Local Government Finance
Judith Cummins Excerpts(5 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
On 20 November, my Department published a policy statement setting out our approach to the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade. Today, we publish the provisional settlement itself and launch our formal consultation on the proposals. It represents the choices we are making as a Government. Unlike the Tories, we will not look the other way as poverty gets worse. We will not ignore the economic and social costs of deprivation. The spending review announced over £5 billion of new grant funding for local services over the multi-year settlement period. That includes £3.4 billion of new grant funding being delivered through this settlement.
Before I give more details, I want to make this point. For 14 years, the Tories decimated local government, asking local leaders to do more with less, and that had consequences. Local high streets are always changing, but deprived towns saw more empty shops, more vape shops and more pawnbrokers than other places. Their councils did not have the resources to do anything about it. In 2019, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy found that nearly 800 libraries had closed since 2010. In 2022, The Guardian newspaper uncovered a real-terms annual cut of nearly £330 million to the upkeep of our local parks, with the biggest cuts in the poorest parts of the country. The last decade and a half of austerity impacted every community, but the very worst effects were felt by people living in the most deprived areas—and that was a choice.
By breaking the link between funding and deprivation, the Tories punished poorer councils. Year after year, they exacerbated inequality. As a result, too many places in this country feel forgotten and left to fend for themselves. The answer is not Reform’s return to austerity or the Tories’ carping from the sidelines; it is to use the best data we have available to redesign the funding system so that deprivation is recognised and addressed within the settlement. That is why the figures we are publishing today are derived using the very latest data from the 2025 index of multiple deprivation released at the end of October this year. It is why, according to our analysis, whereas under the old system deprivation scores could account for only 25% of variation in per capita funding applications, under this settlement it is up to 75%, with other important factors such as coastline, miles of road or visitor numbers making up the rest.
In addition, we are giving councils more certainty with the first multi-year settlement in a decade, allowing local leaders to focus on long-term investment and change. We are addressing the damage of austerity by maintaining the £600 million recovery grant allocations from 2025-26, targeted towards those most impacted by the cuts, and introducing a recovery grant guarantee, providing an above-real-terms increase to social care authorities that received the grant last year.
We are supporting local authorities through change by providing funding floors and phasing in new allocations across the multi-year settlement. We are improving efficiency and value for money by simplifying an unprecedented 36 funding streams, worth more than £56 billion over the multi-year settlement. We are resetting the business rates retention system to restore the balance between aligning funding with need and rewarding local growth, and unlocking the dream of home ownership for more people by boosting real incentives for councils to build new homes. We know that councils are concerned about what will happen at the next spending review, so we will keep working closely with them to avoid cliff edges in funding.
This settlement is our most significant move yet to make English local government sustainable at last. It will take overall core spending power for local government to over £84.6 billion by ’28-29—equivalent to a 15% cash-terms increase compared with ’25-26. The Labour Government have made it clear that we back local government through action. Since coming into power, we have made available a 23.6% increase in core spending power in ’28-29 compared with ’24-25.
However, we have to do more, because the previous Government’s funding system left local government in chaos. Social care costs were soaring out of control, with very little focus on prevention. Children’s social care, the impact of a failing special educational needs and disabilities system, and the spiralling costs of homelessness and temporary accommodation have destabilised council funding, even where councils have acted judiciously to protect the public pound through this difficult era. That is why we need national change to empower local councils to maximise the benefit of this announcement.
The Government are building a national care service based on higher quality of care, greater choice and control and better integration. This is backed by around £4.5 billion of additional funding made available for adult social care in ’28-29, compared with ’25-26. We are changing children’s social care through the families first partnership, funded with £2.5 billion over the next three years, because all children deserve good parenting and a loving home environment—and we know that costs less in the long run, too.
The children’s social care residential market is broken, and we are taking action. Using powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Housing and Education Secretaries will explore how we might implement a profit cap in the children’s social care placement market, which would be a crucial step in ensuring that public money delivers value and care, not profiteering. We will set out further information on our approach in 2026.
On special educational needs and disabilities, in the new year the Government will bring forward the schools White Paper, which will set out ambitious plans to reform special educational needs provision. But we recognise the impacts of the dedicated schools grant deficits on local authorities’ accounts. In future, special educational needs provision will be funded by central Government; local authorities will not be expected to fund costs from general funds once the statutory override ends in March 2028. We will provide further details on our plans to support local authorities with those deficits later in the settlement process.
On homelessness, Members have already heard me acknowledge that temporary accommodation is another growing financial pressure on councils, with spend reaching nearly £3 billion in ’24-25. Last week, we published the national plan to end homelessness—our strategy to prevent homelessness before it occurs. We have set clear objectives to get our children out of costly B&Bs and to help councils to balance the books.
The Government intend to maintain a core 3% council tax referendum principle and a 2% adult social care precept for the vast majority of councils. We are committed to ensuring that the funding system is fair for taxpayers throughout the country. In some areas, council tax levels are radically lower than others. Council tax bills for £10 million houses in some of the wealthiest parts of the country can be less than what an ordinary working family pays in places like Blackpool or Darlington.
The Government plan to lift referendum principles in ’27-28 and ’28-29 for Wandsworth, Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham, City of London, Kensington and Chelsea and Windsor and Maidenhead. This change will improve fairness, as taxpayers in those councils have the lowest bills in the country, and this year paid up to £1,280 less than the average council taxpayer. It will enable the Government to allocate more than £250 million of funding in the system more fairly, instead of subsidising bills for the half a million households in those council areas. It will also provide greater flexibility for those authorities in deciding how to manage their finances following our reforms. The councils will decide on the level of council tax increase to set and whether to draw on the relatively high alternative sources of income from which a number of them benefit.
We know that adapting to our reforms will take time. We will therefore continue to have a support framework in place next year to help authorities in challenging positions. Following precedent set by previous Governments, councils in significant financial difficulty can request additional flexibility from the Government. In making that decision the Government have been clear, unlike the Tories, that they will not agree to increases where the council has above-average council tax. In recognition of cost of living pressures, each application will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and decisions will reflect the support offered to low-income and vulnerable residents.
In closing, I go back to the libraries that have been closed and the parks that have been neglected. Under this Labour Government not only is our Chancellor of the Exchequer making sure that our schools have libraries, but we are making sure through this funding that councils can ensure that parks are good for our children to play in. We can never turn the clock back—we cannot undo all the past damage to councils—but we can change town hall finances so that councillors battling the consequences of poverty have a Government who are on their side for once.
We said we would restore the link between funding and deprivation, and today we are doing exactly that. There will be no more forgotten people left to fend for themselves and no more forgotten places sneered at by Conservative Members, but a fighting chance for every place in this country. I commend this statement to the House.
Alison McGovern
I can hardly wonder at getting that purely political response when I made the perfectly legitimate political point that under the Tories a lot of councils were dealt very bad funding settlements indeed. We do not need to trade political insults to see the libraries closed, the parks left unmaintained and the damage done to councils, but I look forward to discussing this issue with the hon. Member across the Dispatch Box as we move forward, once he has talked to his own councils about the funding settlement they will be receiving.
The hon. Member asked some slightly more important questions, particularly on SEND. He will know that this is primarily a matter of getting the absolute best outcome for our children. The Department for Education will bring forward plans in the new year, and I am working closely with Ministers in that Department to ensure that we get it right. I mentioned some of the details in my statement.
I do not recognise the picture described by the hon. Member on devolution, and I feel confident in saying that nor would the Minister for devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), who is in her place. She announced significant investment for the places affected, and we all look forward to working with areas up and down the country to ensure that our country grows as we wish it to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I know she has been working really hard on this issue since she took on the role a few months ago. She is aware of the many pressing issues facing councils up and down the country—from SEND to temporary accommodation, housing and adult social care—and 14 years of under-investment will not be reversed by one funding settlement. It is therefore important that we continue to work with councils.
This is the first multi-year settlement in a decade, which will help our local leaders in planning for the future and, most importantly, planning for their local residents. I welcome the inclusion of local housing costs in the new funding formula, but ultimately it does not take in local housing allowance, which the Minister knows has been frozen for many years and is still causing a lot of pressure for councils.
The Minister mentioned that the Government will be looking at the council tax freeze in some areas, and at lifting referendum principles. She knows there is growing consensus on wholescale council tax reform instead of us tweaking it. It is the most regressive form of taxation and there is inequality across the country. Will the Minister look at what the Committee’s report says about a wholescale review of council tax banding, so that local leaders can have funding to spend on their local areas, and make sure that other areas see that funding come through?
Alison McGovern
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that comprehensive run through all the issues. She is right that we need not just funding but policy change to get councils to financial sustainability. I look forward to discussing that with my hon. Friend and her Committee. She also asked about council tax reform, which was not the subject of my statement, but I have no doubt that she will be asking me about it again in the near future.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that this is a multi-year settlement, which gives councils a greater degree of certainty and the ability to plan ahead. We have long called for that. However, a longer settlement on its own does not resolve the deep financial instability facing local government. The Minister is right to say that social care, SEND and homelessness costs are destabilising council finances—a direct result of years of Conservative neglect—but recognising the problem is not the same as resolving it.
It will take us and council teams time to review the detail of the settlement and understand what it means in reality for local government. However, early conversations with local government colleagues have highlighted a concerning lack of clarity on the SEND debt. The settlement provides minimal information on how councils are to manage SEND costs until 2028, or how existing deficits will be resolved. Can the Minister provide a clear timeline for when councils will receive certainty on the SEND deficit? Without one, responsible financial planning is simply not possible.
I also seek clarity on the issue of social care. Although the statement includes various measures to try to address the social care crisis, the reality is that that will be swept away by the rising scale of need and the costs of social care. When will the Government finally bring forward a fully funded, long-term plan for adult social care reform that ensures that local authority funding settlements are not undermined by the escalating costs of a social care system that is bankrupting councils and placing unsustainable pressure on the NHS?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Lady mentions multi-year settlements alone not being the answer—no, but they do help. That relates to her two other points on SEND and social care, because multi-year settlements allow councils to plan properly and undertake commissioning activities over a longer period of time. That was our objective, which we have achieved with this. She asked for more details on SEND. I mentioned in my statement that local authorities will not be expected to fund costs from general funds once the statutory override ends in 2028. We will have more to say on that throughout this settlement process.
The hon. Lady asked about adult social care. Significant reform is needed there, but I do not think that anybody could say that we have not done anything. We are building a national care service, backed by about £4.5 billion of additional funding for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, including £500 million for the first ever fair pay agreement. I will never forget visiting care homes after they had got through the hell of covid. All that we do on social care has to back those people who did the most when our country needed them.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Members will have seen that many want to speak, so I make a plea to help one another out and keep questions and answers concise.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I particularly welcome the restoration of the link between funding for local government and deprivation, and the inclusion of housing costs within the measure of deprivation. It makes no sense to do anything other than that.
Even with the funding settlement, the financial situation will continue to be very challenging for my local authorities of Lambeth and Southwark without meaningful support from the Government with the costs of temporary accommodation. When does the Minister expect to be able to set out more detail on how councils will be supported to reduce the need for temporary accommodation and to bring the costs down?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am struggling to get every Member in, given the time, so I ask Members please to keep their questions short.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
After 14 years, the Tories should be ashamed of their legacy in local government. I know that my council, Medway, will welcome the Minister’s announcement about linking deprivation to funding, but we still face other challenges. Will she set out what the changes mean for my local area, and will she agree to come to Medway to meet us and discuss how we can take on some of those other issues?
National Plan to End Homelessness
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I would like to make a statement to the House about the publication of our national plan to end homelessness.
The strategy we have published today, I want to say from the outset, builds on the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). I pay tribute to both of them for their considerable work.
This Labour Government inherited a homelessness crisis. Both rough sleeping and households in temporary accommodation increased radically from 2010. It is not just the people we can see sleeping in Westminster tube station as we leave this building, but the families and children we cannot see—those living in unsuitable temporary accommodation such as bed and breakfasts, without a kitchen and far away from family, friends and schools. For some, this has been a matter of life and death: 1,142 people died while homeless last year, and 74 children’s deaths were connected to temporary accommodation in the five years to 2024—58 of them were babies under one. Everyone deserves a roof over their head. Children in the worst housing our country can offer deserve the attention of this House. The strategy outlines the tangible actions and targets we have set ourselves for delivery this Parliament, which will act as milestones on the way to achieving the long-term vision.
We have looked at the issues carefully. As well as the interministerial group, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government convened a lived experience forum, so that the people who have experienced homelessness and rough sleeping could influence the strategy. We established an expert group to bring together representatives from organisations that support people, local government and experts to provide knowledge, analysis and challenge. I thank them all, on behalf of the House, for their contribution.
To tackle the root causes of homelessness and break the cycle of failure, we must build more homes. We want to build 1.5 million new homes, including more social and affordable housing—more than has been built for years. The new programme could deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes over its lifetime, with about 180,000 for social rent.
Not having enough money is another cause of homelessness. The child poverty strategy, presented to the House last week, will lift 550,000 children out of poverty by 2030, including through the removal of the two-child limit. The implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 will give more protection to renters by abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions, closing a key route into homelessness.
Building more homes and preventing homelessness overall will take time, but families living in squalid, overcrowded conditions simply cannot wait. The Government will eliminate the use of B&Bs for families in this Parliament and make sure that, on the rare occasion that homelessness cannot be prevented, temporary accommodation is liveable. We have already proven that that is possible through innovation funded by our emergency accommodation reduction pilots programme. The programme funds new work to find more sustainable accommodation, the inspection of properties, the acquisition of long-term accommodation for families, and support to make that transition. That is why, in this strategy, we are increasing funding to £30 million to stop a wider range of poor practice, including the overuse of B&Bs and unsuitable out-of-area placements.
There is £950 million for the fourth round of the local authority housing fund. That means councils can invest in owning their accommodation, rather than paying through the nose to rent bad accommodation, and we will explore partnering with social impact and institutional investors to use private finance and support from the National Housing Bank to yet further increase the supply of good-quality temporary accommodation.
To make sure that children in temporary accommodation get the support they need, we will introduce a new duty on councils to notify schools, health visitors and GPs when a child is in temporary accommodation—something that Members have called for. That will improve health outcomes and school attendance, and reduce the risk of mortality for those children. Most crucially, we will work with the NHS to end the practice of discharging newborns with their mums into B&Bs.
There is no worse feeling for any of us as public servants than seeing a man or woman on the street in need of help that we failed to give them. Over a third of people who have been sleeping outside have been doing so for months, and some for years. They have complex underlying needs and have been failed by services again and again. This cannot continue, so today we are setting a target to halve the number of people sleeping rough long term by the end of this Parliament. We will help more vulnerable people off the streets and into stable housing by investing £124 million over the next three years in supported housing services. We will provide £37 million to our partners working in the voluntary, community and faith sector to support recovery from homelessness. We will target £15 million for councils to test innovative approaches to helping people experiencing long-term rough sleeping, which is often complicated.
In a country such as ours, we really should be able to prevent homelessness; instead, hard-working professionals are stuck responding to crisis after crisis. Many councils have simply become overwhelmed by the costs, and people are having to face a night on the street just to access support in the first place. I am proud that the strategy prioritises the targeted prevention of homelessness among vulnerable groups, like young people and survivors of domestic abuse. We are providing more support to young people in supported housing, helping them to develop the skills and independence they need. By making work pay—crucially, by removing the work disincentive for those in temporary accommodation and supported housing —we are ensuring that a job is a reasonable and achievable outcome.
Public institutions should lead the way in preventing homelessness, and this strategy sets out our long-term ambition that no one leaves a public institution into homelessness, with cross-Government targets to start the change to reduce homelessness from prisons, care and hospitals. To force lasting system change, we will introduce a duty to collaborate—to compel public services to work together to prevent homelessness.
We are backing up all these actions with record levels of funding. We have invested more than £1 billion in homelessness services this year, including the largest ever investment in prevention services. Today I can announce the allocation of an extra £50 million top-up to the homelessness prevention grant this year, which further boosts the support available to people at risk of homelessness right now. The strategy sets out how we will provide a further £3.5 billion for homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, with much more freedom and flexibility for councils to get on and do.
We have made our ambition clear, and we will hold ourselves accountable for achieving the outcomes we seek. The strategy sets out three new national targets, alongside commitments from six of our most crucial partner Departments across Whitehall. The interministerial group on homelessness and rough sleeping will continue to meet to deliver the strategy, and will publish a report on progress at least every two years—although I have absolutely no doubt that hon. Members will hold us accountable for the targets week in, week out. We will monitor local progress with new outcomes metrics, with councils setting targets and publishing action plans.
On those goals—ending the use of B&Bs, halving long-term rough sleeping and increasing the rate at which homelessness is prevented—I know that everyone in this House wants all our places, up and down the country, to succeed. Now more than ever, we need our partners to join us in this mission: councils, frontline public services, homelessness organisations, and voluntary, community and faith groups. If we join forces, the strategy will set us on the path to ending homelessness and will deliver immediate action to improve the lives of people experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping.
For every child without a bedroom to do their homework in, for every adult whose life could be turned around by an arm around their shoulder, and for every person who needs a home for Christmas and beyond: this plan is for you, and this Government are for you too. I commend this statement and our strategy to the House.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I thank hon. Members across the House for the cross-party way in which they have engaged on the strategy. We will disagree—I am sure we will disagree about the manner in which Opposition Members sometimes discuss social security—but where we agree, let us make every effort to put the people who need this strategy first. Those are people who have been on the streets for too long and children who deserve a proper childhood. I hope that we can share that ambition.
The hon. Gentleman asked about metrics. The Department publishes a number of datasets that we are using to analyse the metrics. He mentioned a couple of them—children in temporary accommodation and long-term rough sleeping—but we also know how many people present themselves to councils at risk of homelessness, and we want to increase the rate at which that is prevented. I will ensure that we report regularly to Parliament on that.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned repealing the Vagrancy Act. Some other bits of legislation need to come into force so that we can do that. I will write to him with the exact timings, because they relate to the business of another Department.
On the matter of councils’ strategies and whether it is just paperwork, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it very much is not. The statistics show that in some areas, we have been able to get on top of B&B use—there are more details in the strategy—while in some areas, we have not. It is less about paperwork and more about transparency over outcomes and then taking action to ensure that best practice informs what is going on everywhere.
The hon. Gentleman asks about targets and how cast-iron they will be. Thinking about the state of house building, we were always going to have to ramp up over time. I am clear that the goals in the strategy are achievable, and I would welcome the support of the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House in ensuring that we see them done.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement this afternoon. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for their work; this is an area they were both committed to when they were in their previous ministerial roles. The Minister is correct that reversing the tide of homelessness should certainly be a national priority. It is not something that will happen overnight, and we know that further action will be needed to ensure that councils have the support they need for the pressures they are facing—particularly London councils, as the Minister will know, which are collectively facing costs of £5 million a day just on TA.
One of the ways the Government can help to alleviate those pressures and stop people becoming homeless in the first instance is with their rents. There have been asks of Government with cross-party support and from a number of organisations, including the Local Government Association, to look at local housing allowance rates to ensure that people can afford to rent locally so that they do not find themselves facing the threat of eviction and homelessness. Has the Minister discussed this matter with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury to ensure that our residents and tenants do not find themselves evicted? I think of the many children who, two weeks from today, will be opening their presents in another B&B or in more unsuitable temporary accommodation. For them and for many others, we have to make sure we get this right.
Alison McGovern
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her words and for her long-standing commitment to tackling homelessness in the capital and right across the country. She is right to ask about council pressures, and we are trying to address the inadequacies of council funding across the country. At the moment, the costs of TA and the spikes in demand are putting pressure on councils that will make it even harder for them to balance their budgets, and that serves nobody. We have to get this under control, because it is a waste of taxpayers’ money, no less than it is a waste of childhoods. We have got to get on top of it.
My hon. Friend asks about incomes and whether I have discussed that with other Departments. This is a cross-departmental strategy, and Ministers from DWP and other Departments have been very involved in it. At the heart of the problem is the lack of social housing, particularly in London, which is why we need to build more. I am glad that this strategy comes closely after the child poverty strategy last week, which saw action to improve family incomes, not least the removal of the two-child limit.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
We Liberal Democrats also welcome this statement and the additional funding, although I still have some questions. For Liberals from Beveridge to Stephen Ross, who introduced the first homelessness legislation into this Chamber, tackling homelessness and poor housing has been central to allowing people to lead the fulfilled and free lives that we want to see them lead. I pay tribute to the Shared Health Foundation for highlighting the tragic numbers, as the Minister mentioned, of children and babies who have died with temporary accommodation mentioned on their death certificate as a contributory factor. It is a truly tragic situation.
The 132,000 households in temporary accommodation, with 12,000 households on the waiting list in my Somerset council area, are far too many. Even one homeless house- hold is, of course, far too many. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raised last week, there has been a 22% increase in the number of people homeless after being discharged from public institutions, which, as the Minister said, is a massively important aspect of this.
Our Liberal Democrat manifesto called for an end to section 21 evictions and for a cross-Whitehall strategy on homelessness, and we welcome both of those things—it is excellent that they have happened. However, we urge the Government to go further, in particular by increasing the social housing target from 18,000 to 150,000 social homes per year, or at least to the 90,000 social homes per year that are required according to Shelter and the National Housing Federation.
In welcoming the statement, I have a few questions for the Minister. What is the timeline is for completing the repeal of the Vagrancy Act provisions? Will the Government uprate the local housing allowance to represent the bottom third of rents and index-link that allowance to those rents, and when will housing benefit be effectively unfrozen by reviewing that local housing allowance? Finally, will the Government consider exempting homeless people from the shared accommodation rate, which both reduces the quantity and diminishes the quality of housing available to homeless people?
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsMonday 24th November 2025
(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 November 2025 - large print - (24 Nov 2025)
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a privilege to speak in support of the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill. They remain true to our party’s tradition of empowering communities, upholding democratic accountability, protecting the environment and defending the role of local government at all levels. Our amendments, numbering around 120, exist because the legislation as drafted falls short of the Government’s own declared aim for meaningful devolution. My colleagues and I on this side of the House have found ourselves needing to strengthen provisions, close loopholes, and introduce safeguards just to ensure that power genuinely flows outwards to communities, rather than upwards to centralised mayoral offices.
Before turning to the amendments, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for her work in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for her efforts in both the earlier stages of the Bill and in Committee. The volume, detail and quality of the amendments they presented and defended have improved the Bill and clearly reflect the seriousness with which Liberal Democrats approach devolution.
As the MP for Guildford in Surrey, I feel that it would be remiss of me not to comment on what the Government have said about decisions on local reform being led by local people and local councils. I can state that that has not happened in Surrey. The Government have: overruled local people who indicated a strong preference for option three; ignored geography, natural place and communities; and clearly stated that the decision was led solely by the financial state of Surrey, which was created by a number of Conservative-led authorities. I will leave that thought there.
As drafted, the Bill would allow the mayors of combined authorities and county combined authorities to appoint unelected commissioners over substantial areas of public service delivery, from transport to planning, economic regeneration and even aspects of social care. It is astonishing that a Bill claiming to devolve power begins by concentrating it in the hands of one individual, with the authority to outsource major public functions to people who have never faced a ballot box. This is not localism. It is not devolution. It is centralisation masquerading as reform.
Let me be clear, this is not a minor administrative detail. It is the ability to hand over control of core public services that shape our constituents’ lives to someone who has not been elected, cannot be removed by the public, and whose appointment could be based on personal loyalty rather than competence. We have seen this in the past, with police and crime commissioners, where concerns have been raised about appointments of close associates or unelected political allies to influential roles. Even the perception of that is damaging to the public’s confidence in the role. It is extraordinary that the Government would open the door to repeating those mistakes on an even larger scale.
Liberal Democrat amendment 85 would stop that from happening. It eliminates the ability to make those unaccountable appointments entirely. It guarantees that important public roles cannot be delegated to individuals chosen behind closed doors, safeguarding the integrity of devolution by ensuring power is exercised transparently and by those answerable to the public. If the Government insist on pressing ahead with this centralising model—this top-down, trust-us-we-know-best version of “localism”—then the bare minimum is democratic safeguards.
That is where our new clause 14 comes in. It ensures that an elected representative must carry out any development or delivery of policy within a strategic authority’s remit. But let me be clear: new clause 14 is the fallback; amendment 85 is the safeguard. If the Government are genuinely trying to create democratic, community-led devolution, we must not allow unaccountable commissioners to be appointed to run major public services.
Turning to environmental protections, I welcome the Government’s concession on air quality—it is a meaningful win for public health. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their work in Committee lobbying for its inclusion, and the Government for engaging so constructively and now including it in the Bill. But we are still looking for one crucial assurance from the Minister: will nitrogen dioxide be explicitly included in the provisions, not just general air quality? Nitrogen dioxide is one of the most harmful pollutants we face. It disproportionately affects children, older people and those with respiratory illnesses. I hope the Minister can offer that reassurance today.
We also tabled amendment 75, which would require a review of the financial needs of local authorities in tackling health inequalities. Devolution without actual resources is not devolution, but rather the delegation of responsibility without the means to deliver. In my constituency of Guildford, for example, the difference in health outcomes between neighbourhoods just a short distance apart is stark. Life expectancy, rates of chronic illness and access to preventative services vary dramatically. Local authorities cannot hope to address these inequalities without the right resources, data and powers. Amendment 75 ensures that those needs are properly understood and resourced.
I also want to take a moment to recognise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who has re-tabled important amendments on sports provision and the committee system. I thank her for doing so, and the Government for picking up the committee system amendment.
Finally, regarding town and parish councils, for a Government who have repeatedly assured me and others of the importance they place on these levels of local government, the Bill is surprisingly silent on their vital role. We, as Liberal Democrats, have consistently proposed amendments throughout the Bill process to address that gap, safeguard their role, and ensure they are not overridden or abolished without genuine community approval. Parishes are often the tier of government closest to our constituents—strengthening them strengthens democracy—yet the Government have generally refused our amendments.
Taken together, the Liberal Democrat amendments make the Bill stronger, fairer and more democratic. They turn a framework that risks re-centralising power into one that can, if implemented properly, deliver genuine community-led devolution by: protecting against the unaccountable concentration of power; ensuring environmental and public health commitments are meaningful; and giving local communities, right down to parish and town councils, the voice they deserve. We have already seen that when concerns are raised clearly and constructively, the Government can listen, as they did with the committee system and clean air commitments, but there is so much more to be done.
If we want devolution that the public can trust and that empowers rather than bypasses communities, we must ensure robust safeguards are in place. Amendment 85 is absolutely central to that effort. It would ensure that public services cannot be handed to unelected appointees, and that accountability remains where it belongs—with the people elected by the people. I urge Members from across the House to support the amendments that I have spoken to—and, above all, to support amendment 85—so that the Bill delivers the democratic, transparent and community-led devolution that our constituents need.
Dr Gardner
I reject the emotive use of terms like “gun to the head”. The Stoke-on-Trent city council and Staffordshire Moorlands district council proposals on LGR have been approved, and they are the democratically elected councils for those areas. The wider Staffordshire county council, which is now under Reform, had one proposal out of the blue, and now does not want reorganisation either; it is chaotic.
We cannot keep having this. This is something that will happen, and I say to my constituents, “This is going to happen, so we need to make it work for us.” I need people to start saying yes to the opportunity, yes to growth and yes to the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the next speaker, I remind Members to address their comments to the business in front of the House, which is the remaining stages of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I support several new clauses and amendments to the Bill, but, frankly, I am fundamentally opposed to the changes it would impose on our constituents. That is why amendments 104 to 106 are so important, as well as new clause 1, which is due to be discussed tomorrow.
Before strategic authorities or any other new bodies are created, the amendments would ensure that local people have the power to decide the future in their area. In Committee, the Minister for Devolution used some very creative language to ensure that councils were not being forced into reorganisation. The Minister spoke of “inviting councils” and “having a conversation” with residents, but that is doublespeak. If the Government really wanted to give councils and local people a proper say, they would pass these amendments, but I fear they will not. That refusal strikes at the heart of the contradiction of devolution.
There have been lots of warm words from the Government about giving people a stake in the place where they live and in their life and transferring power out of Westminster. But this Bill, and what we are already seeing in the priority areas, keeps real decisions with Ministers and civil servants in Whitehall. In Surrey, which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), we have seen the Secretary of State decree at the stroke of a pen that there will be two new unitary authorities, probably with a strategic authority on top of that, rather than three unitaries, which most councils have supported.
For all the talk from this Labour Government about a bottom-up process, it is clear that no matter what existing councils decide following extensive public consultations such as we have had in Hertfordshire, new local government structures will be whatever best suits the Minister and civil servants in Whitehall.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The hon. Member cannot speak from where she is seated.
Danny Beales
If the Minister feels unable to accept new clause 31, I hope that they can provide a route that allows us to consider such a measure later in the Bill’s progress, at the Budget, or through future legislation.
Joe Robertson
The hon. Member is speaking about an important issue—that of utility companies seemingly closing roads without due consideration. Indeed, Southern Water tried to close the main road into Bembridge in my constituency from 1 December to 21 December; it did not consult with the local community, and only backed down after I intervened in my role as a Member of Parliament. It is the same for Ventnor on the Isle of Wight, so the hon. Member is speaking about a very important issue that probably affects every constituency, or nearly every constituency.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I remind Members again to keep within the scope of the Bill and the amendments.
Danny Beales
I agree with the hon. Member, and recognise those examples. I hear many similar comments in my own constituency.
I welcome the Government’s new clause 43 and new schedule 1, which seek to devolve the power to approve lane rental schemes to mayors of strategic authorities. Locally, we have far too many examples of endless delays to works, such as the recent major road closure scheme on Cowley Road in my constituency, caused by Cadent gas works. That closure caused chaos for weeks on end—a work site left with no works taking place on evenings and weekends while a crucial part of the network was left closed, causing huge disruption. Companies must be held to account, and must be encouraged to carry out works as quickly as possible. Lane rental schemes would make it economically essential for them to conduct out-of-hours works and reduce delays. Armed with new powers, mayors will also be able to incentivise highway authorities to bring in additional lane rental schemes targeting high-priority areas. Crucially, revenue from lane rental schemes can be reinvested to benefit local road users—for instance, by improving the condition of roads and pavements, improvements that are much needed after more than a decade of decline under the Conservatives.
Lastly, as hon. Members will be pleased to hear, I support the new powers to issue mayoral development orders to boost house building. These measures are another step forward in enabling areas to get on, unblocking house building and sites, and to take a more strategic approach to fast-tracking development. In my own constituency, a number of key potential growth areas have stalled in recent years, whether in Uxbridge town centre, near Hillingdon station or in West Drayton. Hundreds if not thousands of homes are stalled at various stages of development, so a more strategic approach to development, enabled at mayoral and regional level, is vital.
I welcome this Bill. I hope the House will agree to the amendments I have spoken to, which will begin giving powers back to communities that will empower them to act and tackle the challenges we all face, now and in the future.
Sarah Dyke
My hon. Friend will know that Somerset county council was near bankrupt in 2018. Indeed, we suffered a lot under the previous Conservative-led county council’s tenure because of its financial neglect. The rising costs and demand for essential services have put budgets under severe pressure, despite the significant transformation and savings now being delivered by the Liberal Democrat-led unitary council.
The lack of funding for local government is not unique to Somerset. It is a national problem that requires a national solution, with councils still waiting for the delayed details of the local government finance settlement. The current funding model is broken and it needs fundamental change. That has not been achieved in this Bill, but amendments 61 and 62, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, would ensure that councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receive appropriate funding to facilitate their transition, and combined authorities receive adequate funding to facilitate their establishment. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support such amendments to the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate. I thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful, robust and, at times, rather lengthy contributions to the debate.
The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) asked if the Bill is ready—absolutely, the Bill is ready. What we are doing is exactly what he accuses us of not doing: we are listening, responding to the scrutiny we received in Committee in interventions on the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and making amendments where we think they make sense. That is the way in which we think that we should drive through legislation, but we are clear about the core premise of the Bill.
The hon. Members for Hamble Valley, for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) all played around the theme that this is a centralising Bill that is looking to impose on places. I categorically reject that. The Bill will implement the biggest transfer of power that we have seen for a generation, which is something that the Conservatives did not do in 14 years. Let us take the example of local government reorganisation, which was raised by Members from across the House. This is a bottom-up, local-led process, where places have come up with proposals—[Interruption.] The proposals have come from places where there has been consultation with constituent authorities and local people. We are then judging the proposals that have been submitted against clear, transparent criteria that we have published.
Candidly, Conservative Members have some cheek asking us to retain the status quo—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamble Valley says that he has two cheeks, but this is a serious matter. Frankly, we are not doing this reorganisation for fun, but because the Conservatives failed to grip the situation for 14 years. They under-invested in local government and stripped out capacity, so we now need to do the job of reforming local government so that it is fit for purpose and can deliver the local services that people across our country want to see.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsThursday 13th November 2025
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 View all Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 13 November 2025 - large print - (13 Nov 2025)
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
There has been great anxiety about the possible negative impacts on the environment of this legislation. Lords amendment 40 seeks to restore site specific protections for most cases where they do not involve wider issues, such as nutrient neutrality, but it has been opposed by the Government, as we have heard. Can we trust the Government to have their heart in the right place when it comes to nature versus development? We can pick up a big clue by looking at what has been happening in my constituency in West Sussex.
For the last four years, Horsham district has been contending with the complications of water neutrality, which is often wrongly confused with nutrient neutrality. It is something that applies only to my district and a couple of neighbouring areas. It concerns possible damage to a unique wetlands habitat on the River Arun, which is home to a rare species of snail and many birds. On a precautionary basis, Natural England has required a halt to any new development that would increase demand on the water supply abstracted at nearby Hardham. Natural England was wrong to impose such a draconian limit. The “not one litre more” rule prevented small businesses from building even the smallest project, and that seriously damaged the local economy.
I do not have any confidence either in the abrupt lifting of all restrictions, as happened a fortnight ago. Southern Water promised to reduce its Hardham abstraction licence by a few million litres a day, but that will not make any difference, because it never used the whole allowance anyway—it was just a notional figure set many decades ago.
The immediate crisis for Horsham is how the changes affect planning and housing development. For the past four years, Horsham has been in the ludicrous position of having to obey two totally contradictory laws. One law says that we have to build circa 1,000 houses a year. The other law says that we cannot build any houses at all if they will use extra water. That is clearly quite a challenge. As a result, we have fallen from being an authority that exceeded our housing targets, even though they were very stiff, to being one of the worst performers in the country, with a land supply of less than one year. It is literally against the law for us to obey the law.
As a result, Horsham district council has been forced to accept a series of applications that contradict its local plan and that make complete nonsense of the strategic plan-led development that the Government always profess to support. Complications around water neutrality have prevented a new local plan from being passed, and that has prevented major new environmental provisions from coming into force.
This legal nonsense has done huge damage to Horsham district and is set to do even more. The sudden lifting of water neutrality today leaves us exposed to wholly unconstrained development, which will do major damage to our environmental ambitions. It is impossible to make meaningful plans for new schools, clinics and community services to support the enormous targets that we will be forced to build when speculative developments keep going through that have none of those attributes.
Do I trust the Government to have their heart in the right place when it comes to environmental protections? No, I do not. Do I believe that they are committed to plan-led development? No, I do not. The Government are content to see holes dug all across our beautiful Horsham countryside in the hope that it might dig the Chancellor out of her own personal fiscal black hole.
I therefore urge the Minister to support Lords amendment 40, and to consider how the legislation is affecting my constituency. I invite him to meet me and Horsham district council so that we can explain that what he is doing will not just sacrifice our local environment but make the delivery of affordable housing—my overall key ambition for Horsham—harder, not easier.
John McDonnell
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for leaving the Chamber for a period. I had to chair a meeting upstairs that had been planned for a number of months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) mentioned the 4 Cs. I will add a fifth: confidence. One problem that we have as a Government —on this issue and on a number of others—is that we need to instil confidence in the general population that not only are our objectives sound but the methods that we are about to use will be effective. I want to stick to the Bill, but let me use a general example. There has been a trend in Government over the past 17 months of policies being introduced that have not maintained the confidence of the general public or of a number of Members. Having destroyed that confidence, we have then gone through a process of reversing the policies and, as a result, not gaining any benefit from them. We just require a bit more political nous as we consider things, issue by issue.
In this field in particular, I do not think that we have taken people with us. What has undermined confidence for people like me is that when Members honestly expressed their views, concerns and expertise, and moved amendments, they lost the Whip. Then, at a later date—within weeks—the Government adopted those amendments as part of the process in the Lords.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is an amazing ambassador for Shrewsbury—I have learned so much about Shrewsbury since getting to know her. Although it is possibly beyond the scope of today’s debate, she is absolutely right about the need to align transport policies and networks with our wider growth and development aspirations. I know that the Government are listening, and are working hard on that very issue. The point about new towns is also a very good one, and it has been welcome to see a Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), sitting alongside the Housing and Planning Minister for quite a lot of this debate—it is a good sign that the important need to break down the silos that built up in Government over the past 15 years is being recognised. We on the Committee corridor really appreciate that.
The Transport Committee considered national networks in 2023, so we do not expect to see that national policy statement again until 2028—we will see what process is followed then, if indeed this change does go through. We published our view on the national policy statement on ports this morning, so it will be 2030 before that is due for revision again. As I said, airports is the only national policy statement that is specific to a particular development, and the Transport Committee expects to address it in the months ahead. Of course, we will be doing so following the Chancellor’s announcement that the Government wish to pursue the development of runway three.
Although we honour the power and role of the Government, I pick up on what the Minister said on Report when he was keen to assure us that the Government’s changes were
“not about eroding parliamentary scrutiny, but about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made”,
and that the Government
“recognise the value that such scrutiny brings to getting important changes right.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.]
Our constituents want to be assured that any changes that have a disproportionate impact on them will be properly scrutinised by this House. I am glad that the Minister has said that the Government will lay a statement in the House, write to the relevant Select Committee and make themselves available, but I want to pick up on the phrase “as far as is practicable”. It is good that he went on to say that
“the Government recognise the importance of Ministers attending Committee to explain the proposed changes”,
and that
“Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.],
but Parliament needs time, access to Ministers, and assurance that significant changes will be able to be properly and fully scrutinised. Where a proposed change is significant enough—where it is not a relatively minor change—we must be able to use the full process.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. In opening the debate, I set out at some length the reasons why the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place. In the interests of time, I do not intend to reiterate at any great length the points I have made previously. I will instead focus my remarks on expanding the Government’s arguments in key respects, and on addressing any points raised in the debate that I did not cover in my opening remarks.
Supporting High Streets
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Billington
I agree with my hon. Friend. It has been striking in my community to see the local social energy of our businesses, particularly in Ramsgate, coming together to help tackle antisocial behaviour, work with the police and bear down on some of the worst excesses of the consequences of the last 14 years.
We also need to be aware of the consequences for small businesses of the fear and uncertainty brought on by the chaos of Brexit. The botched Brexit deal has had a direct impact on my communities, particularly through the loss of our language schools in places such as Ramsgate and Broadstairs. Not all of them have been impacted, but some of them have, and that reduces the footfall on our high streets. That is a direct consequence of failures by the Conservatives.
Ramsgate High Street, for example, has a 24% vacancy rate, as I mentioned earlier. The British Property Federation, when confronted with that statistic, suggested that that meant the people who owned the businesses were simply economically irrational. Well, there seems to be a lot of economic irrationality, which needs to be countered by people who understand the importance of shaping our places—hence our community compulsory auction leases and powers for local authorities such as Thanet to control the proliferation of vape shops and gambling centres. I am sure that the Minister will note my concern that there would be a greater appetite for compulsory purchase if we had a better funding settlement for places such as Thanet when these things come to pass.
Of course we need to reform business rates. We know that they are disproportionately impacting on hospitality enterprises in places, such as my constituency, that rely significantly on the seasonal tourist economy, but I emphasise again the importance of the ability of communities themselves to shape their high streets, from Ramsgate Space and Margate Town Action Group—
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
This debate has reminded me of the maiden speeches we heard last year. We have had a really good tour of the country, taking in Animal shops, fun palaces and all sorts of stuff.
It has been great to talk about high streets, which are more than just shopping streets. They shape how people feel about where they live. When high streets are thriving, people take pride in their towns and feel a real sense of optimism about their area and, by extension, the country. When shops, cafés and pubs are closing, that optimism fades, leaving people discouraged and looking for change.
If the Government want people to feel that their lives are improving and their communities are thriving, and if they want people to feel hopeful and optimistic, supporting the high street must be a priority. That will not only help our traders and shops survive, but help restore pride in our towns. It will ensure that people are invested in the future of their communities and, by extension, the country, rather than being drawn to alternative voices offering quick fixes. I hope that that will be an incentive for the Government to rethink those of their measures that have been hitting the high street.
I am really proud to represent a constituency with fantastic high streets, including in Kingsbridge, Brixham, Modbury, Dartmouth, Salcombe and, of course, Totnes, which is widely praised for its unique high street, on which I was a trader in one of my past lives. As attractive as those streets are, in reality, all the traders are struggling. As many Members have said, the increase in national insurance contributions has hit those businesses hard. One small café in Brixham faces an extra £15,000 in national insurance costs this year. That is just unmanageable for a small café. I was told by a larger restaurant—part of a chain of 17 successful restaurants, which act as a magnet, bringing people to communities across south-west England—that the cost of the increases is equivalent to the money that would be spent opening a new restaurant, and opening a new restaurant would revitalise another town. That is so damaging. Not only is the NIC rise causing hardship, but the reduction in business rates relief from 75% to 40%, combined with the abolition of the cap, effectively leaves small businesses subsidising large chains.
I am running out of time, but I would just like to add that eight pubs are closing every week, and nearly 100,000 hospitality jobs have been lost since the Budget. If that happened in any other industry, it would be headline news, but the Government seem oblivious to what is happening. We call on the Government to exempt hospitality SMEs from the employer national insurance contributions increase, and to consult on creating a new band, from £5,000, to reduce the cost of employing part-time and seasonal staff, who are absolutely vital to the hospitality industry.
Property Service Charges
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Ms Julie Minns.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am imposing an immediate four-minute time limit.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing what, given the number of Members taking part, has clearly been an important debate.
Liberal Members of this place have been campaigning to end residential leasehold and the charges it entails since Lloyd George, who, at the time his People’s Budget in 1909, said that the practice
“is not business, it is blackmail... Ground rent is a part of it—fines, fees; you are to make no alteration without…consent.”
His words ring true today. Over a century later, we still have the same feudal system, and charges that trap homeowners in a cycle of uncapped ground rents, exploitative charges and similarly unreasonable estate management fees.
The scale of the problem is staggering—there are 4.8 million leasehold properties in England, which is more than a fifth of the housing stock—but England, Wales and Australia are the only countries still operating such residential leasehold approaches. Most other countries are perfectly able to ensure building maintenance and safety without relying on such outdated practices. One of the things I hear most often from my constituents is how long it takes to get change in this place, and property service charges are a perfect example. They have been around for decades, but very little seems to have happened.
In 2019, the Government commissioned the independent Lord Best to write a report, and he laid out sensible solutions and a clear path ahead: a new property regulator to establish a code of practice, the licensing of property managers and agents, and minimum qualifications for those working in the sector.
While I acknowledge the last Government’s work in this area, it took them five years to bring forward legislation, and when they did in the form of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, they completely neglected to regulate property management or spiralling service charges. That is a measure of how leaseholders have been let down despite the overwhelming evidence of the need for action. The Labour Government promised that they would implement the rest of the Act, but well over a year later little progress has been made—progress that would give redress to those saddled with charges they cannot contest and marriage values that are wholly unreasonable. These delays are failing the people who are trapped in these properties.
Recently, I heard from one constituent about their experience of leasehold service charges. When they purchased their property in 2022, the service charges were £1,700. In 2023 they rose to £2,600, which is a 52% increase. The next year they went up to £3,700, which is a further 43% increase. The following year—2025—they reached £5,010, which is another 34% increase. Overall, the service charges tripled in just three years, and for what? After a huge effort by residents asking to see quotes and invoices, it turns out that the answer was that it was for nothing—or rather for incompetence and, as Lloyd George might have put it, for greed. There were invoices relating to other buildings entirely and gaping differences between maintenance quotes and actual costs.
Eventually, through the right to manage, the residents appointed a new managing agent and got their charges back down to around £2,000. That means that over those four years, residents paid approximately £13,000 in service charges. If the charges had remained at the proper level, it would have been £2,000 a year, so they have overpaid by £5,000 each and they will never get that money back. The money went straight into the pockets of unregulated managers. That is the cost of delay —it is a real cost being borne by constituents of mine and other Members.
The constituent said to me that the process was akin to having a full-time job, which is an entirely unreasonable way for the property industry to be working—and what about residents who are less able than my constituent? Some residents may be older or in poor health, or simply ill-equipped for the massive task of navigating that bureaucracy. They may be so busy with work or children that they do not know they have been ripped off until it is too late. Folk should not have to devote that level of time and energy to get redress.
The issue of fleecehold, which has been referred to by hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), must not be forgotten. Companies such as FirstPort have been mentioned, and I assure Members that they are as much of a problem in Taunton and Wellington as they are elsewhere. Freeholders often have even fewer rights to challenge estate management charges than those who have leases. The arrangements operate almost like leaseholds. Such residents pay double—both their council tax and estate management charges—and often receive a far worse service than those who live on estates fully adopted by a local authority, where the only charge is council tax. They have all the financial burdens of leasehold without the legal protections. Another constituent—a freeholder in Taunton—has been awaiting the regulations for years now so that he can take his case to tribunal.
Even the rights that exist on paper are worthless without effective enforcement. Currently neither leaseholders nor those paying estate management charges have any easy way to ensure that their rights are upheld. That is why we need both the provisions of the 2024 Act to be commenced, and an independent regulator with teeth and the ability to cap unreasonable charges levied on both leaseholders and freeholders. Even the British Property Federation said back in 2023 that
“the lack of any provision to introduce competency standards or regulation to our sector is a missed opportunity.”
The Property Institute has welcomed proposals for oversight. When even those who would be regulated are asking for it, surely it is time to act.
The Government rightly have an ambition to build 300,000 new homes a year, but we Lib Dems would prefer that to include a stretching target of 150,000 social homes. We agree that homes are needed. However, in building them we must not create a next generation of fleecehold properties. The practice of developers building estates with shared roadways and public spaces, then retaining ownership through management companies and charging residents for their upkeep while those same residents are paying council tax, has to end. For the vast majority of standard developments, there needs to be a presumption that shared areas must be adopted by the local authority. Crucially, councils need to be given the proper resources to allow that; the ability to recoup the costs of managing those spaces from developers or landowners; and powers to sanction those who fail to complete roads and similar infrastructure to the right standard. We cannot allow developers to profit from management companies, while residents pay twice for the same services.
It has been 116 years since Lloyd George called out these practices. We have had six years since Lord Best’s report laid out a clear path forward. We have had over a year with the new Government in office. The evidence is overwhelming and the solutions are clear. Liberal Democrats are therefore calling for: a new property regulator, as recommended in the Best report, establishing a code of practice, minimum qualifications and the licensing of property managers; leaseholders to be enabled to get alternative quotes for maintenance; a power for residents to act in common to take ownership of management companies and common areas; the strengthening of councils’ powers to adopt, with resources from developers or landowners; the urgent abolition of ground rents for existing residential leases; and, crucially, the capping of unreasonable service and estate management charges.
Millions of leaseholders and freeholders are waiting. They have waited long enough. It is time for the Government to act and end what has become the great British property rip-off.
Pride in Place
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The pork barrel politics we saw under the last Government were shocking. At a time when our communities were under huge pressure and we saw such deprivation, it was pretty egregious and unforgivable. This Labour Government would not do that. We are clear and transparent about the metrics that we have used; it is all published and it is there. Critically, we are trying to reach the communities that need the greatest help.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Not only as the Member of Parliament, but as an east Leeds resident, I am delighted that £20 million has been secured for Seacroft North and Monkswood, which really needs it. Does the Minister agree that the ideas and answers on how this vital money should be spent lie with the local people in Seacroft North and Monkswood, who were sadly left behind and let down by the previous Tory Government?
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsTuesday 2nd September 2025
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the exception of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, there will be an immediate five-minute time limit.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
I rise to support the Second Reading of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is a vital step towards modernising local government and delivering fairer investment and greater accountability across England. I do so with 17 years’ experience as a local councillor, for five of which I was leader of South Ribble borough council in Lancashire, which forms part of my constituency. Although the scope of the Bill covers many distinct subject matters, I intend to focus my brief comments—listening to what you said, Madam Deputy Speaker—on part 3, chapter 1 on local government reorganisation.
Let us be clear: Lancashire is now an outlier. While 74% of England’s population live under unitary authorities delivering all local services through a single accountable body, Lancashire remains part of the shrinking 26% operating under a two-tier system. Frankly, no one would design the two-tier system today—it is inefficient, confusing and expensive. Residents do not understand why one council is responsible for potholes and roads and another for pavements and parks, why education sits at county level while planning sits with district, or why one council collects their waste and another disposes of it. They do not understand why they are paying for two different sets of local councillors for the same geographical area, and for 15 chief executives and senior management teams when they only actually require three or four, or why our neighbours in Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region are all unitaries, but Lancashire is left with two tiers of bureaucracy. The result? Duplicated services, inefficient staffing and confused accountability.
We know that change works. In South Ribble, through shared services with our district council neighbour, Chorley, we have saved over £1 million for local taxpayers—real money back into local budgets. Imagine what could be achieved with a fully unitary structure across Lancashire. In my time as leader of South Ribble borough council, I froze council tax for three consecutive years while still delivering effective and efficient frontline services. Yet our residents’ council tax bills kept rising as Lancashire county council increased their taxes annually due to its inefficiencies. My community were confused by these council tax bills, not understanding that the local district council only accounted for around 11% of their overall bill and, in fact, that they were paying more to the police and crime commissioner than to their district council.
Beyond efficiency, this is about fully unlocking devolution. Lancashire has been left behind. We will end up being one of the largest counties in the north of England without a metro mayor. We have missed out already on hundreds of millions of pounds of investment seen in Greater Manchester, the west midlands, West Yorkshire and the Liverpool city region. That is why I welcome the powers in the Bill that allow the Secretary of State to mandate reorganisation where appropriate from a two-tier system to a unitary model. It is a necessary tool to drive reform, and I commend the Secretary of State and the Local Government Minister for their bold vision.
Birmingham Bin Strikes
Judith Cummins Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim McMahon
I hear the hon. Member’s charac-terisation of the issue, but it bears no relationship at all to the reality of the situation. The council is an independent employer. It is not for the Government to go council by council negotiating trade union disputes or terms and condition changes. It is for the councils themselves as the employers to negotiate with their workforces, and that is exactly the same in Birmingham as for other councils, as he knows. The commissioners are of course appointed by Government and have to act with professional expertise in giving advice to the local authority on whether its plans are affordable and lawful, but the negotiations are taking place between the council itself, and Unite the trade union and the council’s workforce.
On this idea that we are scapegoating the workers in this dispute, no party has done more for workers’ rights than Labour. No Government have done more on workers’ rights in a generation than this Government, headed by the Deputy Prime Minister. When I hear Members of this House talking in a way that degrades that, that is a complete and absolute failure to accept not just the legacy we inherited as a Government—that includes, by the way, Birmingham city council and its local taxpayers—but our determination to put that right.
Finally, of course Birmingham could and should have made some big financial decisions much earlier. That is a matter of fact, and that is why commissioners are in there today. But the local government finance settlement had an increase in core spending power of 9.8%—that is, £131 million of additional money into Birmingham. That included the largest settlement through the recovery grant of any council in the country.
Jim McMahon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, which I will try to answer in turn. Let me say, though, that we will take no lectures at all from the party that was in government for 14 years and saw the downgrading of local authorities across the country, including in Birmingham.
Although these are our commissioners, as the hon. Gentleman says—that is correct: they are Government appointed—let us not forget which Government appointed them. They were appointed on the watch of the previous Government. Today we are just announcing a change in the lead commissioner. We need to be careful not to politicise those people, who believe in public service and are helping out the local authority and supporting the Government in trying to turn that council around. Let us leave the politicisation of the commissioners to one side and deal with the facts.
Last time I was in the Chamber, the Conservatives were talking down the role of bin workers, as if somehow that work was degrading. At that time, I think they were suggesting that the armed forces might be brought in to collect waste and that that would somehow degrade their role. That was never going to be the case, but it was a glimpse into how the Conservatives view the workers who are affected. One thing that is absolutely certain is that the Labour party believes in the power of frontline workers and in the importance of these frontline roles. We absolutely value the role of refuse collectors, and we see the implications of waste not being collected. But we have got to be clear, too, that whatever settlement is on the table has to be lawful and affordable, and it cannot cross the red line of undermining the equal pay negotiations that are taking place. I hope that we can agree at least on that basis.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for outlining the Government’s work to maintain vital collection services for residents, who want to see their city cleaned up rather than another summer of this, given the recent heatwave.
Strike action has now passed the six-month mark. As the Minister just outlined, it is important that we consider the hardship felt by many of the striking workers. Many of them do not want to politicise this; they just want to do the right thing by their families. One recently told the BBC:
“Morale’s quite low… Everyone’s trying to stay strong and together, but it is very difficult. The union has tried to help us out with strike pay, but for a lot of people it doesn’t cover their…bills. It puts a massive strain on our family. Kids, money—money’s tight, credit cards are maxed out”.
Nobody should be put in that position. I hear the Minister’s calls for the commissioners, Birmingham and the unions to resolve this issue, but what more can he and the Government do to bring everyone around the table so that we can finally bring an end to the dispute?
Jim McMahon
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her comments—we agree on much. She speaks to why a resolution on this issue is so important. At the heart of this, there are working people with rent and mortgages to pay, who want a resolution. To be clear, the council has been in negotiations over many months and has made a fair and reasonable offer to Unite, which, unfortunately, the union rejected. The council has also worked hard to offer options to affected workers, including their transfer to other roles in the council at the same grade, and, in some cases, has agreed to upskill in-scope workers. A generous redundancy package is available for those who wish to leave the service; we have seen an uptake in that. In the end, none of us wants this to roll on indefinitely; we want to see a resolution for the affected workers and for the taxpayers of Birmingham, who quite rightly expect their local public services to be delivered to a good standard.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Birmingham wants its refuse and recycling service back as quickly as possible to end the risks to public health and the environment, especially in the most densely populated parts of the city. The Liberal Democrats pay tribute to the volunteers and emergency services, who were out there cleaning up the city by dealing with refuse, waste pile-ups and fly-tipping while the council and unions could not agree and continued clashing hammer and tongs.
For years under the previous Conservative Government, councils were expected to do more and more with less and less, and that has borne fruit in Birmingham and many other places. The Government must now grasp the nettle and tackle that funding crisis, particularly in social care and local government generally, so that what is happening in Birmingham does not spread across the country. Given that one-off clean-ups have cost the council £3.9 million already, is it not time for the Government to fund a complete clean-up of the remaining refuse so that residents do not have to foot the bill and spend the rest of the summer living alongside disgusting rubbish. Will any clean-up ensure that waste is properly dealt with and recycled where possible, given that the city is already ranked third from bottom in waste recycling?
Jim McMahon
Whoever is negotiating in this environment will have the same guardrails as the local authority does. The local authority has to be mindful of the equal pay package that it has agreed with all the trade unions, and it cannot do anything in this very narrow dispute—however impactful it is on the workers and local residents—that means completely unravelling the equal pay package. I share the hon. Member’s concern about the impact, but it is important that the local authority and Unite the trade union continue those talks and try to find a resolution. With that being the final question, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and other Members of the House a peaceful recess?
Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsFriday 4th July 2025
(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Act 2025 View all Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 4 July 2025 - (4 Jul 2025)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before we begin, I remind Members of the differences between Report and Third Reading. The scope of the Report stage debate is only amendment 1 in the name of the Member in charge. The scope of the Third Reading debate to follow will be the whole Bill as it stands after Report. Members may wish to consider those points and then decide at which stage or stages they want to try to catch my eye.
Clause 2
Elections to the Scottish Parliament
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 2, page 4, line 37, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 114 (subordinate legislation: particular provisions), in subsection (1), after ‘sections’ insert ‘12B,’”.
This enables regulations made under new section 12B of the Scotland Act 1998 (as inserted by clause 2) to be exercised by modifying provision made by or under that Act.
I am pleased to be in the Chamber today. I thank all Members who have taken part in the passage of the Bill so far. It addresses an issue that needs to be resolved at pace to ensure that electors in Scotland and Wales can benefit in time for their devolved parliamentary elections next May. I am grateful to the House for the unanimous support I have received.
I hope to complete the Commons passage of this important Bill today, but before that is possible, a minor and technical amendment must be made. Amendment 1 to clause 2 amends the power in proposed new section 12B of the Scotland Act 1998 to expressly indicate that the power can be used to amend secondary legislation made under the Act. The amendment came at the request of the Scottish Government to correct an oversight concerning how their devolved legislation operates and how the Bill will be implemented.