Local Government Reorganisation

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

This is a pause. It is a review—I have made that absolutely crystal clear—for me to consider the legal advice that was provided as part of the JR process, as well as for me to be able to do what the Prime Minister asked us last week, which was to look at the local government reform programme. That is what I am doing. I did talk about the £63 million. That money is earmarked. If those areas have financial concerns regarding the money they have spent on local government reorganisation, they can contact my Department.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

This sudden U-turn is greatly disappointing for my constituency, after so much work by council officials, residents, councillors and other partners, and after so much money wasted on LGR costs. Given that the two-unitary model in Warwickshire—South Warwickshire and North Warwickshire—was championed by my constituents, the majority of local council leaders and the majority of Warwickshire MPs, will the Secretary of State reassure us all regarding the timescale for this review? Above all, will she reassure us that the decision will respect the democratic input of the people of Warwickshire who contributed to the previous LGR process?

[Angela Rayner]

Absolutely, I reassure the hon. Member that this is about me reviewing the decisions and making sure they are absolutely correct. I want to do that. I recognise the work that has gone in from her local area and those representatives, and I pay tribute to the work that they are doing. I have indicated that I want the review to take weeks rather than months. I do not want to kick the can down the road; I just want to ensure that the decisions that we made are robust and take us forward in the spirit of co-operation with local areas.

Building Homes and Renewing Communities

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

There is a theme developing here, and I think it comes from years of not having enough infrastructure. People are rightly concerned about that. I mentioned earlier that there is a lot of opposition to our planning reforms and the mandatory housing targets that we have set as a Government. I hear it loud and clear, and I want my hon. Friend’s constituents, my constituents and everyone else’s constituents to know that I am acutely aware that the infrastructure that people desperately need must come alongside the housing. I do not think they are nimbys; they raise genuine concerns, and I have heard them loud and clear. That is why we have strengthened the national planning policy framework, particularly on GPs.

I am sure that my colleagues in Health have heard my hon. Friend, but I will make sure that there is a nod to what is happening in her area. I want to reassure the House that I am acutely aware that if we are going to ramp up house building, which we absolutely must do—our constituents expect it—that has to be done in a way that ensures that local people are involved in the process and that the infrastructure is there too.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

The south Warwickshire local plan requires more than 27,000 new homes to be allocated to Stratford-on-Avon district under the standard method, and my constituents support the delivery of truly affordable homes and social rent. However, these homes are not going to be affordable for local people, and housing growth continues to outpace investment in transport, schools, GPs, and drainage and sewage infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State review the mandatory targets to ensure that local housing need rather than a centralised formula determines housing allocations in rural areas? Can she also guarantee that the infrastructure will keep pace with development instead of lagging years behind, if it is delivered at all?

[Angela Rayner]

The local target is based on housing stock and affordability. I appreciate the hon. Lady’s comments on affordable housing, and I take her back to what the Prime Minister has said about needing more social housing—I am sure that she appreciates that this is an issue. We will make sure that we lean towards that and build the houses that people need so that local people can get access to the homes that are built in their area, and the infrastructure is an important part of that.

The hon. Lady mentions water drainage and water supply. We have not built a reservoir for decades, and this Government are now taking action to make sure that we build reservoirs and the critical infrastructure that we need to deliver for the housing that we need.

Representation of the People Bill

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

In conclusion, we know that none of these measures alone will fix the trust deficit in our politics, but hopefully the weight and might of the Bill as it stands, with many of the amendments about a fairer voting system—or lack of it—a cap on donations, and truly accessible elections say something important, namely that this House is serious about a democracy that works for everyone, not just those with the safest seats or deepest pockets. I commend many of the amendments and ask the Minister to accept them.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

The Bill gives us a real chance to defend and strengthen our democracy, and although it is not in the scope of the Bill, I hope that the Government will look in future legislation at electoral reform and proportional representation.

I have tabled new clauses 20 and 21 and supported many amendments because the Bill as it stands does not go far enough. New clause 21 enshrines in the Bill the principle of a cap on political donations. It is time to kick big money, foreign or domestic, out of British politics, and restore public trust in our political system. As I have said previously, the people of this country, not the deep pockets of billionaires—foreign or otherwise—or corporate interests, should decide our country’s future in elections and referendums. I welcome the Government amendment on donations from overseas electors, but at present there is no limit at all on how much a single individual in the UK can give to a political party. New clause 21 would require the Secretary of State to set an annual cap on political donations, informed by an independent review, so we can ensure that the cap is sustainable.

The Bill’s title is “Representation of the People”. New clause 20 would extend the parliamentary franchise—that representation—to qualifying EU citizens and to foreign nationals with a right to enter or remain in the UK, and would extend the local government franchise in England on that same basis. Having leave to remain does not automatically give someone the right to vote, no matter how long they have been in the UK, and we now have different franchises in relation to EU citizens living in the UK following Brexit. That means that millions of residents have no right to vote at all.

Like many of us, I represent a constituency where people who have lived here for years, who pay their taxes, work in our hospitals and run our businesses, still have no vote in the elections that decide who represents them. Residents pay council tax but some of them cannot vote on who is going to be in charge of their refuse collection. As the old American revolution slogan goes,

“taxation without representation is tyranny.”

Voting based on residency rights means that democratic participation is extended fully to people across the whole of British society.

I want to set out where else I think the Bill needs to go further, because the argument runs the same way throughout: open up participation and representation, close down improper or malign influence, restore trust in our politics, and raise the standards for the campaigns we run. On widening participation and making voting genuinely accessible, I want to see a proper feasibility study into overseas voting, because British citizens abroad still face real, practical barriers to casting a ballot. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on citizens’ rights, I have heard from British electors living abroad about the challenges and barriers they face just to exercise their right.

I support the Government extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. That is really brilliant news for our young people and for representation. I welcome the case for automatic registration, so that the right to vote does not depend on people navigating forms.

On the integrity of political money, which is where I believe the Bill still has the most to tackle, the same logic that applies to new clause 21 applies with even more costs. The loopholes that currently let donations flow from foreign Administrations, from those linked to political violence and from undeclared foreign income and corporate interests, like those fossil fuel companies, have no place in our politics and I want them closed. I fully support closing the loophole currently exploited by non-permissible donors giving in small amounts, and I support tightening the rules on cryptoasset donations, which are far too easy to hide. Parties should be required to carry out proper due diligence on where donations actually come from, and I support a proper independent look at spending limits.

Finally, on standards and the world in which we now campaign, candidates deserve proper safety guidance. AI-generated campaign material must be honestly labelled, and I want the Electoral Commission to have strong powers over online harms and disinformation, along with proper measures against foreign interference. Our democracy should be open to everyone who lives under its laws, and closed to the money, undue influence and manipulation that nobody voted for.

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

I start by welcoming the Minister to her new role. It will be truly brilliant to work with her, and this is a transformational Bill with which to start. It will allow British politics to take huge strides to restore the trust that has been lost in our political system and to protect our democracy from being sold off for profit. I have personally set up and hosted an inspiring youth Parliament, and hearing the voices of 16-year-olds and younger children is truly a humbling experience—their dedication and education is always awe inspiring.

I had hoped that the amendments I have tabled would improve the Bill even further, returning integrity to British politics, but I am reassured that the Government are seeking other ways to strengthen our democracy and transparency. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and congratulate him on his promotion, and I thank him for his work in bringing forward these amendments. I also thank my other colleagues who have tabled valuable amendments, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington).

Our election law was written in an analogue age, and the legislation has not kept pace with how safe or unsafe something is. Modern campaigns now reach voters in the palms of their hands, 24/7. Election campaigns with highly targeted content are delivered directly into social media feeds, distributed at speed, with some of it only seen by the people it is designed to influence. Legislation rightly restricts commercial advertisers from making false claims about shampoo, broadband deals, financial products or sausages. Food producers face a wealth of legislation that restricts what they are allowed to say about their products and rightly makes sure it is factually accurate—makers of porky sausages cannot tell porky pies, and pie manufacturers cannot tell lies. It is ridiculous that our political adverts are under no such restrictions. This presents a serious risk to our democracy and undermines any attempts to improve integrity and trust in our political system.

AI-generated campaigning, which looks so convincing, produces misinformation that spreads at scale and speed, while elections are increasingly decided on wafer-thin margins with more and more candidates on ballot papers. With elections that close, and with budgets having been increased by 80% in 2023, misleading electoral advertising can make a real, material difference to our politics and our futures. New clauses 49 to 51, which stand in my name, present practical solutions to this issue. They deal with the narrow, clearly defined category of factual claims in paid material. Crucially, they do not regulate political opinion, argument, satire, pledges, speeches, interviews or ordinary democratic debate; they simply apply to statements of fact that can be tested against data. That distinction matters. If we wish to restore faith in our politics, any reasonable person would agree that voters must have accurate information to build their opinions on. Research by Opinium found that 76% of people agree, alongside the backing of this House.

I have also tabled new clause 52—which, again, builds on the excellent work of my colleagues—to strengthen a code of conduct and standards relating to harassment and intimidation, placing them on a statutory footing. This will ensure people have the right to stand for election and represent their views safely. I accept the Government’s decisions on these issues and look forward to further debate, but I do wish that they would accept some of the other amendments that have been mentioned today to ensure that this Bill achieves its enormous potential and that our democracy is protected.

Park Home Owners

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[James Naish]

Yes, and I will talk about that in a moment. There has been cross-party consensus on the need to make changes, but it will fall to this Government to make them. I am pleased that in advance of this debate, we saw that move from the Government, and I trust that there will be proper, meaningful change in due course.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I hear repeatedly from park home residents in my constituency that they do not understand what the 10% charge is actually paying for. They feel that they have very little leverage and are stuck in a system that they cannot challenge. Does the hon. Member agree that any review must go beyond another round of evidence gathering? This time, park home residents will expect real change.

[James Naish]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I will talk later about the different reasons that have been given for the 10% commission, which demonstrate in and of themselves that nobody is sure what it is for. It is a hangover from a past era.

Oral Answers to Questions

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and commend Karbon Homes for its commitment to furnished tenancies. While such tenancies are not mandatory, we know that many social landlords want to know more about the opportunities that furnished tenancy schemes can provide, as well as the funding and budgeting implications and operational requirements. We intend to publish comprehensive best practice guidance alongside our updated decent homes standard, and will engage with providers and other stakeholders in its development.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

In my constituency I have families moving into social housing with no beds for their children to sleep in, no table at which to eat family meals and no white goods with which to cook healthy meals. Will the Minister recognise the importance of ensuring that tenants moving into social housing have access to basic furniture? Will he commit to working with social housing providers to ensure that no one is left without the essentials?

Representation of the People Bill

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I welcome the Bill, but it needs to be improved to effectively strengthen and defend our democracy. First, it is essential that we replace our outdated first-past-the-post electoral system with one that is fair and proportional. Independent analysis found that the 2024 general election was the most disproportional in modern times. The fact that millions of votes did not translate into representation fuels dangerous disillusion.

Secondly, on money, last year, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill that would have put a cap on political donations and addressed donations made by foreign nationals through companies. It should be the people of this country, not the deep pockets of billionaires, oligarchs or corporate interests, who decide our future in elections and referenda. Legislating for caps and stronger checks would align us with comparable democracies and would close the door on undue influence. We should also ban cryptocurrency donations; I look forward to the findings of the Rycroft review.

If this Bill is about representation, it must also be about the conditions in which voters form their views. Elections cannot be fair if voters cannot find and trust accurate information. Organisations such as Full Fact have proposed targeted measures to tackle the spread of misinformation, including stronger rules on political deepfakes, the establishment of a comprehensive public library of digital political adverts, statutory regulation of non-broadcast political advertising for honesty and accuracy, and a protocol for electoral information incidents, so that voters are alerted to serious interference or disinformation.

I am delighted to see the proposal for votes at 16. I would just add that enfranchisement must be accompanied by political and digital education programmes.

On overseas voters, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on citizens’ rights, I have heard evidence that postal ballots sometimes arrive too late to be returned. The Bill is an opportunity to pilot secure solutions, such as secure downloadable ballots, and embassy or consulate returns via diplomatic bags, and I urge the Government to look into the benefits of overseas constituencies.

People must be able to trust that their vote and voice matter. Let us use this Bill to ensure that it is the people of this country, not foreign malign actors, billionaires or algorithms, who decide our future at the ballot box.

Oral Answers to Questions

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I recognise what the hon. Member says about FirstPort because Members across the whole House have been raising similar concerns for a very long time. He will be aware that we launched a consultation last summer that will include looking at how we can better and more tightly regulate managing agents so that leaseholders are not subject to the kind of abuses that he describes.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

Many of my constituents live on new build estates where the roads and open spaces have never been adopted. Years after moving in, they are still paying private management charges on top of their council tax for basic infrastructure that homeowners should expect the council to maintain. Does the Secretary of State recognise that this gap between planning approval and adoption is fuelling the fleecehold scandal, and will the Government act to ensure that developers complete roads to adoptable standards and local authorities are supported to adopt them promptly?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is right to point out the abuses of fleecehold and how disturbing and worrying this can be for the people living on these estates. The Government launched two consultations in December precisely so that we can properly understand and take action to prevent the kind of abuses that she describes.

Local Government Finance

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I am incredibly proud to have been a councillor until last year, because local government is the foundation of so much that matters in people’s daily lives. It keeps our streets clean, supports vulnerable families, funds social care, maintains roads, protects our environment, ensures that our children can get to school safely, keeps our bins emptied and keeps our potholes filled, but not everywhere. When councils are stretched to breaking point, it is residents who feel the strain.

I welcome the move to a multi-year settlement, which we have long argued for. Councils need certainty and to plan beyond a single financial year. That stability matters, but let us be clear: a longer settlement does not in itself fix a broken system. The Public Accounts Committee has warned that deficits could reach nearly £4 billion a year by 2027-28, and that is not sustainable.

On top of that, we now have rising demand, inflationary pressures, increases in the national living wage and the hike in national insurance contributions, and councils are expected to absorb all of this. Further, making any material changes—for example in the assumptions about the level of business rates pooling and effectively reducing councils’ funding allocation between the provisional and final settlement—will cause serious challenges for many councils, including Stratford-on-Avon district council, which could see a big cut of 5% or more of its total spending power. If I heard correctly, the Secretary of State pledged to refund those councils affected by this material change, and I would like those on the Treasury Bench to confirm that. Our constituents are the ones who are going to be impacted, and the provision of valuable local services will be affected.

I am deeply concerned about the impact on rural areas like mine. The shift to a need-and-demand model risks overlooking the real costs of delivering services across large, sparsely populated areas. Rural councils often receive less grant funding yet face higher transport costs, greater recruitment challenges and weaker public transport networks. That reality must be properly recognised in any fair funding formula.

In my constituency, I see the pressures on local government every day. Stratford-on-Avon district council, led by the Liberal Democrats, has shown what responsible local leadership looks like even in tough times. It has delivered the third highest recycling rate in England. It has rolled out natural flood management. It has installed solar panels on leisure centres to cut running costs and reduce emissions. It has allocated £600,000 to a cost of living mitigation fund to support our most vulnerable families. That is practical, sensible, community-focused governance. That is what can be achieved when councils are run competently and with a clear sense of purpose.

We can contrast that with the chaos we have seen at Warwickshire county council, now run by Reform. Last week, after a gruelling 10-hour meeting, the minority Reform administration failed to pass a budget. The Liberal Democrats put forward an alternative that would have invested £20 million in tackling child poverty, protecting youth services, improving home to school transport, and investing in infrastructure for the future. For an extra 39p a week, we could have protected services for thousands of young people and vulnerable residents. Instead, Reform doubled down on cuts that would hit families hard, including changes that could leave children walking up to five miles to school, often along unlit rural roads. Reform and the Conservatives combined to block that investment, and then still could not agree a budget of their own, leaving the council in limbo. This Tory-Reform stitch up is costing residents in Stratford-on-Avon and across Warwickshire. As we look ahead to local reorganisation in Warwickshire, these choices matter even more.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

On the point about Reform councils and the promises they made and the reality of that, in Lancashire they are trying to balance the books by initially consulting on closing 10 care homes and day centres and narrowing that down now to just the day centres. Does the hon. Member share my surprise that Reform MPs are not here to defend their record on what they promised versus the reality of a Reform-led council?

[Manuela Perteghella]

Yes, the Reform Benches are empty, as we all can see and as the British public can see, and this is really important because, as I have said, local government is the foundation of our places. It gives us our civic pride in our areas and is on the frontline of delivering services, so this is really disappointing, and there is chaos in Warwickshire; we are still without a budget. Stratford-on-Avon district council has made a clear case for a south Warwickshire unitary authority that reflects the real communities and keeps decision making closer to residents. Reform is pushing for a single county-wide super-authority that would centralise power, moving it further away from local people. At a time when trust in politics is fragile, we should be strengthening local democracy, not weakening it. We must keep local government local.

Local authorities are ready to play their part in delivering growth, tackling the climate emergency, insulating homes, improving air quality and building the infrastructure that our communities need, but they cannot do so if they are permanently firefighting. If we are serious about having strong communities and a strong economy, we must get local government finances right and not defund rural councils. We need to support them, so that they can deliver for their residents, rather than leaving them to pick up the pieces of national Government failure.

Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for introducing this important debate.

I note with dismay that as Birmingham’s bin strike reaches its first anniversary, the people of Birmingham continue to pay the price. The fundamental cause of the current dispute, and the pay cuts and the reduction in pay progression, lies in the Labour council’s settlement of the 2017 bin strike. That caused the equal pay claims, which forced two section 114 notices on to the city council in 2023.

But the Conservatives should check their own record. For years under the previous Conservative Government, councils were expected to do more and more with less and less. Since then, the people of Birmingham have had to suffer what Councillor Paul Tilsley referred to as the four horsemen of the apocalypse: council tax hikes, significant service reductions, the sale of important city assets, and hundred of staff redundancies. Last March, a major incident was declared due to the 17,000 tonnes of uncollected waste.

Furthermore, there has been a revolving door of senior management for around a decade. As senior managers have left for jobs elsewhere, the residents of Birmingham have been left to foot the bill. As my Liberal Democrat colleague and Birmingham city councillor Deborah Harries said:

“The very least a citizen can expect from their council, in return for paying their council tax, is for their bin to be collected.”

That basic service has not been delivered in Birmingham for more than a year, despite residents’ being asked to pay a 7.5% increase in council tax this year, on the back of a 10% increase last year.

Currently, agency crews are collecting residents’ general waste every week, but recycling and garden waste collections are suspended, leaving families with more rubbish than they can contend with.

[Ayoub Khan]

Does the hon. Member agree that the issue is not just the lack of green and recyclable waste collections, but that communities who live in inner-city areas, where more individuals live in a particular home and that home is terraced, suffer most?

[Manuela Perteghella]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I understand that recycling is now at 15% in this authority; given that there have been no weekly recycling collections for almost a year, it is a surprise that any recycling gets done. Perhaps it is the result of the good work of residents, who are doing their best to take rubbish to the tips, despite the failings of the council and the Government. Missed collections and overflowing communal bins for flats are all too common, waste to landfill has doubled and recycling rates have crashed. Sadly, I suspect that Birmingham might now be the worst-performing authority for recycling in the country.

Fly-tipping is another recurring issue, not only in Birmingham but across the west midlands, including in my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon. Rubbish, furniture, electrical goods and all sorts of waste get dumped on the streets of our cities, on lay-bys and on farmland. That matters deeply to our constituents. The Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to commit to proper community policing, and to a rural crime strategy that includes fly-tipping. Will the Minister set out steps to help support local authorities and enforcement agencies to tackle that environmental crime?

Back in Birmingham, the Liberal Democrat group leader on the council, Councillor Roger Harmer, informed me that there have been no negotiations since July 2025. The council and Unite are in deadlock, and Unite’s mandate for industrial action is active until at least March 2026. I say to my Labour colleagues that talks are needed urgently, as the alternative is the strike continuing into the summer, which would not benefit anyone.

In two of the 10 constituencies in the council area, over half of children are living in poverty. The financial fallout of the bin strikes and the cumulative financial crises of the council are being felt in the hungry bellies of increasing numbers of children. I hope that the councillors, trade unionists and the Government keep those children and their parents in mind and make a renewed effort to end this crisis.

The deadlock must end, and Birmingham’s Labour councillors need to get around the table to negotiate, or step aside to make space for those who will. Likewise, the Government must tackle the funding crisis in local government, and they must get a grip on adult and children’s social care, on provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and on the prevention of homelessness to help alleviate the financial burden on councils.

Planning Reform

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he is one of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have called for greater support for swift bricks, which we recognise are a vital means of arresting the long-term decline of the breeding swift population. The new swift brick requirement in the framework will require all developments to include swift bricks in their construction, unless compelling technical reasons prevent their use or make them ineffective. This is a significant strengthening of the expectations already in place, and we expect the end result to be at least one swift brick in every new brick-built house, unless there are legitimate reasons why installation would not be appropriate.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

In Stratford-on-Avon, previous changes to national planning policy wiped out the council’s five-year housing land supply almost overnight. Despite years of over-delivery, we did the right thing, and this has opened the door to a developer free-for-all. Will the Minister look again at the impact of these changes, and commit to restoring a genuinely plan-led approach that puts the allocation of housing back in the hands of councils and communities, rather than developers? Through their viability studies, developers are not delivering social housing or infrastructure.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I know the hon. Lady will take a keen interest in annex B of the framework, which deals with viability specifically and asks a range of questions. We want to ensure that we have a viability system that is working effectively, that is fair and that deals with the constraints that prevent development from coming forward, rather than being, as the National Audit Office and others have drawn attention to, abused by some developers to reduce rates of affordable housing and other obligations in section 106 agreements.