary of State gave local government leaders a steer in that controversial process.

Secondly, will the Minister commit to a full and independent financial analysis of the impact of the reorganisation process? That analysis should not simply rely on something written specifically to support reorganisation, but should be independent and say what is in the interests of the whole country. Will she tell us why it is not appropriate, in her view, for local residents to have a say at any point in the process? There will be debate about whether this is a matter for referendum, local election or mayoral election—there are various ways for it to happen—but a number of Members have shared the sense of frustration felt by local people about the absence of a route by which they can have their say.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

There is one point that I should perhaps have mentioned to emphasise how united the community is. When I wrote initially to the Minister’s predecessor, the letter was co-signed by the leaders not just of the Conservative group on New Forest district council, but of the Lib Dem group, the independent group and the Green group. When there was a vote on supporting the New Forest Together campaign, every single member, including the sole Labour member of New Forest district council, voted in favour. This is a unified community howl of protest against what is being imposed on us.

[David Simmonds]

My experience, unlike that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham, does not go as far back as the Redcliffe-Maud report, but what has been described over the years, as we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, is people’s frustration about things being done to rather than with them. This is not about local community leadership growing up from those neighbourhoods; it is about administrative convenience in Whitehall.

I will finish with a question at the heart of building a sense of community confidence. Residents in Leicestershire and Hampshire feel that this is about enabling cities to dump their housing targets—which they have failed to achieve within their own boundaries—in the neighbouring area. We have seen that issue around the fringes of London, historically in south-west Hertfordshire in places such as St Albans. That has been the subject of legal action and Government intervention in the past. We need absolute transparency from the outset.

What do the Government want the new councils to do? When they go to the ballot box, and when they engage in consultation and talk to their Members of Parliament, residents need to know that the new councils will exercise the functions that they are there for, and they need to know what it will cost them and what it will mean for their neighbourhood. It is not too late for the Government to pause the process, listen to the concerns that have been expressed powerfully today, including by the Minister’s own Back Benchers, and look at how lessons can be learned, so that we have a local government system fit for the future.