Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I commend my friend, the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for opening this co-sponsored debate, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. This is a useful and important opportunity for colleagues across the House to draw attention to the considerable impact that churches and church buildings play in their communities.

I will make some points about the listed places of worship grant scheme, and I will reflect on and amplify some of the points that the hon. Lady has made about the social impact of church buildings. I will also spell out some of the opportunities that the Government could consider with respect to capital grants. However, I first reflect on what the hon. Lady said about her own church, Holy Trinity Clapham. Jago Wynne, rector of that church, has been a personal friend of mine for 25 years. Let us not underestimate the leadership role that many rectors and vicars play, outside their core remit of preaching the gospel, in raising funds to maintain and extend the missions of their churches. Next year, Holy Trinity Clapham will celebrate 250 years of existence; it is rooted in the Clapham Sect. Jago said to me this morning, “This is a mission project, so that the building can be a blessing to the community, not a barrier.” The church now finds itself £1 million short because of the changes to the terms of the listed places of worship scheme. As the hon. Lady has set out, there are 260 other churches facing similar challenges. They have undertaken a considerable fundraising effort, the works are under way, and now they face a deficit. Some may be able to meet the gap, but others might not.

I am privileged in Salisbury: I live in the shadow of the cathedral and worship at Saint Paul’s.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I would like to reflect on the words of the hon. Gentleman. My three brothers spent many happy years as choristers at Salisbury Cathedral. As the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) said, churches are the backbone of our communities; as she also said, some 969 in England alone are at risk due to crumbling roofs and vanishing heritage funding. Recently and famously, my party was mocked for fixing church roofs, so I can only surmise that the more Liberal Democrat MPs there are, the better. Having said that, instead of leaving congregations and communities up and down the country seemingly praying for a miracle, can the Minister comment on whether the Government will commit to making the listed places of worship scheme permanent, and to removing the cap?

[John Glen]

I am trying to avoid making party political points, but the hon. Lady does tempt me, because at St Paul’s in Salisbury—where I go to church and where my grandmother went 100 years ago—we recently had a win in the local elections over a member of her party. That says something about the commitment that Chris Taylor has to the St Paul’s community.

I have visited many churches in Salisbury—including St Mark’s, and St Mary and St Nicholas, the famous Italianate church in Wilton, where the Rev. Mark Wood does a fantastic job—where we are seeing growth in the congregations, but also constant anxiety about how the fabric of those buildings can be maintained. The buildings are integral to the vibrancy of the communities that they serve. They are a source of great encouragement and a convening point for community activities, which have a big impact across all age groups.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, I observe that interventions are getting progressively longer. If those who want to speak are going to be able to speak, we will have to have shorter interventions.

[John Glen]

I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s point. Every Member present today will have a vivid portrait in their mind of an impact that a church makes in their community. It is quite different in different places, and evolves according to the needs of that community. I will not go through every single church that I have visited over my 15 years as Salisbury’s MP, but the range and depth of their impact is considerable.

Andrew Rumsey, the Bishop of Ramsbury in the diocese of Salisbury, is, coincidentally, the co-lead on church buildings for the Church of England, which has 16,000 buildings, 42 cathedrals and 300 major parish churches. Of those, 12,500 are listed. That is nearly half of grade I listed buildings in our country. Contrary to elsewhere in Europe—France, Germany and Italy, for example—there is no central church funding for building works. While it will always be right that people look to the local community to raise funds, we have to examine what we have done in the past and what we might do in the future, given that churches and church buildings are a delivery vehicle for community services alongside local authorities, and how we can embed that understanding in public policy so that churches are supported and become a sustainable force into the future.

The first point I want to make is about the listed places of worship scheme. The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) gave an assurance of continuity for one year, which I suspect is related to the spending review. On 11 June, we will have some clarity over what is happening on a multi-year basis—that cannot come soon enough. The point has been made about the 260 buildings that are in progress and outside the cap. The Government need to address that. Typically, this excellent scheme, which Gordon Brown set up in 2001, was underspent— I remember being Chief Secretary and seeing that the line was £42 million, and it was usually in the 20s. That money will be netted off at the end of the year, but I respectfully say that this is so valued that the Government must reconsider stopping those 260 buildings and putting them at risk of not achieving what they need to complete the works so that we are not left with a deficit.

In my constituency, I think the figure in the last year was £93,855. That is a considerable amount of money, and it makes a lot of difference on individual projects. That will have covered 15 or 20 projects.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The Church of St Mary Magdalene in Stockland Bristol in my constituency has been planning since 2019 for extensive repairs and to turn the church into a community hub. Due to the changes in the listed worship scheme, it finds itself £300,000 short. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an enormous sum for a small community to raise?

[John Glen]

It is, and I wish St Mary’s parishioners well in all their endeavours. There is scope for the Government to come out of this in a very positive way in June by looking back over what they can do to put this right.

For my second point, I want to spend a few moments reasserting the impact that church buildings have on local communities. The hon. Member for Battersea mentioned “The House of Good” report. One of my constituents, Luke March, has been working for 10 years as chairman of the National Churches Trust, which put that report together, and it makes for interesting reading. We are talking about enormous support for communities, working with local authorities. The National Churches Trust report talks about how the care for those in need is worth twice as much as the total spend on adult social care by local authorities. There is a risk—I recognise this from my ministerial experience—that we say, “Well, this is going to happen anyway,” so we can bank that, and then worry about our overall budget. The Minister must recognise—he will know this from his own constituency—that there is often a synergy between statutory-funded local authority provision and the provision of churches working together. We need to look at embedding that understanding in policymaking.

The hon. Lady mentioned the value of church buildings as a source of encouragement and fun, through arts and cultural experiences. I massively recognise that at Salisbury cathedral: the flower festival this week, Sarum Lights, the number of visitors to evensong, the “From Darkness to Light” services—all of those things. Sixty-two per cent of church spaces are useful for leisure-time music performances, and they are used as such. Then there is the other side: the food banks, warm spaces, or acting as a venue for Alcoholics Anonymous, debt counselling, grief counselling, youth clubs and parish meetings.

Last year the independent Khan review looked into social cohesion and resilience. As the Minister will know, it understandably focused on the financial vulnerability of councils, but I reinforce the point that churches can surely be an effective and investable vehicle to deal with some of those deficits. Putting right the issue with the grant scheme can give more security to more buildings going forward. In its report, “Pillars of Community”, the Centre for Social Justice asserts that 12 out of its 29 policies for community thriving are supported by the presence and role of churches.

My third and final point is about capital grants. There is a considerable precedent here, although, as a former Chief Secretary, I feel anxious about that constant demand for more money. I recognise that, but we did find money from 2014 to 2018 for the first world war centenary cathedral repairs fund, which benefited 57 Anglican and Catholic cathedrals. The roof repair fund gave £55 million over a similar timeframe and was administered by the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The heritage stimulus fund gave grants for programmes of major works as part of the culture recovery fund after covid in two tranches in 2021 and 2022.

The public finances are clearly challenged, but there is enormous willingness in many communities where the Government are doing something to match that funding. There is an enormous opportunity for a multiplier effect. It is usually easier to secure capital funding than revenue funding. A Chancellor is always looking for small items, or good news stories, as George Osborne did back in the day, so I urge the Minister, when he plans his budget and finalises what is happening in these final weeks, to recognise that this would be a great opportunity to find a capital grant scheme for match funding from philanthropic and charitable giving that would be really popular and welcomed across the House.

I will not detain colleagues for much longer, but I want to emphasise that we must fully acknowledge the enormous contribution that our church buildings make and the value-add that they provide—spiritually, socially and in looking after the most vulnerable people. I call on the Minister to take to heart the cumulative effect of all that he will hear this morning and reflect on the impact of church buildings, which is felt across our country. There are just four weeks until the spending review on 11 June. There is time for a late addition and to put a few things right; this would be a great opportunity to do so.

I also want to give thanks to all those church leaders—not only in the Anglican Church, but in all denominations—who do so much to achieve positive outcomes for people in our communities. They do so alongside their formal ministry of preaching the gospel, but the impact they have, and what they speak of Jesus Christ to their communities, is instrumental in the mission they have. I hope that we and the Government can acknowledge that and assist them in the maintenance of this vast estate of church buildings, which is so important to our country.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We will need to move to Front-Bench speeches at just before 10.30 am, so if colleagues can keep their speeches to around three minutes, we might get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

I did my best to outline the range of different funding available to local churches and places of worship; this fund is just one of a number. On my hon. Friend’s particular point about the continuation of the fund, Members will appreciate that any matter of future funding is a matter for the spending review, and every Department across Government will make a submission to that.

[John Glen]

Of course the Minister is absolutely right in what he has just said. However, he will also be very aware that within the budgets he is responsible for, there will be capital underspends in-year, so there will be an opportunity for him to make the case to his Secretary of State and to the Treasury, to say, “Should some of that underspend be allocated to these works in progress—the 260 projects that anticipated a VAT return that they do not have?” I urge him to consider taking that opportunity. It would be a very savvy and politically sensible way of proceeding, and would earn him a lot of credit.

[Jim McMahon]

What I can say is that the passion, enthusiasm and commitment shown by all Members here today in talking about the importance of these places of worship—not only the historical status they give to a place in terms of belonging and sense of pride, but how they act as a community anchor for the future—is absolutely appreciated. Our wider work in terms of the plan for neighbourhoods, with the £1.5 billion that we have announced, and the wider work that we are doing, for example on community ownership, is all part of this process.

In my own constituency, the Holy Rosary Catholic Church, which was built in 1955, has now unfortunately closed. Members might think that a 1955 church would be quite mundane in its feel and architecture, but there is a significant grade II listed memorial in that church, designed by George Mayer-Marton, which is a significant focal point for that community. We are working locally to see how we can marshal funds from different places. I give that as an example of how—as everyone in the Chamber will know from their own communities—there is never just one fund that provides answer to the question; we must blend different funding streams together to make these schemes add up. The importance that Members have given to these local schemes is appreciated and supported by this Government.

To directly address the question from the right hon. Member for Salisbury about capital underspends, we will look at that in the round and across the whole range of interventions that the Government take to support local communities. However, I will certainly take the enthusiasm of this debate back to other Ministers in DCMS and make the point to the Minister for Faith, who I am sure is following today.

In a way, we finish where we started: recognising, through the contributions that Members have made, just how important these buildings are as both places of worship—something that has an important role to play in our society—and as places to convene. They are places for people of all faiths and no faith to get the support they need to live a decent and fulfilled life in their community.

Residential Estate Management Companies

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden]

I am glad that the hon. Lady says that the Government are in a hurry. We are looking forward to seeing the legislation come before the House.

Out of the 1,100 people to whom I was referring, only 10 were happy with the way things were going with their management company. By anyone’s measure, that is a pretty shocking state of affairs. Respondents talked of shoddy workmanship, years of delays in getting repairs done, charges for gardening where no gardens exist, charges for new windows when windows are not replaced, charges for buildings insurance when there are no communal buildings, charges for new light bulbs when there is no communal lighting—it would be funny if it were not so serious. They talked of broken lifts, flooded car parks, leaking ceilings, including one that has been leaking for nine years, exorbitant insurance charges—the list goes on and on.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

One other aspect worthy of scrutiny is the situation whereby a developer sets up a management company made up of family members of the original developer, leaving residents with a real challenge to get to the heart of who is truly accountable. That is something that I have seen in my constituency, and I am sure that it happens across the country. It is something that the Government need to address in whatever they come forward with.

[Caroline Voaden]

The right hon. Member raises a very good point. The ownership of some of these companies is murky to say the least.

Service charges are going up way beyond inflation, with no clear explanation of what the increases are for, and management companies refuse to give clear explanations when asked. At Camomile Lawn in Totnes in my constituency, residents were told that the annual contribution to a reserve fund had been increased from £2,000 to £8,000 a year—over 265%. Service charges were raised 23% based on a 10-year plan, but the plan was not shared with the residents, even when they asked. Accounting costs went up 55% in one year with no explanation given. This is a classic example of poor communication and a refusal to engage constructively with residents who want to understand the basis on which financial decisions are made.

The lack of transparency around service charges has been debated in this House many times, not least in December 2023 on Second Reading of the Bill that became the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. It is way past time that management companies were required to act responsibly, treat residents with respect and provide timely, straightforward and accessible information to all residents, regardless of their status as leaseholders or freeholders, and regardless of age.

One resident said:

“We feel like we are being taken advantage of because they see us as old.”

That is a common reflection of those living in retirement villages. Too often, questions go unanswered, letters and phone calls are ignored, and justifiable requests for clarity and information on charges get rebuffed or given such poor responses that they do not mean anything. A delay in bill payment caused by asking a legitimate question often leads to a penalty charge for late payment—a sharp practice that clearly has to end. What is more, people are being forced to pay for the privilege of having asked those questions. One respondent said:

“I received a bill of more than £2,000 for incurring charges trying to see where my money was being spent—£25 per email, £35 per phone call and solicitor charges on top. I felt completely robbed.”

Older people often feel bullied by management companies—scared to question charges, confused by badly written statements and threatened with legal action if they are late paying charges because of wanting to question something. One resident said:

“Our management company leverage their familiarity with legal processes and the vast financial resources at their disposal to bully and intimidate leaseholders.”

This is not just about money; it is about how people feel living in a home that they may have put their life savings into buying. These homes are often sold as offering peace of mind, but one respondent said:

“I’m drained, scared and mentally exhausted. It feels like I’m being financially and emotionally worn down for simply asking for basic transparency and fairness.”

Another said:

“My mental health has been seriously impacted by the state of our building. No one should be unhappy in their home or feel like they don’t want to go home.”

When it comes time to sell, it is yet another tale of woe. Management companies do not respond to requests for information from solicitors; sellers are charged thousands of pounds for management packs that are required for the sale but take months to arrive; buyers get frustrated and pull out, and the price of the property is impacted. Meanwhile, service charges keep rising and ground rents keep being charged.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) said, people are trapped in their properties. Service charges can make it impossible to sell, as they have risen way beyond those charged on new properties in the same area. Dr Janet Richardson’s father bought a flat for £106,000 in 2006. In 2022, he had to move into a care home and she tried to sell the flat. Some months after putting it on the market she received an offer for £10,000 below the purchase price, which she accepted, but for months FirstPort did not answer requests for information, so eventually the buyer pulled out. The flat went back on the market at an even lower price, but still has not sold, three years after first being put on the market. Dr Richardson has now had to agree to sell the property through an assured buyer scheme and says there is likely to be nothing left once all the debts have been paid. She has shown me the figures—it has all gone. If FirstPort had done its job properly she would probably have sold the flat for a reasonable amount two years ago, but of course there is no offer of compensation from FirstPort.

Finally, I come to the nightmare scenario that people face if they dare to attempt to get rid of FirstPort as the management company. Resident groups that have made repeated attempts to release themselves from FirstPort’s management have met resistance and obfuscation, forcing them to retain lawyers and pushing legal fees into the tens of thousands. Those cases have taken an emotional toll on residents, many of whom are elderly. One case in my constituency has been going on for three years and is still not resolved.

South-west based Baker Estates has sacked FirstPort from a new estate at Dartington because of non-performance. The Duchy of Cornwall also sacked the company at the vast Nansledan estate in Newquay. It is more than clear that these companies are not doing their job. Their raison d’être is clearly not that of operating in the best interests of their residents. Estate management companies have had it too good for too long.

As we look again in this place at leasehold properties, we must also look at the difficult situation for freeholders on privately managed estates. We need to bring forward leasehold reform as soon as possible. Does the Minister have a timeline for introducing the leasehold and commonhold reform Bill? Will the Government bring forward legislation to allow freeholders to challenge management charges and to take over the management of a development if they wish?

Have the Government considered greater regulation of estate management companies, such as through an ombudsman, so that residents have some recourse when they encounter problems? If not, will they consider doing so? Will they introduce legislation to prevent management companies from charging residents for legal costs when they ask legitimate questions? Will they introduce legislation to professionalise the management of estates and buildings, with a basic level of service required and a mechanism for complaint and escalation that is easily accessible to residents? I look forward to the Minister’s response. I now leave it to other hon. Members to share experiences of the fleecehold nightmare.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this debate. I commend her for giving the House a much-needed opportunity to discuss the important matter of residential estate management companies in detail. I thank her for so clearly highlighting the pertinent issues in her opening remarks. I also thank all the other hon. Members who have spoken for the insight they have provided. I assure them that I well understand the strength of feeling when it comes to this issue.

The debate as a whole has not only underscored the case for acting to tackle the problems associated with freehold estate management arrangements, but highlighted that those problems take various forms. Part of the challenge facing the Government, and why we believe appropriate consultation in this area is essential, is ensuring that the interventions we make in due course capture the diversity of models and challenges.

We have covered a large range of specific issues today. I will address as many as I can in my response. We have also strayed into leasehold and commonhold. The White Paper is very distinct from the freehold estate issues that the majority of hon. Members have spoken about today and on which I will therefore mainly focus my remarks.

The Government estimate that there may now be as many as 1.75 million homes on privately managed estates in England, although I must make clear that not all of them are liable to pay charges. As the debate has made abundantly clear, the prevalence of such freehold estates creates a wide range of problems—problems that, not least as a result of the dogged campaigning by groups such as the National Leasehold Campaign and the Home Owners Rights Network, are now well known and well understood by the public.

Historically, any given local authority and water company would adopt the respective parts of a new residential estate. They would set clear, adoptable standards and provide oversight to ensure those were delivered, but more recently, and especially over the past 10 to 15 years, we have witnessed the growth of private management arrangements, where shared infrastructure, amenities and open spaces are not adopted and responsibility for the costs of ongoing maintenance instead falls on the residents of the estate through an estate rent charge, which residents pay in addition to council tax. The infrastructure and amenities provided on these estates all too often do not meet the minimum standards for adoption. In the worst cases, residents are left living in unfinished and sometimes dangerous developments.

The problem of unfinished housing developments is obviously not confined to freehold estates, and part of the answer is the proper enforcement of planning obligations, but private management models clearly exacerbate the problems faced by many homeowners in this scenario by leaving them liable for the upkeep of the partially completed or unfinished infrastructure.

That is just one of the many problems that residential freeholders living on freehold estates across the country are struggling with. Others include poor service and abuse at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents—we have heard many such examples in the debate today—as well as limited to no transparency about how the charges they pay are spent, onerous restrictions placed on the title deeds of their properties, and a general lack of control over how their estate is managed. These problems are more acute in some cases than others. For example, the absence of any measure of control is most acute in the case of the approximately 20% of freehold estates that have what is known as an embedded management company set in the title deeds of the relevant properties. To take another example, the challenges associated with opaque fees are magnified in estates where management arrangements are fragmented, with more than one managing company; residents have to navigate multiple companies, each of which levy fees for services in a way that significantly increases the potential for abuse.

As many hon. Members mentioned, last year, the Competition and Markets Authority published its study into the housebuilding industry. I encourage any hon. Member who has not yet had the time to read that report in full to do so. The CMA identified the private management of public amenities on housing estates as a detriment to consumers and concluded that

“the root cause of the aggregate detriment…is the decrease in levels of adoption of amenities by relevant authorities”.

The Government agree with the CMA’s conclusion that the housebuilding market is not delivering for consumers and has consistently failed to do so over successive decades.

As hon. Members will be aware, the report made a number of recommendations to Government and we published a response in full. It called for measures to strengthen protection for existing homeowners, as well as for the Government to mandate adoption of all new estates and to implement common adoptable standards for infrastructure. The Government have accepted many of the recommendations in principle, but we recognise that further work is required in a number of areas.

In the immediate term, we need to introduce protections for residential freeholders on already constructed freehold estates. As hon. Members mentioned many times, part 5 of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2004 contains powers to establish a regulatory framework that to provide such protections, including the provision of standardised demands and an annual report; giving homeowners the right to challenge the reasonableness of charges levied; requiring estate managers to consult homeowners where the anticipated costs exceed an appropriate amount; and giving residential freeholders the right to apply to a tribunal to appoint a manager in the event of serious management failure. Taken together, these measures will vastly improve the situation for many residential freeholders, improving transparency and driving accountability among estate management companies.

As I set out in my written ministerial statement last November, the Government recognise the importance of acting as quickly as is feasible to implement these provisions, but the establishment of a new regulatory framework through detailed secondary legislation requires us to grapple with a range of technical questions. It is important that we carry out appropriate consultation to make sure that the new system operates effectively and to the lasting benefit of residential freeholders.

[John Glen]

The Minister is setting out a thorough analysis of the challenge that he faces. Could he say something about the distinction between existing entities and those that are yet to be set up? One of the concerns is that the Government’s legislation will not deal fully with existing arrangements, and that the none of the cases that we have heard about today will get redress from the Government’s intervention.

[Matthew Pennycook]

To be clear, the protections we are talking about, which we intend to switch on as soon as is feasible and were provided for by powers under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act passed by the previous Government, will benefit existing residential freeholders on existing estates. I will come to the prevalence of those arrangements in due course, but I can reassure hon. Members that we intend to carry out that consultation this year, as promised, and that I am doing everything I can to expedite it.

Beyond the short-term need to protect residential freeholders better, we have to take steps to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements, which are the root cause of the problems we are considering today. In my written ministerial statement, I committed the Government to consulting on legislative and policy options to achieve that objective. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that this is not a simple and straightforward area of policy and that the implications of policy choices are potentially far-reaching.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

Not least with a view to making myself the most popular Member of the House, I will happily do so.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

On Friday, I met the leader of Wiltshire council, who asserts that the way the Government have calculated the distribution of compensation between in-house and commissioned services means that Wiltshire has not fared well in the local government settlement that was announced on 18 December. Will the Minister meet me so that I can better understand the thinking and relay it back to the leader of my council?

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

We know that local government is feeling the pressures after 14 years that did not bode well for local and public services. We understand the pressures associated with national insurance, which is why the Treasury has committed £515 million to support councils in that endeavour. I am more than happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman about his particular circumstance.

English Devolution

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Fifteen years ago, just before I joined this House, we saw the reorganisation of Wiltshire county council into the unitary Wiltshire council, and the abolition of several district councils. It seems that another reform in the heart of Wessex will be the probable outcome of these proposals for Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire. Can the Minister assure the people of Salisbury, who still have some difficulty accepting the abolition of Salisbury district council, that the proposed changes will be positive in terms of the combination of resources for strategic investment in transport and other such services?

[Jim McMahon]

In any local government reorganisation, there is always a fine balance between trying to create a cohesive new council and respecting the strong local identities that people feel—identities that are unique. When that is done right, the council can be confident in its own standing, because it knows that it is delivering outstanding services; when it is done wrong, it is trying to impose an identity on a place through the form of a council that does not reflect the local identity. For those of us in towns such as Oldham that went through the 1974 reorganisation, that is felt as keenly as in other areas, but that is not about the type of government; it is about culture and approach. When it is done well, it can work.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

I am very sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent. I refer to my previous comments; I am very happy to meet and engage with her on her work to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

If Wiltshire embraces the opportunity to join Dorset and Somerset in an elected mayoral authority, will there be local elections all-out in Wiltshire next spring?

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question on devolution. We are absolutely ready to talk to any areas that are keen to take on devolution, particularly a mayoral combined authority. Any decisions on whether elections do or do not take place will be part of future consideration.

Council Tax

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I will relay it to the Local Government Minister. On the general principle, we are determined to rebuild local government from the ground up. That is why we are providing multi-year funding settlements to councils and removing a number of ringfences, and are committed, as I said, to fair funding. On his general point about the Opposition, I completely agree. It reminds me of a phrase my nan used to use: “More front than Harrods,” she used to say. That is what Opposition Members have.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Will the Minister rule out additional council tax bands being among any changes that the Government make?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are not talking about council tax bands in this urgent question; we are talking about the thresholds that remain in place. We are committed to those thresholds. As I am sure you would expect, Mr Speaker, we will set out more details about the local government finance settlement at the appropriate point next year, in the usual way.