Local Government Reorganisation

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I have visited my hon. Friend’s constituency with her on many occasions, so I know at first hand that she is one of the strongest advocates for her constituents of any Member in the House. She makes an important point there, because we do not want to lose the voice of individual towns such as Hastings and Rye within unitarisation. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 allows for what are referred to in the legislation as “area committees” but which could sit as town committees, operating as a scrutiny function, to call in the providers of public services and hold them to account within the locality that makes sense to local people.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

What would the Secretary of State say to my constituents in Broxbourne, who never asked for this reorganisation and are concerned that it is just a waste of time and money that will leave them with higher council tax bills and less say over local planning decisions?

[Steve Reed]

I would say to the constituents of the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have conversations quite often—not least on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, of which he is a distinguished member—that the selections for the county were made because they best reflect the distinct economic areas that operate across the county, because they will keep services closer to residents by organising around where people live, work and travel, and because they will make the best set of proposals for attracting further inward investment into the county, which will, I am sure, benefit his constituents, as well as others across the county.

Local Government Reorganisation

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. She will understand that until we have made the announcement, there is little I can say in response to her point, but I will just say that councils deliver very important public services. We are introducing the local outcomes framework so that we can see transparently what councils deliver and what they do not.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The Minister and I have had many exchanges on this topic, and she knows that I am focused on securing the best outcome for my constituents. We know that reorganisation in Hertfordshire is coming, but the uncertainty is not helping my residents or local councillors, so can the Minister confirm whether an option for Hertfordshire will be included in her announcement on Thursday? Can she also confirm whether MPs will be informed before any public announcement is made?

The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. The order was laid before the House on 4 June. It will establish a centrally led urban development corporation in greater Cambridge, pursuant to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which provides that the Secretary of State may designate an urban development area only when they are of the opinion that it is expedient and in the national interest, and following a public consultation.

As the Committee will be aware, the economic growth of Cambridge over recent years has been a phenomenal success. It now has arguably the most intensive and innovative science and technology cluster in the world, with more than 5,000 knowledge-intensive firms based in and around the city, employing tens of thousands of skilled workers and generating in excess of £18 billion in annual turnover. However, the supply-side constraints that are evident across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, from infrastructure deficiencies to housing affordability, are particularly acute in greater Cambridge. Its continued position as a world-leading centre of innovation, its ability to make an even greater contribution to the UK economy, and the quality of life experienced by its existing residents are all dependent on removing those constraints.

Local institutions and leaders have worked hard to support the rapid growth of greater Cambridge over recent years. Over the past two years, the Government have intervened alongside local authorities and the greater Cambridge shared planning service to address pressing constraints such as water scarcity. Such action has helped to unlock more than 9,000 homes, 500,000 square feet of commercial space, and a new cancer research hospital.

It is widely accepted, however, that delivering development at the scale and pace necessary to realise the full potential of greater Cambridge is beyond the capacity and powers of existing institutions. It was for that reason that, between 4 February and 1 April this year, we consulted on proposals to establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation—a centrally led urban development corporation with the legislative powers, focus and resources to unlock the area’s full potential. I once again thank all the organisations and individuals who took the time to engage with the process.

The prevailing theme among responses was that infrastructure delivery in greater Cambridge has been slow and piecemeal, or has failed to keep pace with historical population and employment growth, and that that was having a detrimental impact on residents’ quality of life, constraining the region’s ability to scale its globally significant innovation economy, and reducing business and investor confidence. Individuals and organisations widely reported that greater Cambridge has lacked a strategic, co-ordinated and long-term approach to the rapid delivery of primary infrastructure. Complex governance, fragmented decision making and uncertain long-term funding were identified as obstacles to delivering at the scale and pace required.

While fully acknowledging the strong local efforts that have been made and the excellent performance of the greater Cambridge shared planning service, the consultation confirmed the Government’s belief that the scale and complexity of the development challenges faced by greater Cambridge required a bold and long-term approach, and a genuine step change in how infrastructure is planned, co-ordinated and delivered; and that the establishment of a centrally led development corporation, combining responsiveness to local priorities with national leadership and influence, would be the most effective way to unlock nationally significant growth at the pace and scale required.

The development corporation established by the order will unleash ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in greater Cambridge to the benefit of its existing communities and the country as a whole. Once established, the corporation’s boundary will align with the current combined administrative areas of Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council. This broad development area will underpin the corporation’s ability to deliver its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth necessary to deliver on both local and national interests.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The Minister is always very generous with his time. He has just explained the boundaries of the development corporation. Cambridge is going through local government reorganisation. How will that affect the order and the boundaries that he has just described?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a very good question. In short, although I am more than happy to expand on this response, the development corporation’s boundary does not pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of the recent consultation on local government reorganisation. The Government would, of course, consider, through due process, any changes to the development area that are deemed necessary as a result of any local government reorganisation but, as I say, that does not pre-empt or prejudice what we are taking through by dint of this order.

The Government have worked hard to sustain a constructive relationship with local leaders and key partners. We want the development corporation to be a joint national and local endeavour that combines local insight and input from local democratically elected representatives with national leadership powers and investment. As such, the democratically elected leaders of Cambridge city council, South Cambridgeshire district council and Cambridgeshire county council, as well as the democratically elected Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, will be invited to join the board. The Government also recognise that input from residents and communities will be integral to the success of the development corporation. That is why it will be asked to create exemplary engagement structures to enable broader community participation, including from residents, community representatives, and town and parish councillors.

The order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as an independent corporate entity, allowing it to be granted infrastructure, financial and land assembly powers in due course. The powers and functions order, which my officials are preparing for consideration later this year, will equip the development corporation with planning powers, including the ability to determine planning applications above a minimum threshold of 250 homes, and non-residential applications above 5,000 square metres. Our intention is that the development corporation will eventually take on plan-making powers. However, we believe the optimal way to kick-start growth in the plan-led system is to take a phased approach. As such, the development corporation will exercise plan-making powers only once the draft local plan has been adopted. The Government are clear that adoption of the draft local plan should not limit or delay future ambition for growth and, subject to its adoption, successor plans will be expected to build positively on the draft local plan’s foundations to support continued growth.

The development corporation will also be granted development management powers for strategic sites within its boundary. Only applications for sites of strategic importance will be determined by the development corporation. The vast majority of planning applications will continue to be determined by the greater Cambridge shared planning service. The Government recognise and accept that almost all strategic residential developments will be of over 1,000 houses, flats, or houses and flats. However, to account for the possibility of residential development prejudicing the delivery of sites of strategic importance, residential thresholds will be set at a minimum of 250 houses, flats, or houses and flats. Any application that is determined by the development corporation will still be considered against national and local policy, and subject to public consultation as normal. That combination of powers will provide the development corporation with the tools, certainty and investment needed for sustainable infrastructure-first growth. The model will form an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, and set the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country.

The order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as an entity accountable to the Secretary of State and set out the geographical boundary in which it may operate. The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation will focus on the delivery of strategic, nationally significant growth within its boundary. It will work collaboratively with local authorities both within and bordering its development area, as well as with transport bodies and utility providers, to unlock development opportunities and boost economic growth.

I extend my sincere thanks to local leaders and their officers in greater Cambridge for their hard work and ongoing constructive collaboration in pursuit of our shared objective of supporting ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in Cambridge and its environs. I also thank Peter Freeman for his continued leadership of the Cambridge Growth Company and commend the CGC for everything it has done to date to help to facilitate the delivery of new homes, infrastructure, and commercial and laboratory space. I hope that hon. Members agree on the value of establishing the development corporation. I commend the order to the Committee.

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

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 General Committees

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I have great respect for the Minister. I hope that he remains in post or gets a promotion in the upcoming reshuffle. I did not plan to speak today but, although I have heard some good points made in this Committee, I have also heard some nonsense.

This is a terrible idea: I do not think a national scheme of delegation will work across the country. It puts too much power in the hands of planning officers, who do not always get it right. We often fail to talk about how we have to create communities, but when someone makes a bad planning decision, that building is there for generations. There are issues that should be thought about within the planning process, and they will be difficult to solve if an officer has recommended the approval or refusal of a specific application and they have got it wrong. Officers are less likely to live within the council area, so they are less likely to know the place as well as councillors. Councillors should be around that table and should be able to call in planning applications.

Lots of councils do have a scheme of delegation, but it is important that they retain flexibility, because there will be certain applications where local circumstances apply. For example, an application for a house may have to be called in because there are specific issues down a road, or because lots of people have replied to the consultation. Councils need to have that flexibility. The national scheme of delegation will not help the Government in meeting their target of building 1.5 million homes. This is not the problem within the planning system.

As I have said before, the reason that hardly any homes are getting built in this country is developers themselves. Most applications that go through the planning process get approved. It takes such a long time for developers to get their planning application not because the approval process is slow, but because they actively go against what the council is seeking to achieve within its local plan or what local people want. If, when they originally bought the piece of land and wanted to create their development, they came around the table and worked hand in hand with the council, they would get through that process a lot quicker. As leader of Broxbourne council, I had loads of experience of dealing with developers who would take ages to get through the planning system because they would not do what the council asked them to.

The idea that this legislation will speed up the planning process and solve all the issues, and then 1.5 million homes will be built over the course of this Parliament, is just utter nonsense. This is not the right part of the process for the Government to be attacking. This is an incredibly bad idea. It is not well thought-out. It will create issues down the line, when officers approve lots of planning applications and people do not understand why they have been approved, and it will cause fundamental issues for parking, healthcare facilities and education that will have no democratic oversight.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on this and try to improve the planning system, because I do not think this piece of legislation does that. It is an attack on democracy, and it is all about concreting over the green belt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

And we think that is right on schedule 1 applications. They are a very different proposition from schedule 2 applications, which we think members should be able to take a view on through the gateway test.

[Lewis Cocking]

The Minister mentions local plans and schemes of delegation. If a developer comes forward with a planning application that is not allocated within the local plan, how will that be dealt with? Will it be deal with through schemes of delegation, or would it automatically go to committee?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a fair question. As I set out in my opening remarks, if such an application were to meet the conditions in schedule 2, it would go in front of the chief planning officer, in most instances, and the chair of the planning committee, and a gateway test would determine whether it meets the criteria that I have set out. If it does, the local authority can put the decision in front of elected members, as happens now with an officer recommendation, so we are not changing that. I have listed the types of application that fall under schedule 1: minor residential development under 10 units, minor commercial development and so on. There might be a principled difference of opinion here, which I respect, but we do think that expert planning officers should be able to take decisions on those matters.

The hon. Member for Orpington challenged me on the impact of the fact that 96% are already not determined by committee. In a sense, he was saying, “What’s the point of these regulations, given that we have local schemes of delegation doing the job?” As highlighted in the impact assessment for these reforms to the Planning and Infrastructure Act, we expect these reforms to have a small but positive impact on the delivery of housing in this Parliament. We have never suggested that they are a silver bullet for all the issues that we face in the planning system. The Act’s impact assessment covered a number of options, including our lead option of delegating when applications are in line with local plans. We explored that issue, but the regulations take a more structured approach to delegating along the lines of application type, so we need to update the assessment to reflect that.

We recognise that only approximately 4% of decisions are made by committees at present, but that percentage represents a substantial proportion of total units in the planning process because many major applications go to planning committee for consideration. Under the circumstances that we have outlined for the gateway test, they might not necessarily do so as they might not meet those criteria. Streamlining the planning process will make a meaningful contribution to the delivery of much-needed housing and sustainable communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not believe so, because local planning authority schemes must adhere to planning regulations and meet the gateway test—in the sense of what can pass a committee—and the statutory guidance to which they must have regard. In a sense, we want to ensure that applications passing through the gateway and considered by committees are larger, complex and more controversial cases, and that less significant applications are determined by planning officers.

That leads me to the legal obligations on officers. In a sense, the question has been put to me, “Can we trust local planning officers to make these decisions?” I must make it clear that officers working for local authorities are bound by strict requirements in the way they make decisions on applications. They must, by law, take all material considerations into account, including relevant parts of a local plan—that is why having an up-to-date local plan in place is so significant—and national planning policy. The law also requires their decisions to be rational. Planning officers’ actions must adhere to codes of conduct, be they those of the local planning authority or of the professional institutes to which they belong. Taken together, we think that these measures provide strong safeguards to underpin the integrity of decisions.

[Lewis Cocking]

The Minister is being very generous with his time. How can the public deal with planning officers who get it wrong? At the moment, if a planning committee gets it wrong, the public can go out to the ballot box and vote for someone else. They cannot do that with planning officers who make the wrong decisions.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Planning officers routinely make decisions without applications going to committee. We trust them to do so; they are bound by the requirements that I have just set out.

The hon. Member touches on a point that I was going to come to. It is important to ensure that we have a highly skilled planning profession and the right training and support in place for officers. We are investing in good decision making by planning officers in councils across the country. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department has a planning capacity and capability programme that provides a broad range of support covering recruitment, skills, development, training and funding to ensure that local planning authorities have the capability and capacity that they need. Our approach to supporting planning recruitment and skills is deliberately demand-led, allowing local planning authorities to deploy support in line with their specific pressures. As he will know, councils have the flexibility to use support to recruit specialist skills or to upskill existing staff.

To ensure that I respond to all questions, I will make two final points. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, asked about instances in which the local authority is the decision maker or a local authority member is involved. I addressed that in my opening remarks, but it is worth clarifying again. We recognise that, for applications involving a local authority or an officer or member of that authority, committee scrutiny is merited in some cases, in the interests of transparency. To allow for that, we have provided in the regulations that such applications, regardless of whether they fall into schedule 1 or schedule 2, can be referred to committee with the agreement of the nominated officer and nominated member, even if they do not meet the specific criteria.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North made a powerful speech in support of the regulations. However, he asked how we determined which types of application fall into schedule 1. On the specific question of minor residential development, we took that as the appropriate threshold because, unlike in policy, in legislation—the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015—there is a distinction between minor and major development. With “minor development” being under 10 units, we thought that that was the appropriate level to set when it comes to residential developments. Commercial and housing development also falls into schedule 2.

Importantly, a key addition that we made to the regulations following consultation was the requirement for the regulations to be reviewed within two years of their coming into force. That will give us the opportunity to monitor their implementation and identify any issues or unintended consequences resulting from particular types of application placement. That review will take place by 31 October 2028.

Notwithstanding the range of issues and considerations that we have discussed, let me draw the Committee back to what the regulations seek to achieve. They are about improving the quality and speed of decision making so that the housing and growth that local communities want—and desperately need in many cases—can be delivered more quickly. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

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

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 General Committees

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. The Government are bringing forward logical proposals to deal with new councils, but my concern is that I am not sure that this measure goes far enough. It talks about protecting new councils from existing councils’ decisions about their finances, but what we do not talk about in this—and what I think the Government need to consider—are existing councils that are going to be forced to merge.

That is important because, if we look at my constituency, I have a council with money in the bank and a council without money in the bank. This legislation talks about protecting the new authority from financial decisions that the existing authorities have made—I completely support that, and I think the Government are taking a logical approach—but we need to explore whether it is fair for all the money to go into the same pot. Is it fair for people who have had good councils, with money in the bank, to see their taxpayers’ money spent elsewhere in the authority, where they will not see a benefit?

We should explore what financial information, constraints or regulations we can give to new councils when they are created, rather than just putting all the money into the pot. The councils to be merged will not have the same financial footing. They will not have the same services or the same money in the bank. If we think that it is important to protect the new council from decisions that the existing authority has made, it is right that we look at protecting specific areas within new councils that have had good financial management over the short to medium term.

As I said, there is an example in my constituency: Broxbourne council has about £50 million in the bank but East Herts council has none. What I do not want to see if we have to go through local government reorganisation is all that money going into the pot and then being spent on paying someone else’s debt. It is right for constituents that I represent in the borough of Broxbourne to say that there should be some guidance outlining that that money should at least be spent within the existing boundaries of that authority, even if it is under the new council.

[The Chair]

Order. The Member is straying a little from the scope of the proposal. Will he conclude, please?

[Lewis Cocking]

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Vickers.

This is an important piece of legislation that the Government are bringing forward. I wonder whether the Minister could explore some of the points that I have raised in this debate.

Local Government Reform

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. May I congratulate you on the 25th anniversary of your election to this House, which happened a few days ago? I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate.

For the past few months, I have worked closely with the local election candidates in my constituency, and I am pleased to say that their hard work paid off: they were elected on to Broxbourne district council and it remained under Conservative control, with no change to our majority. During that campaign, I spoke to hundreds of local residents, and not one person said to me that they wanted to see Broxbourne council abolished. If they were aware of the Government’s plans to do just that and force us into a large unitary authority stretching 40 miles from top to bottom, they wanted to know what I was doing to stop it.

I suspect that when the Minister replies to the debate, we will be told that local councils were knocking down the door of MHCLG, saying, “We want to reorganise. We want to go into large unitary councils.” Well, I have seen the letter that the Government sent to my council, and councils had no alternative but to reply to that letter. This is forced local government reorganisation, no matter what people say.

The people of Broxbourne instinctively understand what Ministers continue to deny: that large councils are remote from the people they serve, with decision makers naturally less concerned about towns and villages that they have no connection to. Moreover, the big new authorities will cost towns and villages money, not save it. There will be no savings from reorganisation. I am yet to see any evidence that unitary councils provide better government than the two-tier system that we have in place. I am yet to see those councils that have been through reorganisation—whether North Yorkshire or Somerset—come forward and say, “D’you know what? We’re awash with cash. We’ve got so much money now that we’ve saved so much through reorganisation.” I have not seen that.

In fact, when Somerset council went through reorganisation to become a single, large unitary council that the Government accepted, it increased council tax by 10%. There were no savings. If the Government are hellbent on doing this and want to move forward with it, they should show us the evidence that that type of council serves its residents the best, is cheaper and provides better services.

Last year we learned that the Department did not even carry out its own cost analysis of the reorganisation. Do not get me wrong—Broxbourne council is not perfect, nor is any district council—but, given its reasonable size and proximity to residents it at least has a chance to make a positive difference, if run well. It is no secret why Broxbourne residents voted to keep the council the same, as they do year after year. Council tax is lower than anywhere else, while services such as waste collection and leisure centres are run better than in neighbouring councils that charge more council tax. We all know that, when reorganisation comes, the new authority will provide the bare minimum in services and hit residents with the highest rates that it can get away with. From day one residents in the new authority, which my constituents will be forced into, will pay more in council tax but get less back. For those reasons, I fundamentally oppose the reorganisation.

The process we have seen so far should also make us doubt the Government’s ability to achieve what they have promised. As already mentioned, just last week the County Councils Network sent a damning letter to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, pointing out that the top-down imposition of local government reorganisation, as we have seen in Sussex, goes against the wishes of local councils without the evidence to back it up.

Many right hon. and hon. Members have made this point, but I too say, “Please show us the evidence. Show us where big unitary councils cost less and deliver better for residents, then we can at least understand and argue about the nuances of what the Government want to achieve.” It is difficult to do that when I have sat in a number of debates on this issue—I was on the Bill Committee for the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026—and not seen one shred of evidence that the new authorities will deliver better services and charge less in council tax. The majority of councils in Hertfordshire, including Broxbourne, support the proposal to create four unitary councils, rather than two or three, as they know that councils operating as close to the people as possible serve their residents better.

When it comes to making future decisions on reorganisation—and let me be crystal clear for the avoidance of doubt, though it will be no surprise to the Minister, I do not want any local government reorganisation in Hertfordshire—I hope that the Department will listen to what councils are saying and act on that. I urge the Minister, as I do every time in such debates, “Please review the policy, please make sure that future decisions are made with our constituents in mind and please ensure that whatever system is forced upon us will deliver outstanding local services and cheaper council tax.”

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this important debate. It is obvious that LGR is the Government running before they can walk. On so many issues, we Liberal Democrats push the Government to go further and faster—but not on this. Even McLaren, from my constituency, would think that the Government are going too fast and too furious.

Local government reorganisation has charged ahead without listening to councils and while ignoring residents. A layer of our local democracy is being removed and silenced. It very much feels as if Labour is reorganising local government for the sake of it, without rhyme or reason. Severe funding pressures are pushing local services to the brink. Vulnerable children, the elderly and the safety of our roads are suffering because of years of Conservative mismanagement and neglect, but rebranding and changing the face of the problem does not affect the way that something works—or, more importantly, the way it does not work. The Liberal Democrats believe that we need to fix our public services first and involve local people before we even think about redrawing lines on the map.

Of course, we still do not know why the Government have chosen to push ahead with LGR. Organisations, whether charities or businesses, always have a fully costed business case; they do not change the way they do things without one. I sit on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and it was clear from yesterday’s meeting that the Labour Government simply have not outlined their business case.

What we have here is an overly ambitious plan to reform all local government by 2028. There seem to be no reason other than creating “efficiencies”. In the meeting yesterday, when I asked the Minister how much money reorganisation would save, she said, “It is challenging to answer that question,” and, “Unitary councils tend to be more effective. I can’t give a direct answer.” I was surprised to hear that. That was the answer for a flagship Labour policy that would involve the largest change to local government for over half a century.

[Lewis Cocking]

I, too, sit on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason the Government are struggling to answer that question is that local government reorganisation will not save a single penny?

[Mr Forster]

We missed the hon. Gentleman at yesterday’s meeting. I agree; I fear that it will not save any money. The lack of evidence and a business case is a concern for me and the Liberal Democrats, and we expressed that at the Committee yesterday. I am sure he will be able to do the same next week when he joins us.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is, as ever, a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I add my own congratulations on your important anniversary. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this debate on local government reorganisation. I know that he has strongly held views on the future of his constituency, as we have heard today. For reasons of time, I will not repeat the names of all those who have spoken, but it has been a joy to hear so many Members describe their communities.

I say to all Members that I know we disagree on this topic. The point of this House is disagreement, so our disagreement is not only expected but welcome. However, someone listening to hon. Members might think, “There is no problem in local government and everything is okay—if only we were not proceeding with local government reorganisation!” I simply say to Members that the problems in local government, particularly those related to finance, have arisen because of the age of our population, the burden on local government in adult social care and other things, and a suite of failing policy areas, including special educational needs and disabilities, homelessness, adult social care and children’s care, which have meant that local government has carried the can for policy failure in this place. It now falls to those of us in this House to try to put that right.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will make some progress.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) mentioned £0.5 billion of debt write-off for his community. The words he was looking for were, “Thank you”. He is perfectly at liberty to quote me selectively, as is any Member of the House, but selectively quoting a Minister is not an argument—it is not a case to be made. This Government put £5.6 billion of grant funding into local government at the spending review. We have committed £4 billion to SEND as part of the White Paper. We are investing in local government to try to get it out of this situation.

As I did yesterday, let me repeat what I have said before to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds): although the Department’s analysis of the finances of this change is important, given the high and spiking costs that local government currently faces, the priority must be to deal with those cases. I challenge anyone to come up with a perfect cost-benefit analysis in this environment. That is what I said yesterday, and I repeat it again for clarification.

That said, I will do as a number of colleagues have asked by setting out why we are ending the two-tier system of local government. In two-tier areas, services and functions are split across county and district councils. That slows down decisions as different councils try to agree, and it leads to fragmented public services, meaning that it is unclear who does what and who is responsible. In Leicestershire, the area of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, the county council reported that 140,000 people called the wrong council when trying to get help and support.

The Government are committed to local government reorganisation, for clarity and other reasons that I will set out, and to the timetable that we have set out. We want stronger local councils, equipped to work with strong mayors and strategic authorities, for the purposes of economic growth, improved public services and empowered communities. That is the point of reorganisation: councils that match the real economic footprint of our cities and towns, rather than lines drawn on a map 50 years ago.

I might not have been alive in 1974, but I was born in 1980 into the relatively newly created area of the Wirral. At the time, it was part of the county of Merseyside. We subsequently became part of the Liverpool city region. Of course, administrative boundaries change, as Members know, but the identity of the place I am from—the village of Bebington, where I was born in hospital, and the village of Bromborough—is still as strong as it ever was, and we take part in the Liverpool city region with all the benefits that it brings.

Draft Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 General Committees

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for Eastleigh, for their contributions, which were, as ever, helpful and thoughtful. Before we conclude, I will address a couple of their points.

Both Members mentioned local government reorganisation. It is important to say that it does have a purpose. Unitary councils are more effective and able—

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will finish my point. Unitary councils are able join up services and improve how they respond to the needs of residents. The hon. Member for Broxbourne is free to disagree if he so wishes.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister set out the evidence for her statement that unitary councils perform better?

[Alison McGovern]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard me say this before, but I grew up in the Wirral. Previously, it was one small council operating under Cheshire county council—nobody has ever campaigned to divide our council again. The same is true just down the road, where Cheshire West and Chester council went through the process back in the late 2000s. Once unitarisation happens, it tends to be supported, with limited calls for its reversal. Sadly, we can see the impacts of the two-tier system today, but we have rehearsed that argument many times, so I will not detain the Committee with it.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We as a Government are committed to putting in place a neighbourhood governance framework, and that framework will set in place the key principles. It will be a guide for what effective, strong neighbourhood governance looks like. We will put in place regulation and guidance to support local authorities as they go through the endeavour of working with their communities to put the right structure in place. We have done a huge amount of work with the sector, and have taken evidence, which has informed the principles, but one of the big messages we got from everyone across the sector is: “Whatever you do, do not dictate what this looks like; build on what exists, and ultimately leave it to communities and local areas to come up with the right model for them.” When the sector speaks, we listen.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

If the Minister reckons that Ministers should not dictate what local government structures should be, will she let areas that have two-tier government, and that want to keep their district councils, keep them? My area does; it wants to keep Conservative-run Broxbourne district council. Why is she mandating that we go to unitary authorities, when she is clearly saying, as a Minister at the Dispatch Box, that she does not want to dictate what local government looks like across the country?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I have had this debate many times with the hon. Member. His Government were in power for over a decade and oversaw the decimation and denuding of local authorities through a sustained period of austerity. His Government saw that local authorities were not sustainable, yet did not act. It falls to this Government to recognise those failures. We care about having strong local government that can deliver services for communities. Local government reorganisation is neither easy nor fun—it is hugely time-consuming, and we know that it is a difficult endeavour for our local authorities—but it was a necessity because of the previous Government’s failure to act for nearly a decade and a half. They saw the failings and issues in local government and did not respond; we have not done that.

We were clear that, ultimately, we would ask local areas to come forward with a range of proposals, based on a set of criteria. They have done that, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness is judging the proposals that have come forward against the objective criteria that have been set. What we would not do—I will never concede on this point—is nothing, because that would have left local government collapsing at the very time when our communities need it to be working.

I reassure hon. Members that we think that we have struck the right balance, particularly on town and parish council governance. We are clear that town and parish councils have an important role. We are driving forward community power—something I am fundamentally passionate about and committed to—but we have balanced that with the imperative that national Government must not dictate the structure; that must be left to local areas to decide.

I would like to pick up on “brownfield first”, raised by the hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). I continue to stress that the Government fully agree with, and support, the principle of “brownfield first”. There is no difference in policy intent here, and there never has been. We have demonstrated our commitment by strengthening support for brownfield development in national policy in December 2024, and we proposed further changes earlier this year. I have been clear that the NPPF is the framework under which planning policy and decisions are and should be made, and it remains the most appropriate tool for supporting brownfield development.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Cooper]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I am an officer of the APPG on gambling reform, and we have been doing significant work to gather evidence on this issue over the past 18 months. The sad truth is that the highest numbers of adult gaming centres are predominantly found in our poorest areas. Areas of deprivation need investment, employment and development, not a drain on resources and an open door to the black hole of addiction.

However, Lords amendment 80 is only the start of what we need to do in this area to create environments where our populations can thrive. The “aim to permit” rule remains, and there will be a tension with gambling impact assessments, as it means that councils must still start from a presumption of granting licences, which limits their ability to respond to community opposition, high street saturation and local priorities, even in areas where there are clear concerns about overconcentration of gambling venues. The licensing committee of Worthing borough council recently turned down yet another request for a gambling premises on our high street, but that has now gone to appeal, and the presumption of “aim to permit” means that the balance of evidence is more difficult to hold, even with sound public health and local economic development arguments.

We must therefore continue to develop our legislative approach in this area. Once the impact of gambling impact assessments has been evaluated, we should make a decision on bringing forward legislation to remove “aim to permit” to give councils the right powers to protect and develop our local areas. Alongside that, as the impact assessments and “aim to permit” refer only to the opening of new centres, we must ensure that current licences are not being abused and that licensing codes are upheld.

Lords amendment 80 speaks to the desire of national and local government to enact legislation that lets people thrive in the places where we live. Creating a healthy democracy that has clear objectives and is properly resourced, alongside legislation that allows local government to protect populations from harm and to create healthy environments, is an integral part of this devolution Bill, and I very much welcome it for my area of Sussex and our country.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

In the interests of time, I will keep my remarks brief. First, I would like to speak in favour of Lords amendment 26, which would ensure a brownfield-first approach. If this were well and truly a brownfield-first Labour Government, they would support this amendment. Broxbourne has had its fair share of development, but targets are going up and up. This Labour Government have increased Broxbourne’s housing targets by 22%, while decreasing them in London by 11%. That is not fair, and it is creating loads of urban sprawl on the green belt in the village of Goffs Oak, which is under attack. This Government should be trying to protect those green spaces.

[Wendy Morton]

Urban sprawl is exactly why the green belt was put in place. Its purpose was to protect areas such as mine, my hon. Friend’s and many others that are on the periphery of some of the biggest conurbations and urban areas from urban sprawl. Does he agree that this Labour Government do not care about our communities? All they care about is an arbitrary housing target.

[Lewis Cocking]

My right hon. Friend makes a fantastic point, and she is an excellent campaigner for protecting the green belt in her constituency. The green belt around London was set up after the second world war to protect the periphery from urban sprawl. Just as her constituency is next to a big city, mine is next to London.

The Government are now proposing a new town right in the heart of this green space that was meant to be protected, with 21,000 new homes at Crews Hill, effectively joining my constituency to the urban sprawl of London. My constituency is completely different from London, and that green belt needs to be protected. It is a crucial buffer zone between the urban sprawl coming out of London and the ruralness of Hertfordshire.

[Mr Forster]

I thank my fellow member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for giving way, and I agree with his criticism of the Labour Government. Does he agree that the Conservatives also have an appalling record on defending our green belt and environment? In my Woking constituency, the Conservative Government’s planning policy forced the release of green belt in West Hall in West Byfleet so that there was the urban sprawl that the hon. Member is now speaking so strongly against.

[Lewis Cocking]

I gently say to my fellow Committee member that there are some horrific example of Liberal Democrat-controlled councils building all over the green belt, so this is not something on which he can preach from the sidelines, even though I do have respect for him.

It is important that we put this measure in the Bill, because we must protect the green belt at all costs. Development should be brownfield first because, as has been pointed out, brownfield sites are more often than not connected by transport links and have local facilities, whereas green fields and the green belt do not.

As I have said, my constituency is under attack from ever increasing housing targets, which are up by 22% while those in London are down by 11%. We are even under attack from a new town of 21,000 new homes. We are told that it is such a good location for a new town and to build on the green belt because it is near good transport links. I have driven on the A10 and the M25 at rush hour—I would welcome the Minister doing that—and it is chock-a-block. It is absolutely rammed. I do not know how those 21,000 people will drive their cars using the local infrastructure, because it simply will not cope. The village of Goffs Oak in my constituency is completely under attack from development on the green belt, which is why the Lords amendment is so important.

As I said in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, there are thousands of unbuilt planning applications on brownfield sites up and down the country. Rather than concreting over the green belt, the Labour Government should be focusing on making developers build on brownfield sites for which they already have planning permission.

I welcome the Government accepting some of the Lords amendments, because I am incredibly frustrated with pavement parking across my constituency. Just last week, I saw reckless pavement parking in Cheshunt, where all four wheels of the car were on the pavement and people could not get by with a buggy or a wheelchair. We must hold people who park recklessly to account.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Government’s actions to give local authorities powers to ban pavement parking. Does he agree that, particularly for those with disabilities or who are blind, this issue is a real problem?

[Lewis Cocking]

I suspect it is an issue faced by Members across the Chamber, and I completely agree with the hon. Lady.

Where the amendments go wrong is that the Government plan to give the regulations to local transport authorities, rather than district councils. At the moment in my area, district councils do parking enforcement. We will have one authority with powers to enforce measures on pavement parking, and one authority with the parking and enforcement teams, which does not seem like a joined-up approach. We should not have to wait for local transport authorities, combined authorities and metro mayors to be in place. The Government could have brought forward simple legislation to give councils that are outside London the same powers that London councils have, so that they are able to issue penalty charge notices—yellow tickets—and control pavement parking throughout the country.

Finally, I will address consent for local government reorganisation. I am sure that lots of hon. Members have been out and about speaking to their constituents in the local election campaign, but not one resident across my constituency has spoken to me about consent for local government reorganisation. Not one of them wants to be put into a combined authority, to have a mayor or to move into a unitary local government system. I was on the Bill Committee, and we saw no evidence that the changes to local government structures will bring about more money for local councils or better services for residents. It is just the Government using their powers to force local government reorganisation in this country. That is why local councils have replied to letters from the Minister—they have been forced to do so.

These measures are an important part of the Bill, and we should allow local people to have a say over what structures they have in their local communities. I do not think any of us will go out in the local election campaign, speak to residents on the doorstep and hear them say, “What I really want in Broxbourne, Lewis, is for you to change the local council structures. I want a devolved mayor and a combined authority.” People actually want more effective local government that is connected to the people. [Interruption.] I can hear chuntering from Labour Members, but there is no evidence that any of that will save any money.

In fact, Conservative-run Broxbourne council has the lowest unparished council tax in the country, but through the measures proposed in the Bill by this Government, my constituents will be forced to pay more and higher council tax. I am not in favour of more taxation. The best people to spend their money in Broxbourne are the residents rather than the council, so I urge the Government to accept those Lords amendments and listen to local people.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), my former colleague on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. This Bill is packed full of exciting measures, but in the interests of time I will speak about just one measure: my support for Government amendment 80 to introduce gambling impact assessments.

Many hon. Members will be familiar with what has become almost a gambling takeover of high streets across the country. What used to be a rarity is now all too common: slot machine casinos, often open 24/7, strategically located in some of the poorest neighbourhoods in the country, crowding out other local businesses, despite often vociferous local opposition. When residents and councils try to resist, it is often futile. The companies have become experts at manipulating the planning process. They submit applications, withdraw them and then reapply, and they oppose even the smallest restrictions to their operations. That grinds down local opposition and forces councils to spend money on legal battles that they could lose, so we can see why the incentives have been to give up and grant permission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress because there is very little time left.

I do have to take issue with the point about neighbourhood governance. We are told that we are centralising and trying to impose models on communities, yet on the question of neighbourhood governance, the hon. Member for Guildford and her party want to impose a particular model on communities. We say that is wrong, and we take a very different approach. Ultimately, it should be for communities to determine the right neighbourhood governance structure for their place. Town and parish councils—I agree that they exist in 80% of the geography—will have a role in this, and where that is the will of communities, that should be what those communities do. However, other communities will want to take different approaches, and we think it is right that communities should build on what they have, and that it should ultimately be for communities to determine what they do.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will not give away, but I will pick up the hon. Member’s point about local government reorganisation. In his defence, he has been consistent on this throughout all these debates. Candidly, if we think about the near decade and a half that the last Government had to deal with local government issues, while we recognise that the status quo is not fit for purpose, the Conservatives denuded local government with years of austerity and cuts. They could see that the model was creaking, and they did absolutely nothing to deal with it. We are acting where they chose not to act. The hon. Member can continue bleating about this but, fundamentally, we want local government structures that work and deliver services for communities. The Conservatives did not do that, but we are determined to do it.

My hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) made important points about our high streets and gambling, and I thank them for their tireless campaigning and advocacy on this fundamental point. We are committed to giving local authorities the powers to shape their high streets, which is absolutely critical. The gambling cumulative impact assessment is a first step in this process, as an additional tool for local authorities that will allow them to begin to shape their high streets, but we are clear that we must and will go further. Our high streets strategy will set out the further powers we will give local authorities to empower them to shape their high streets in the way their communities want.

Let me turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), who has been a vocal and passionate advocate for reforms to the taxi and private hire system, which we absolutely recognise are necessary. We completely agree with her that the system is not fit for purpose, and I thank her for all the work she and many of my hon. Friends have put into driving forward the changes we have put into the Bill. We are clear that these are important first steps. Having national standards means we can ensure consistency of approach across the country and, critically, we are strengthening enforcement powers. However, we know that additional reforms must be put in place, and we are committed to bringing them forward.

Various hon. Friends have also mentioned the agent of change, so let me reassure them again that we absolutely recognise both their arguments and those made in the other place. We are committed to publishing guidance that will sit alongside the national planning policy framework and bite on planning decisions. It will be a powerful material consideration in decisions that are made. I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) the reassurance that the Minister for Housing will meet him and other Members to think about how we can continue to strengthen and build on that important policy.

Returning to brownfield first, which has been raised time and time again, there is no disagreement on the policy. We are clear that we will take a brownfield-first policy, and we are clear that that exists within the NPPF. We are putting in the funding required to ensure that that happens. I reiterate that we do not think we should lock rigidity into the system and in legislation. We think that national planning policy is the space and the place in which this should bite.

If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my final minutes I would like to take a step back. We have shown that we are willing to work with Members across the House and to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to genuine concerns. There is no disagreement across the House about wanting a strong Bill that does the job of transferring powers and control to our communities and our local leaders. What we cannot and will not accept are amendments that undermine that core principle—some of the amendments from the very party that accuses us of centralising do exactly that—but nor will we accept amendments that fundamentally go against the principle that we must strengthen the institutions and structures of local government so that they can deliver for our communities.

I place on the record my thanks to Members across both Houses for the constructive way in which they have engaged in debate on the Bill. I look forward to continuing those constructive conversations, with a view to securing agreement across both Houses. I believe there is a genuine consensus on the need for devolution. It is a big step change in the way that government has operated for decades, when the centre thought it knew best and imposed its will. The Conservatives had 15 years and failed to act. [Interruption.] Almost 15 years—it felt like 15! There must a consensus on changing the way that government works. The Bill is an important first step forward. I urge Members, both in this place and in the other place, to ensure the Bill achieves Royal Assent, so we can move forward.

I again put it on the record that the Government are very clear that this is the first step. This is not the ceiling of devolution; this is the floor. The job for us as the Government, and for Members across the House, is to ensure that we continue to work together to build power and control locally, because that is how we will drive change in our places for our communities. I commend the Government position on the Bill, and I ask Members across the House to support that position. We want to be constructive, but equally we cannot miss the opportunity to achieve Royal Assent. I urge my colleagues to resist and reject the amendments that we do not support. We do that not for the fun of it, but because we think they will weaken the Bill.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.

Representation of the People Bill (Sixth sitting)

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

I will speak first to clause 48 and associated schedule 3, before addressing Government amendments 14 to 17 and new clause 40, tabled by the Opposition.

The current legislative framework for absent voting was designed for a very different electoral landscape. Today, far more people vote by post; supply chains and administrator resources are under greater pressure; and expectations around reliability and timely delivery have changed. Developed in consultation with the electoral sector, clause 48 modernises and strengthens the absent voting system to reflect those realities. It streamlines administration, gives electors greater flexibility and ensures that safeguards around the integrity of absent vote applications remain robust.

These measures will enable postal voters to take part in elections with confidence, by helping to ensure their ballot is issued and delivered in good time, while allowing a switch to voting in person or by emergency proxy if their ballot is delayed. They will not apply to Northern Ireland because of the different absent voting regime there and the stricter security requirements around absent voting, which are a result of the history of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland.

Setting clearer rules and deadlines will give electoral administrators the confidence and certainty needed to manage their workload effectively and keep the absent voting system running smoothly at the most demanding points in the electoral timetable. The integrity of our elections is of paramount importance. The clause also strengthens safeguards in the absent voting system by clarifying identity verification requirements, and introduces a clear statutory determination deadline for identity verification. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Government amendments 14, 15 and 16 remove a regulation-making power that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has advised is unnecessary. The Bill already provides that a proxy with a long-term proxy postal voting arrangement can make temporary arrangements for a particular poll without affecting that long-term arrangement. Where a proxy instead applies for a proxy postal voting arrangement for a particular election, the correct outcome is that the long-term arrangement is cancelled. That is the policy intention, and the Bill already delivers that without the need for regulation-making powers. The amendments therefore simplify the legislation, remove redundant provisions and ensure the law operates clearly and consistently for electoral administrators.

Government amendment 17 ensures consistency between the absent voting regime and the proxy voting offences in section 61(1A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983. The Bill already allows someone who has applied to be registered, and is only awaiting the end of the objections period, to be treated as a person who “will be registered” for absent voting purposes. Without the amendment, that same person could be granted a proxy vote but might not be legally capable of committing the offence of acting as a proxy for too many electors if they knowingly breached the proxy limits. The amendment closes that gap, reflects the advice of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and ensures that the law operates clearly, consistently and as intended. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

New clause 40 seeks to require electoral registration officers to share information with political parties about electors whose postal voting arrangements have expired. While supporting voter participation is important, the Government do not consider the new clause to be workable, proportionate or necessary. As drafted, it does not provide access to postal vote expiry data itself; instead, it links disclosure to details supplied in proxy vote applications for parliamentary elections, which is not how postal voting arrangements are recorded or renewed in practice.

Most postal voters will never have applied for a proxy vote. As a result, for many electors whose postal vote has expired, there would simply be no proxy application data to disclose, meaning that the new clause would not achieve its apparent policy aim. There is also a clear mismatch in scope. The new clause refers to postal vote expiry for

“elections of the kind in question”

but limits disclosure to proxy applications made for parliamentary elections, significantly narrowing and distorting the dataset that would be available.

A question of principle is also at stake. Electoral registration officers already have a legal duty to notify electors directly about when their postal voting arrangements are due to expire and to provide them with information about how to make a fresh application to vote by post. That ensures that voters are informed at the right time without reliance on third parties.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

When postal voters are notified by their local authority that they are about to drop off the roll, does the Minister agree that they should not always be encouraged to do that online? Some people who have postal votes do not want to make online applications. Does she also agree that they should be sent a fresh application from the council, with a freepost envelope for its return, so that they can keep their postal votes?

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is appropriate for electoral registration officers to use their discretion in the circumstances that he describes. They can do that already, and should continue to do so, rather than the Government prescribing the route that they should follow.

Finally, requiring electoral registration officers to respond to ad hoc requests from political parties, alongside their existing statutory write-out duties, would impose a substantial and unnecessary administrative burden. For those reasons, the Government cannot support new clause 40.