Power to Cancel Local Elections

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 747234 relating to the Secretary of State’s power to cancel local elections.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your Caledonian chairmanship, Mr Mundell. We are old friends from the past.

As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I believe I speak for all its members when I say that it is always encouraging to see such strong public engagement in our democratic system. The petition has attracted well over 150,000 signatures, right across the United Kingdom. That level of support speaks positively about how our citizens care deeply about the timing, integrity and accountability of local elections. I thank the petition’s creator Dr Chris Barnes, whom I had the pleasure of meeting prior to the debate, and all those who have taken the time to add their name to it.

The petition calls on the Government to remove the Secretary of State’s statutory power to postpone or cancel scheduled local elections. That power is conferred on the Government by section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000. Dr Barnes’s petition states that

“the right to vote is sacred and inalienable”,

and he argues that elections due to take place in May 2026 and beyond should proceed as planned. Many signatories have expressed concern that postponement risks undermining democratic accountability and public trust. Last month, the Government did a U-turn on the decision. Regardless, we are here to debate the principle at the heart of the initial decision to delay the elections.

In their official response, the Government make it clear that the relevant powers are set out in legislation passed by Parliament. They state that such powers are

“used only with strong justification”

and that any use is subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the statutory instrument process. The Government have also indicated that they have no current plans to amend the legislation in question. They add that similar powers have previously been used in limited and specific circumstances, including in the context of local government reorganisation. The debate therefore concerns not only the principle of regular elections, but the appropriate balance between statutory flexibility and democratic certainty.

Local elections are the cornerstone of representative democracy. Councillors make decisions on housing, social care, planning, transport and a range of other services that have a direct impact on daily life. I should know, having spent a good number of years as a councillor myself.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The Chairman of the Petitions Committee is introducing the debate very well. I was a local councillor too, in Basildon in the early 1990s. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a good thing that the Government have done a reverse ferret, so we can now have local elections across the country, including in Labour-led Basildon, Labour-led Southend and Labour-led Thurrock? Those councils will now have to face the electorate on their appalling record.

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the right hon. Member for his customarily incisive intervention.

Local elections surely ensure that decisions are subject to scrutiny and renewal. The expectation that electors will have an opportunity to choose their representatives at predictable intervals is surely fundamental to public confidence. Independent bodies have emphasised that very point. The Electoral Commission has stated that scheduled elections should, as a rule, proceed as planned and should be postponed only in exceptional circumstances. It has cautioned that uncertainty around election timing can undermine public confidence and create difficulties for voters, campaigners and administrators alike.

Similarly, the Electoral Reform Society has expressed concern to me about the democratic implications of postponements that significantly extend councillors’ terms. In particular, it has warned that where delays coincide with electoral cycles, some councillors could serve for up to seven years without facing the electorate. O that I had ever had that opportunity in my own career as a councillor! Such extensions risk weakening accountability and should prompt careful review of the safeguards surrounding the Government’s postponement powers.

Those concerns are shared, to varying degrees, across the political spectrum. My own party has argued that local elections should not be treated as administrative conveniences. We have emphasised the importance of protecting fixed and predictable electoral timetables. We have raised questions about the concentration of discretion in the hands of a single Minister. We have called for stronger safeguards and greater transparency where postponement is proposed. Similarly, Conservative Members have underlined the importance of upholding democratic mandates. However, some have reasoned that, once conferred by Parliament, statutory powers must be capable of being exercised where the law so permits.

In response, the present Government have stressed that the powers in question are not new; they were established by Parliament to deal with defined circumstances such as the structural reorganisation of local government. The Government argue that a mechanism must remain to ensure orderly transitions where boundaries change or authorities are merged, and that such decisions are subject to legislative oversight and are not to be exercised arbitrarily. I am sure that we will examine those points more closely in the debate.

Those differing perspectives are united by the shared recognition that elections are not merely procedural events, but the very means by which authority is conferred and renewed. Any decision to postpone them must therefore meet a very high threshold of justification and transparency. It surely must never be motivated by self-interest. That would instil distrust in our democracy, which is very precious to us all.

The petition and the debate that it has prompted reflect broader public anxiety about democratic accountability. In recent years, as we all know, trust in political institutions has been tested. It is therefore understandable that proposals or decisions that affect when voters may next go to the polls attract scrutiny and very strong opinions. At the same time, Parliament has long recognised that exceptional circumstances may require flexibility. The legal framework governing elections is complex, and changes to local authority structures, emergencies or other significant disruptions may necessitate adjustments. The question for this House, however, is not whether elections matter—I trust that all Members of the House believe that—but how best to reconcile the principle of regular democratic renewal with the practical realities of governance.

The petition process exists precisely to enable such questions to be posed and examined. That is why we are here tonight. When substantial numbers of people across the country express concern in a democratic system, as they have done with this petition, Parliament must surely listen. It is right that Ministers have the opportunity to set out clearly the legal basis for the powers concerned, the circumstances in which they may be used and the safeguards that exist. It is equally right that Members on all sides test those explanations where appropriate.

I hope that today’s debate will contribute to clarity, transparency and accountability. I reassure all those who signed the petition that their concerns are being taken seriously in this debate, because that is precisely what the Petitions Committee is all about. I will listen with the greatest interest to what my colleagues have to say and to how the Minister who is kindly representing the Government responds.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mr Mundell. Thank you for chairing this debate. I also thank the almost 153,000 people across the country who signed the petition, including 186 in my constituency of Woking who I think signed it because they—we—unreasonably lost our right to vote in Surrey county council’s elections last year, which were unreasonably taken away by this Government.

Did people lose their right to vote because of massive, significant events that meant that we just could not go and vote? Was it a world war? Elections in the first world war and the second war had to be postponed. Was it a foot and mouth crisis like 2001?

[Mr Francois]

Just as a matter of record, we had a general election in Britain in July 1945, when we were still involved in fighting the second world war in the far east. If we can have a general election in wartime, I see no reason why we could not have local elections this May in peacetime.

[Mr Forster]

I quite agree. My memory does not stretch back as far as that, but the right hon. Gentleman is completely right. Elections have been postponed only during serious wartime, during the foot and mouth crisis of 2001 and, as we all—even I—remember, during the covid pandemic in 2020. But in Surrey and across a lot of the country, people lost their right to vote because of local government reorganisation, which is not exactly an existential threat to our way of life.

People in Surrey are now stuck with county councillors who were last elected in 2021. The only reason why there are Conservatives representing my constituency is that since 2021 it has not been possible to vote them out of office. Every year since then, the Conservatives have put up candidates for Woking borough council. They have lost every single election.

We are now creating a new council for my area, West Surrey council. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to give my area a fresh start. We have not had such an opportunity for 50 years, but in the meetings setting it in motion, there are people who have lost their mandate because it has expired. That is completely unreasonable, and it is because of the use of the Secretary of State’s powers that the petition opposes. After the past month, the Secretary of State probably wishes he had never had them in the first place.

These are my questions to the Minister. Given that the Government have now reversed their decision to postpone the 2026 local elections following legal advice, can she confirm whether the same legal considerations applied to the nine local council elections that were postponed in 2025, including those for Surrey county council? Can she confirm to me and my Woking constituents, by outlining what legal advice the Government have had, that those elections were lawfully postponed? Finally, what material change in circumstances occurred between the decision to postpone the 2026 local elections and the subsequent decision to reverse that postponement?

Because the Government have not been open and transparent about the legal advice that they received, my constituents of Woking and the 153,000 people who signed the petition have lost what little trust they had in government and politics. The Government can start to regain that trust by publishing their legal advice and ensuring that in future no one Minister can cancel local elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I commend the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for the skilful way in which he introduced this important topic.

The Government’s original reason for postponing the elections was that councils were too busy with local government reform. In Essex, we had the bizarre situation where some of those involved in LGR thought they were not too busy to have elections, and some—mainly Labour-led councils—thought they were.

I served on Basildon council in the early 1990s, when we went around this buoy before, under John Major’s premiership. The idea then was not to have mayors, but to have one unitary system across the county. I was involved in the negotiations between Basildon and other authorities. In the end, to cut a long story short, the whole thing broke down because no one could agree on who to team up with. There were too many old rivalries and too many differences between towns, and the whole thing collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. When I heard we were going around that buoy again, I confess, perhaps based on my previous experience, that I was deeply sceptical. I remember saying to my local Rayleigh and Wickford Conservative association at one of our quarterly executive meetings more than three years ago, “Don’t take it as axiomatic that this will all happen. It fell apart last time; it could yet fall apart again.”

Where are we now? We were supposed to have mayoral elections this May; the Government have postponed them to May 2028. We are supposed to have a mayoral combined authority, so now we face the bizarre position where we would have an unelected combined authority—it is an unelected committee of a handful of senior councillors drawn from several constituent councils—but with no mayor. The fate of the combined authority now appears to be effectively in abeyance.

Labour’s whole argument for doing all of this is to move from a two-tier system to a single-tier system. That is not true. The two-tier system we have at the moment is Essex county council as the upper tier, with a series of district, borough and city councils below. The third tier of parish and town councils are basically unaffected either way. We are now moving to another two-tier system, where we will have a mayoral and a combined authority as the upper tier and a bunch of unitary authorities—whether three or four or five—as the lower tier. We will have gone through all this cost, misery and uncertainty to go from one two-tier system to another. The whole argument is nonsense from the get-go.

Moreover, I have been door-knocking in my constituency for 25 years, and I have never—not once, ever—had an elector say to me on the doorstep, “I want a mayor of Essex.” Members can take it from me: if Essex people want something, they are not shy to let their politicians know. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is grinning; he has obviously experienced that himself. They do not want a mayor of Essex. If they do, they have not said so. It has no demos. There is no public demand for it. People are not clamouring for a mayor. We have never had one in 1,000 years, but suddenly the Government think we need some Sadiq Khan for Essex. That is about as popular as a bowl of—well, it is not very popular.

Where do we now sit? Southend unitary authority—forgive me, it is Southend city council, for which my great friend Sir David Amess campaigned for many years; if he were here, he would chide me now. Southend city council conducted its own consultation about a year ago, and two thirds of the people who replied did not want any change at all. The Government instituted a wider consultation county-wide—for the avoidance of doubt, that is Greater Essex, including Southend and Thurrock—which closed on 15 January. When the Minister replies, perhaps she could tell us, some six weeks on, what the result of that consultation was. If she does not have that information to hand, perhaps she could tell us when she intends to publish the results of the consultation. I am sure that that will be before the local elections—before we get to purdah in the third week of March—so that the good people of Essex know what their fellow county people have said before we go to the polls. I am going to take a punt: it is going to reveal that there was little enthusiasm for any local government reorganisation whatever in Essex. If the Minister wants to prove me wrong, she can publish the results of the consultation.

Labour sought to postpone these elections and now, thanks to campaigning by—I admit—Reform, and by the Conservatives and others, but overwhelmingly due to public pressure, which perhaps both parties have managed to articulate in our different ways, the Government have given in. Now those elections are back on, and people in Southend, Basildon and Thurrock can go to the polls and peacefully and democratically express their opinion on the Labour mob who run those three councils should be allowed to carry on.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman from Northern Ireland, because no debate in Parliament would be complete without him.

[Jim Shannon]

Honourable would be enough for me. Does the right hon. Member agree that the elections are not just bureaucratic processes? They are how communities hold leaders to account, set local priorities and influence decisions that affect their everyday lives. If anybody tries to stop an election, it will backfire on them. Does the right hon. Member agree that people’s opinions are the priority? Let people decide. Do not deny them their right to the ballot box.

[Mr Francois]

I have two responses to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have a great deal of time for, as he knows. First, the Chairman of the Petitions Committee laid out clearly the responsibilities of local government, so I shall not try your patience, Mr Mundell, or that of the rest of the Chamber by repeating them, but it is everything from planning to housing, adult social care and education. These things affect people’s everyday lives, and they are really important. People should have a democratic right to decide which councillors run those services, which they pay for as customers via their council tax. So of course there should be elections.

Secondly, and on a personal note, and I hope that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other colleagues here will understand this: nobody delayed the general election. I went into battle 20 points behind in the polls. No one gave me a bye; I had to fight to be here. I had to convince my employers, in my constituency, to renew my contract of employment to represent them, and so did everyone else in this House this evening, so why should it be different for local councillors? Why do they not have to get their contract of employment, in effect, renewed by their employers at the ballot box?

I thank the Minister for the fact that the local elections will now go ahead. She may recall that we had some sparky exchanges in the Commons Chamber about this, but we have ended up with the right decision, albeit after far too long. So if the people of Essex wish to support the Government’s bonkers housing targets—mandatory and top-down, imposed by some Whitehall civil servant who could not find Essex with a TomTom, and supported by a mad computer algorithm—they can go and vote for that. If, conversely, they want to vote for Conservative councillors, who care about the area they live in and want to defend the green belt and carry on providing good services to people at a cost that they can afford, they have the chance to vote Conservative—although, for the record, other products are available.

People can actually have elections in Essex and pass a verdict, and I very much hope that in my corner of the world—for Essex county council, for Rochford district council and for Basildon borough council—they will vote Conservative. But however they vote, whomever they choose, whomever they give the very important mandate to run those really important services to, the fundamental point is that they will be allowed to exercise their right to choose. It was this Government who very nearly took that away and we should never let them forget it. Other than that, I have no firm view on the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for leading this debate, and thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to it. I also thank the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition that has brought us here. Their engagement, as hon. Members have said, reflects the strength of feeling about local democracy, the future of local councils and the changes needed to get public services and stronger economic growth across England.

I stood to be a local councillor 20 years ago this year—standing for election for the first time. I remember it as a humbling and important experience. I share the views of all hon. Members about the foundational nature of democracy. I grew up in the Wirral. Some 52 years ago we had quite a number of councils there and it was part of Cheshire, but when I was born we had a unitary council, so I was born in Merseyside. Now, we are part of the Liverpool city region, with a metro mayor, so I am personally aware of how change can affect areas.

On the question of whether people demand mayors, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made the reasonable point most people are focused on the bread and butter. However, in my experience, having had a mayor for some years, the people I represent have felt and seen the benefit of that. I say to the right hon. Member, “Watch this space.”

I begin by acknowledging the concerns raised by the petitioners and expressed in this debate. Democratic legitimacy matters profoundly. People must have confidence that their vote counts and their voice is heard. They must also have confidence that the structures into which representatives are elected are sustainable, capable and fit to deliver the services on which communities rely. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) and I have engaged several times in this House—and will continue to engage—about the points that he rightly makes about Woking’s debt and what we must do to guard against such things happening again in future. Our responsibility is to safeguard both.

In many parts of the country, residents continue to live with a two-tier system that is inefficient, confusing and poorly suited to the demands of the modern state. That is why the Government are undertaking the most ambitious programme of local government reorganisation in half a century. We are replacing outdated two-tier arrangements with simpler single-tier unitary councils that are better equipped to take decisions quickly, create economic growth and support integrated public services.

This is where I slightly disagree with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, because bringing together, for example, housing and social services under a unitary council is a different arrangement. His characterisation of the situation as us not moving away from two tiers because there will still be an Essex-wide body is not quite right. The value of a unitary council is bringing together those services that are now apart. It is not quite the situation that he describes.

[Mr Francois]

My constituency is pronounced “Rayleigh”, by the way. My advice to the Minister is to cut your losses and drop the whole thing in Essex, because it is a shambles. However, under the Government’s plans we will have a unitary tier, and then a tier above that which is a combined authority drawn from some of those councils and a mayor. It is patently obvious that that is two tiers of local government replacing two different tiers of local government. To pretend that it is one is fantasy.

[Alison McGovern]

Let me try again: Rayleigh. I got it right that time.

[Mr Francois]

And Wickford for good measure.

[Alison McGovern]

Just as the right hon. Member says—Rayleigh and Wickford.

In bringing together the functions of district and county councils we can integrate public services better. That we still need a strategic tier does not, in my opinion, undermine that argument. That is why with one council responsible for growth, decisions can be taken faster, opportunities seized more confidently and investment aligned behind a coherent long-term vision. This is not a bureaucratic exercise. As I just said to the right hon. Member, when housing, public health, children’s services, adult social care and planning sit within a single organisation, the public benefits. Support services can work around the whole person, not just the element of their life that happens to fall within a particular tier of government.

Nearly a third of England’s population live in areas where responsibility for services is split between two councils, and residents tell us that they struggle to know which council is responsible for what. As I have said previously, one county council recorded more than 140,000 incidents of residents contacting the wrong authority when trying to get help. That is not the public’s failure; it is a failure of a system designed for a different era.

Two-tier government is significantly more expensive than it needs to be, and across the country, taxpayers fund duplicate political and managerial structures: two sets of councillors, leadership teams, finance functions, planning departments and often different electoral cycles. Those inefficiencies waste tens of millions of pounds each year. That money should be directed to social care, children’s services, housing and neighbourhoods.

The petition focuses on one specific aspect of this broader programme of change: the powers available to Ministers to make changes to the timing of local elections in areas undergoing reorganisation. As Members know, the Secretary of State originally concluded, based on extensive representations from councils, that postponement would release essential capacity in 30 areas where councils set out detailed concerns about their ability to deliver complex structural change alongside running full elections. Those decisions were taken case by case, guided by evidence submitted through more than 400 representations, and reflected clear precedents for temporarily aligning electoral cycles with structural transition.

However, following the receipt of further legal advice, the Government have now revoked that decision. A fresh decision was taken quickly to ensure certainty for councils, candidates and voters. A revocation order was laid and, as such, all the elections that had originally been proposed for postponement will now proceed in May 2026. We have written to all affected councils and the Government are working closely with returning officers, administrators and suppliers to provide the practical support required to deliver those elections successfully within the required timetable.

Let me turn to a couple of the questions that Members asked. The hon. Member for Woking and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), asked me about legal considerations that applied to previous decisions. Those previous postponements were legal. As we know, the powers to postpone elections exist in statute and they are unchanged by the most recent decision. In a previous delegated legislative Committee, I committed to write to the hon. Member for Woking, as other Members who were in that Committee will remember. That response will be circulated in the usual way. The shadow Minister himself talked about the way in which Governments of all parties have handled legal advice. I am sure that I do not need to repeat the reasons why we would treat the advice we received in the way that we did; he knows those reasons well.

The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) and others mentioned the circumstances in Cheltenham, which show that there are circumstances in which the power that we have discussed today can be used. In addition, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned Margaret Thatcher extending and changing the terms of the GLC, so clearly there are circumstances in which it needs to be used.

Finally, a number of Members asked whether we would consider changing the law. The Government will engage with amendments to Bills in the usual way. We recognise, of course, that the reversal of the original decision places additional pressures on councils in reorganisation areas. As has been mentioned, last week the Secretary of State announced up to £63 million in capacity funding, on top of £7.6 million that has already been provided, to support councils to deliver reorganisation effectively. We are in touch with councils directly about those resources.

Let me turn briefly to the petition’s central concern: the powers themselves. Parliament provided these powers for the specific context of structural reform and previous Governments have used them in comparable circumstances, as has already been said today and as I have just mentioned again. However, we fully recognise the strength of interest among Members in how these powers are framed and exercised.

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is now before Parliament, provides an appropriate forum for considering these issues. As I have just mentioned, the Government are considering amendments tabled to that Bill, and will engage with them in the usual parliamentary fashion. I do not intend to prejudge discussions in either House.

Looking ahead, the focus now is on supporting councils to run safe and effective elections in May, and on progressing reorganisation in a way that improves local services and delivers long-term value for money. The new unitary authorities that will follow will eliminate duplication, strengthen accountability and make place planning—including planning for housing, transport, economic development and public services—easier, as it will be within a single strategic framework. The new unitary authorities will also deliver significant savings, estimated at about £40 million a year in allowances and associated costs, with savings of at least £120 million over the first three years, which can be reinvested into frontline services.

Elections matter deeply—they matter to us all—and so does the long-term resilience of local government. Members will be aware that, after the past decade and a half, I have a significant job on my hands to get all local government towards a better and more sustainable future. When further legal advice was received, the Secretary of State acted swiftly to revoke the postponement decision and confirm that elections will proceed in May 2026. The Government remain committed to delivering simpler, stronger councils to serve their communities.

Local Elections: Cancellation

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

Let me thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not agree with him on the substantive point he makes, but I have heard his views and will pass them on to the Secretary of State.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

“No taxation without representation.” Councillor Kevin Bentley, the dynamic Conservative leader of Essex county council, has been adamant that elections should go ahead. On 14 January, he wrote to the Minister:

“You may be aware that at our Full Council on 9th December I stated that Essex County Council would not be calling for the postponement of elections in May 2026. This continues to be our position.”

What was ambiguous about that? Is Labour simply running scared?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for relaying the words of Councillor Kevin Bentley, whom it has been a pleasure to meet on a number of occasions. Getting a clear position is obviously important. We will do that quickly, and the Secretary of State will —[Interruption.] I don’t know; there may have been more context than that one quote, but the Secretary of State—

[Mr Francois]

Shall I read it again?

[Alison McGovern]

No, you’re fine. The Secretary of State will take into account those representations and others, and make a decision without any undue delay.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I do not want to try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is much I could say in response to my hon. Friend, who makes some excellent points, but I will just say that I have heard what he says, and I will do my best.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Labour’s process of local government reorganisation is descending into farce. Two days ago, the Secretary of State assured the House that next May’s elections were going ahead. Now, the day we rise for Christmas, the Minister comes here and says, “Well, they might not.” I back to the hilt the Conservative leader of Essex county council, Kevin Bentley, when he says that they must go ahead. He is right, but what about the lower tier? What about Labour-led Basildon, Labour-led Thurrock and Labour-led Southend? Are they allowed to run away and hide, just because Labour is tanking in the polls?

[Alison McGovern]

I am pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman has been in touch with local authority leaders. They will have heard what he has said, and I am sure that they can take his views into consideration when they respond to our letter.

Planning Reform

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

Absolutely, and we are taking concerted action across the Department, not least through the homelessness strategy that was published in recent weeks. At the heart of how we resolve the problem of temporary accommodation is building more affordable homes, particularly more social rented homes. That is precisely why the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme devotes 60% of its funding to social rented homes.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The Conservatives were right to abolish Whitehall-imposed mandatory housing targets, and Labour was wrong to bring them back. May I ask the Minister specifically about call-ins? Under the well-established system, the Secretary of State might have called in, on average, about 20 applications a year if they raised issues with national implications, and there was almost invariably a full public planning inquiry. Under Labour’s proposals, councils will have to notify the Secretary of State if they intend to refuse any application for more than 150 homes. The Secretary of State could then call it in before local councillors have even had a chance to vote on it. There would be no guarantee of a public inquiry, and the application could even be given to a planning inspector to deal with it behind closed doors by written representations—by letter—so that local people and their councillors would not have a chance to say anything at all. That is completely undemocratic, is it not? Why have a local plan at all?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Mandatory housing targets have an important role to play in a functioning housing and planning system, and we have seen the impact—in nosediving supply—of what happens when anti-supply changes are made to the NPPF. On the specific change that he references, yes, we are changing the referral criteria so that they apply not just to planning applications that might be accepted and that the previous Government wanted to ensure could be blocked, but to planning applications that might be refused and that we might want to see come forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has a long-standing record of campaigning for those who have experienced rough sleeping or homelessness. Housing First, as we have discussed, is one way that areas can provide person-centred and trauma-informed support for people with complex needs, which is important in preventing long-term rough sleeping. Areas across England can use flexible funding, including our £255 million rough sleeping prevention and recovery grant, to do so. The Liverpool city region combined authority, which includes his constituency of Southport, received nearly £4 million of funding through the grant this year.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

We do need to build more homes, including more affordable homes, but they have to be built in an environmentally sustainable way. Why are Ministers, through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, taking powers such that any planning application for more than 150 houses, if turned down by the democratically elected councillors, is sent straight to the Secretary of State? Why have local elections and elect people who know their own area to take decisions if they will simply be overruled automatically by someone whose whole mantra is “Build, baby, build and let the devil take the consequences”?

[Alison McGovern]

There we have it: in a question about homelessness, we have a Tory MP getting up and asking how he can say no to more homes. [Interruption.]

Property Service Charges

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. I completely agree that is very much an issue, as I have heard that too.

Alfie and Louise, sadly, are not alone. So many other people on Park 25 find themselves in the same situation: trapped, unable to sell and move on with their lives, and wishing they had never bought the property in the first place. Sam, another resident, said that

“it’s not an exaggeration to say this is ruining people’s lives”.

He has a wife and child and wants to have another, but he cannot move to a bigger property as he cannot sell this one. It is literally stopping them growing their family. He even tried selling his flat for £80,000 less than the valuation, and he still could not sell it due to the service charges. This is devastating for them as a family.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

As a constituency MP, I have had some appalling experiences with FirstPort, at Oak Lodge in Hockley and at King Georges Court in Rayleigh. The latter is a four-storey McCarthy Stone development that it manages, where the lift was out of action for almost a year. Is not the fundamental problem with FirstPort that it is ultimately owned by several offshore venture capital companies that are very aggressive in seeking revenue from their tenants, but do not seem very willing to provide a decent quality of service in return?

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank my right hon. Friend for providing that very useful context. I will come on to that in my speech. One of the challenges we have is that property service companies are seeking to make a profit, yet they are unregulated and free to do as they will. It is for this place to get a handle on that. I hope that today we can think constructively about potential solutions to address the problem, the scale of which, across the House, we all recognise. We do not want our constituents to continue to face it. I am afraid to say that FirstPort is not covering itself in glory. I have now heard hundreds of times over about its lack of responsiveness, lack of transparency on costs and inadequate explanations of service charge increases. Residents have told me about being billed for services they have never received, like window cleaning, with no avenue to formally challenge and remediate. Any opportunity to charge a resident is used to the full.

These things are all symptomatic of an industry that prioritises extracting maximum value from leaseholders, regardless of the human cost. There is no incentive for property service companies to act any differently. It is incredibly hard for leaseholders to remove them, so the companies have free rein to do pretty much what they like. This fundamental power imbalance must be addressed, and it must be made easier for leaseholders to take their business elsewhere.

The Park 25 service charge for the year ending 30 April 2026 is estimated to be just under £1.9 million— 13% higher than last year’s estimate. The increase in costs is primarily to cover the future replacement of playground equipment, street lighting, road repairs and other infrastructure. Park 25 residents are also paying council tax for exactly those types of things outside the estate. Out of the £1.9 million service charge, FirstPort keeps around £142,000 in fees, which works out at just under 8% of the total service charge. How easy was it for me to find that £142,000 figure in FirstPort’s costs breakdown? Not very—I had to total up numbers across many pages of costs, as there is no nice, neat summary at the front showing the total amount.

That 8% may or may not be out of kilter with industry—I found it difficult when researching to confirm one way or another, which is an issue in itself. The key point to recognise here, though, is that there is absolutely no incentive or requirement for FirstPort to keep the cost base low. In fact, the more money it spends on maintaining the estate and the more people it employs to deliver services, the smaller the percentage proportion its management fee appears to be—a perverse incentive indeed.

It would be very easy for me to berate property service companies throughout my speech, and I suspect that others will take up that mantle during the debate. However, we must recognise that it is the current system that allows the companies to operate in this way.

Green-belt Development: Rayleigh and Wickford

Mark Francois Excerpts

Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important matter of the potential development of the green belt in my Rayleigh and Wickford constituency. In addition, I am sure the Minister responding to the debate has many pressing demands from his constituency diary on a Friday, so I am personally grateful to him for being here in the House of Commons this afternoon to respond on behalf of the Government.

To add context, I will briefly explain to the Minister a bit about the geography of my constituency and how that is pertinent in relation to future development. In essence, south-east Essex is something of a peninsula, bordered to the south by the River Thames, to the east by the North sea, and to the north by the River Crouch and the River Roach, which run inland from the North sea as far west as the village of Battlesbridge.

There are two principal east-west arteries that run from London into south Essex, namely the A127, the Southend arterial road, and the A13, which runs broadly parallel to the A127, but further south, closer to the Thames. Both roads are already extremely busy during the morning and evening peaks. I am sure the Minister is familiar with the concept of heat maps, whereby the busier the road, the darker the shade of red they appear on the map. Both roads are effectively glowing bright scarlet during peak periods, because they are already at between 98% and 99% capacity in the morning and evening rush hours. In simple English, these roads are already maxed out, despite a number of junctions being upgraded along both roads in recent years. In simple English, these roads are already maxed out, despite a number of junctions being upgraded along both roads in recent years.

When we look at medical infrastructure, the theme of a system creaking at the seams is unfortunately repeated. Both Southend and Basildon university hospitals are part of the Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, along with Broomfield hospital at Chelmsford. The three hospitals were merged some years ago, admittedly under a Conservative Government, and it is fair to say that the merger has not been a great success. In the case of Southend hospital, according to the senior trust management, last autumn, prior to so-called winter pressures, the hospital was already at 98% to 99% bed capacity. Once winter pressures were added in, it went well beyond 100%, and unfortunately there were frequent incidents of patients on trolleys in corridors. The situation is similar at Basildon hospital, slightly further west. I have raised Basildon hospital with the Minister before. In addition, GP surgeries in south Essex have patient lists above the national average, and are under tremendous pressure too. For brevity, our education infrastructure is also under considerable pressure, especially with regard to places in special educational needs schools.

I have tried the Minister’s patience by mentioning all of this in order to try and explain as frankly as I can the serious infrastructure pressures that residents in my constituency, and right across south Essex, are already experiencing. Given these, it is absolutely critical that any future development should incorporate large-scale infrastructure investment to be provided well in advance of the tens of thousands of extra houses that Labour is seeking to build in south Essex, as part of their desire to create an additional 1.5 million homes over the course of the Parliament.

For the avoidance of doubt, I accept that there does have to be some additional house building. Clearly, young people cannot live at home with their parents forever. But any such construction has to be done sensibly, at a pace that the local infrastructure can realistically accommodate in an environmentally sustainable way, so as not to adversely damage the natural habitat nor degrade the quality of life of the people who already live in the area—they have rights too.

When it comes to housing targets, I am afraid that the Minister and I have a very basic philosophical difference. I admit that under a previous Conservative Government we did at one time have a system of mandatory housing targets, whereby officials in Whitehall could set targets for house building for each local authority, and then left it up to the local authority via its local plan to decide where that arbitrary number of dwellings should be built.

I was one of a number of Conservative Back Benchers who lobbied very hard to have that procedure changed to a system of advisory targets, whereby Whitehall could set a benchmark, but local authorities with special circumstances—for instance, a large proportion of green belt—were at the very least given the opportunity to argue back, and make a case for reducing such arbitrary targets if they threatened to be realistically undeliverable in practice. I very much regret that the incoming Labour Government immediately reverted to a system of mandatory targets, made worse by their overreliance on a computer algorithm in order to calculate the number of dwellings supposedly required in each local council area.

The prospect of so-called devolution and local government reform, about which I am deeply sceptical, has only threatened to make this already complex situation even more confused. In short, I believe it is highly unlikely that Labour will achieve its 1.5 million target, not least because it now incorporates a policy of making 50% of all new dwellings affordable. That was exactly the same policy that was operated for years by the Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. It is a matter of record that Mr Khan never gets anywhere near his housing targets. Indeed, they have now been reduced at the expense of increasing targets in the home counties, including in my home county of Essex.

The 50% affordable policy deterred many house builders from building anything at all. As it failed in London, I believe it will now fail elsewhere across the country. As one example, Phillip Barnes, group land director at Barratt Developments, which has a £5 billion per year turnover, raised concerns about the policy in a blog in August 2024. He warned that existing sites within the green belt in draft local plan applications for housing,

“will not be able to provide 50% affordable housing”.

He went on to say that since the draft NPPF—as it then was—Barratt

“has already pulled four in-flight planning applications on draft allocated sites because the spectre of 50% renders the scheme unviable due to the unacceptably reduced (or removed) land value for the landowner”.

Nevertheless, Labour’s doctrinaire adherence to the 1.5 million figure means that they are giving local authorities targets that are so high as to be realistically completely undeliverable—short of massive infrastructure investment, which the Government are clearly not in a financial position to provide. Last month alone, borrowing was £17 billion.

I will now raise with the Minister some specific examples of where his Government’s policy is already beginning to cause threats of unsustainable development in the green belt. Some months ago, Labour-led Basildon borough council published their regulation 18 draft local plan. The proposals anticipate building an incredible 27,000 dwellings across the borough council area during the planning period out to about 2043, 4,200 of which are anticipated to be built in and around the town of Wickford in my constituency. For the reasons I have already articulated, there is absolutely no way that the infrastructure in and around Basildon, Billericay and Wickford can possibly cope with massive house building on that scale, not least because about half of the sites are in the current metropolitan green belt.

Basildon borough council has published a number of documents supposedly related to infrastructure, but they are incredibly thin in actual content. For instance, the supplementary document on health and medical infrastructure says absolutely nothing in detail about the expansion of capacity at Basildon hospital at the heart of the borough. That is despite the fact that according to the NHS’s own metrics each new dwelling could represent an additional 2.4 patients for the hospital, producing an overall total just shy of 60,000 new patients for a hospital where they are, metaphorically, already coming out of the windows as it is.

All Basildon’s extremely limp document on health says on the subject is that it will all be sorted out by the integrated care board. I have double-checked that with the leadership of the Mid and South Essex ICB, which is itself now in the course of a reorganisation into a countywide ICB. I was assured that there have been absolutely no discussions between Basildon borough council and the integrated care board about the expansion of capacity at Basildon hospital. Basildon’s reg 18 plans should be found unsound on those grounds alone.

Moving on to the Rochford district council side of my constituency, we can already see how the Government’s targets are having an adverse effect there, too. As one example, Taylor Wimpey recently began a consultation on plans to build up to 350 houses in the metropolitan green belt, in an area of land between Mount Bovers Lane and Gusted Hall Lane in Hawkwell. The local community are up in arms about that, and if the Minister had the time to drive down Main Road in Hawkwell, he would see protest posters in almost every window against this completely unsustainable development in the environmentally sensitive upper Roach valley.

The site is wholly inappropriate for development, and indeed it is specifically excluded within the current Rochford district council local plan. Policy ELA3 states:

“The Core Strategy states that the Upper Roach Valley will be protected from development which would undermine the area’s role as a green space, providing informal recreational opportunities.”

Moreover, policy URV1, which relates specifically to the upper Roach valley, says:

“Policy URV1 seeks to protect the Upper Roche Valley from development so that it can become a ‘vast’ area for informal recreational opportunities.”

The policy goes on:

“The Council will strive to see the Upper Roach valley become a vast ‘green lung’ providing informal recreation opportunities for local residents. The Council will protect the area from development that would undermine this aim and will continue the approach of creating the right conditions for flora and fauna to flourish, with the minimum of interference.”

I should explain to the Minister I am firmly opposed to the proposed Taylor Wimpey development, which is completely contrary to two very specific policies in the excellent Rochford district council local plan, as I have just emphasised.

There are absolutely no “very special circumstances” that would justify house building on this scale in this part of the green belt, which is extremely popular with my constituents for leisure purposes, jogging and dog walking, all of which contribute to their wellbeing. However, this is by no means the only example of where inappropriate development is now being proposed in my constituency. When I was seeking re-election last year, Mr Speaker, my final leaflet was headed, “Give me a mandate to fight Dollymans Farm”. In short, this is another site in the metropolitan green belt, slap bang between the two largest towns in my constituency, namely Raleigh and Wickford.

During the 2024 general election campaign, I warned about Bloor Homes, which has a reputation as a highly aggressive developer and, it must be said, treated my former constituents appallingly in a proposed development of some 660 homes at Ashingdon, which is now on the eastern fringe of my constituency. That development was rightly opposed by Rochford district council, but Bloor subsequently won at appeal, where—among other things—Rochford district council’s hired transport consultant mysteriously changed sides the night before the public inquiry commenced.

As part of its proposals, Bloor offered a number of section 106 commitments, including a new doctor’s surgery on the site. Some two years later, not one brick has been laid to that end. Despite my attempts to raise this matter with the integrated care board on several occasions prior to the boundary changes, there is no sign whatsoever of Bloor undertaking any proactive activity to keep its word about the GP surgery. To me, that sounds a powerful warning regarding its proposals at Dollymans farm.

In essence, Bloor now envisions initially building 1,300 dwellings on the Dollymans farm site. Its proposals for Dollymans farm are a Trojan horse. The site is firmly within the metropolitan green belt and would represent completely inappropriate urban sprawl. I remind the Minister that paragraph 142 of the national planning policy framework—the so-called planning bible, which I am sure he now knows off by heart—states:

“The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open”.

To allow development at Dollymans farm would be utterly contrary to that fundamental tenet of the NPPF.

The 1,300 homes initially proposed take up only a fraction of the land on the whole Dollymans farm site, as was confirmed at a recent public consultation exercise that the company held at Rawreth village hall and that I attended. One need only take a single glance at the proposed site plan to see that this proposal is a Trojan horse, and that if the 1,300 dwellings are approved, further applications for thousands more on the same site will no doubt follow. We simply do not possess the transport, medical or educational infrastructure to cope with urban sprawl on this scale, about half a mile from the Wick. As the local MP, I intend to fight these totally unsustainable proposals tooth and nail.

Because of so-called devolution, the Labour Government have cancelled the local elections in Essex. However, there is a by-election in the Wickford Park ward on Thursday 26 June, and those Wickford residents who are lucky enough to have a vote can use it on Thursday to protest against Bloor Homes’ completely unsustainable proposals to build so many homes in such an inappropriate location. I therefore urge my constituents—whatever their personal politics might be—to vote for the Conservative candidate, Lewis Hooper, on Thursday in order to demonstrate to Bloor Homes that we really mean business, and we do not want its development at Dollymans farm.

Perhaps the most egregious example of attempts to overdevelop my constituency relates to the proposed new town on the border between Southend and Rochford, in the area around Bournes Green. In essence, the proposal is for around 10,000 dwellings, 5,000 on either side of the Rochford-Southend border. In answer to a question to the Deputy Prime Minister on Monday 7 April 2025, she confirmed to me in the Commons that those dwellings on the Rochford side would be, in her words, “above and beyond” the mandatory housing target—which is already over 10,000 dwellings—that Rochford district residents are being threatened with by this current Labour Government. For the record, I am completely opposed to these proposals as well.

However, I particularly wish to draw to the Minister’s attention the fact that there appear to have been some serious irregularities in how all of this was proposed, and I would be grateful for his close attention to them. When the original expression of interest was sent in some months ago, Rochford district council was something of a rainbow coalition, but led by the Liberal Democrat group. It transpires that the expression of interest that was sent to the Department—the new towns taskforce—was never approved by any committee of the council, let alone by the full council itself. There is even some confusion about whether or not the leader of the council, who was then Councillor James Newport, actively endorsed the proposal. In short, the whole initiative appears to have been effectively officer-led and officer-dominated.

Since then, the leadership of Rochford district council has changed hands, as the Liberal Democrat group effectively collapsed and is now divided into various factions, some of whom no longer identify as Liberal Democrats. I shall not try the Minister’s patience with all the twists and turns in this process, but none the less, suffice to say that at times it has been like something out of Gilbert and Sullivan.

The new Conservative-led administration, working with Rochford District Residents and several others, is attempting to bring stability to the council. At a meeting of the planning policy committee on 11 June, the council formally decided to withdraw its support for the expression of interest as submitted to the new towns taskforce. In other words, Rochford has withdrawn from the proposed new town—a decision that I wholeheartedly support, as we just do not have the infrastructure to cope with it. Moreover, in her speech to that committee, the redoubtable Councillor Danielle Belton said the following about how the EOI was submitted in the first place:

“This is about transparency and doing right by the communities we serve. So finally, I should add that as the incoming Leader of Rochford District Council, I’m very concerned about what appears to have happened here—but I think it is important to establish the facts and learn from them. So, for that purpose, I will shortly be establishing an independent, externally-led investigation, to get to the bottom of all this and how, exactly, this submission came to be sent in the first place. We will then report the findings of that investigation to Full Council—and via them to our residents—in due course.”

Given that an external investigation has now been initiated, I am sure the Minister will agree that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further in detail; suffice to say at this stage that something appears to have gone seriously wrong in how the expression of interest was submitted, which is even more reason for the council rightfully to withdraw from the whole process.

Before leaving this topic, I should perhaps add in passing that there are emerging rumours that Brentwood borough council—which shares the same chief executive as Rochford, Mr Jonathan Stephenson—has also submitted an EOI for a new town, but for far larger numbers than were envisaged for the Rochford-Southend equivalent. I merely observe that there appears to be a bit of a pattern here. I will leave that for my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart)—he is in his place in the Chamber, listening to this news about his constituency—to pursue with Brentwood borough council, and no doubt eventually with the Minister on a separate occasion.

To summarise, 24 years’ experience as a constituency MP has taught me that there is such a thing as good development, but that works only if it is something that is done with people, rather than to people. My genuine fear—I hope the Minister will appreciate what I am saying—is that Labour’s top-down approach, from both central Government and Labour-led Basildon council, very much appears to be doing things to people, rather than with them.

I was elected to Parliament to represent my constituents, and I can assure the Minister that Essex people are not slow in putting across their point of view, as my email inbox regularly testifies.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar is nodding his assent.

We do accept there has to be some new house building in our county, but not on the scale that the Government propose in order to meet a random ideological target of 1.5 million homes, even at the risk of materially undermining the quality of life of people who live in Essex already.

Finally, even if the Minister does not agree with me today, having known him for some time, I hope that he will at least respect that my concerns are genuine, and I hope that he will take at least some notice of the points that I have made this afternoon on behalf of the constituents who kindly re-elected me recently.

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

Let me begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on securing this debate. While I may disagree with a number of the arguments he made, for reasons I will expand upon in due course, I know that he speaks with genuine conviction on behalf of those he represents, and no one can doubt his commitment to his constituency.

In the time available to me, I intend to touch on all the substantive issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, although I will not go into individual planning applications, for reasons that he will understand. I start by reminding the House about the problem that the Government are working to resolve. It is not, I believe, in doubt that England is in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis. To ensure that we have a planning system that is geared towards meeting housing need in full, the Government introduced a new standard method for assessing local housing need as part of the revised national planning policy framework we published in December, and we made that standard method mandatory.

That standard method now relies on a baseline, set at a percentage of existing housing stock levels, to better reflect housing pressures across the country, and uses a stronger affordability multiplier to focus additional growth on those places facing the biggest affordability challenges —south-east Essex would be one of those. We have been entirely open that that will mean that all parts of the country, including Essex, must play their part. I appreciate that some right hon. and hon. Members simply do not want to see housing growth in their constituencies—I do not name the right hon. Gentleman in this respect—and some may even question whether housing need exists on the scale that it does, and that the Government are clear that it does. However, the Government are clear that we must have ambitious targets to begin fixing the housing crisis afflicting our country, and that decisions made locally should be about how to meet housing needs, not whether to do so at all.

Turning briefly to local plans, the plan-led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of our planning system. As I know the right hon. Gentleman understands, due to the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role in the planning system, I am unable to comment on the details of his, or any other, specific local plan. However, I want to underline that the best way of allowing communities to shape development in their area is to have an up-to-date local plan that ensures the provision of supporting infrastructure, so that development proceeds in a sustainable manner. In the absence of an up-to-date plan, there is a high likelihood that development will come forward on a piecemeal and speculative basis, with reduced public engagement and fewer guarantees that it will make the most of an area’s potential.

Having failed to adopt a plan since 1998, Basildon now has one of oldest local plans in the country, a state of affairs that is—I put this as diplomatically as I possibly can—detrimental to the residents of Rayleigh and Wickford. So I am pleased that the new leadership at Basildon council is seeking to address the failures of its predecessors by bringing forward a new local plan, premised on meeting housing need. I want to make it clear that I expect their neighbours at Rochford to progress their local plan, and consult later this year, in line with the updated plan timetable.

To support local planning authorities in their efforts, the Government are awarding £28 million of new funding. As part of that, Rochford and Basildon councils were each awarded approximately £228,000 for local plan delivery, and £70,000 for support with the costs of undertaking a green-belt review. It is now each authority’s responsibility to ensure that their plans unlock growth and secure the housing, jobs and infrastructure their local people deserve.

Turning next to the process of plan making, which is important in regard to some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, national planning policy is clear that the standard method should be used by local authorities to inform the preparation of their local plans. Once local housing need has been assessed, authorities should make an assessment of the number of new homes that can be provided in their area. This should be justified on the basis of evidence of land availability and constraints on development—for example, in national landscapes—and any other relevant matters. Planning inspectors will consider those issues if they are raised when the plan is submitted to them.

We expect local authorities to explore all options to deliver the homes that their communities need, including maximising the use of brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities and, where necessary, reviewing green-belt land. When allocating land, the first port of call must be previously developed land. I put on record again that this Government are fully committed to a brownfield-first approach to development. That is why we made changes to the revised national planning policy framework last year to place an even stronger emphasis on the value of brownfield land development.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, in September last year we published a working paper on a brownfield passport to explore how further to prioritise and accelerate development on brownfield land and ensure that the default answer to suitable proposals on such land is a simple and straightforward “yes”.

Just last month, we published a working paper exploring ways that we can speed up the build-out of consented sites, including brownfield sites, so they are delivered as quickly as possible. On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the existing developer contribution system, we are committed to strengthening that to ensure that councils are able to negotiate properly on what public gain can come through the developer contribution system, and to hold developers to account for the commitments they make. However, we know that there is simply not enough brownfield land in the country to deliver the volume of homes that working people need, let alone enough sites that are viable and in the right location. That brings me to the green belt.

The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large, built-up areas, and in preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another. We have not changed the five purposes of the green belt that are set out in paragraph 143 of the national planning policy framework, and we do not propose to alter its general extent. Instead, our reforms replace a haphazard approach with a strategic and targeted approach to green-belt land designation and release. As a result of our changes, the national policy now includes a clear direction that where development on the green belt is necessary, it should be directed towards the least valuable parts of the green belt: previously developed or low-quality grey-belt land.

The sustainability of sites must be prioritised, and local authorities must pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey-belt land is sustainably located. Because we recognise the value that the public place on the green belt, we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary development on land released from it must deliver high levels of affordable housing; the provision of new—or improvements to—existing green spaces that are accessible to the public; and the necessary improvements to local infrastructure to ensure that residents benefit. Those new golden rules, which are the mechanism by which we will deliver that public gain, will apply where a major housing development is proposed on green-belt land, but I should be clear that the requirement for a high level of affordable housing is for green-belt land specifically, regardless of whether it is released through plan-making or subject to a planning application.

[Mr Francois]

Am I right to say that the Minister described sustainability, particularly for green-belt developments, as a golden rule? I understand that the Planning Inspectorate is beginning to take that approach too. Could he quickly confirm that I heard that correctly?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In judging particular applications, particularly when local authorities seek to release land as grey-belt land, they do have to have sustainability as a concern. When cases go to the Planning Inspectorate—for example, on appeal—all these matters will be considered, but the right hon. Gentleman can find the definition of what needs to be considered in the NPPF. I am more than happy to point him to that.

I turn very briefly to nature, because the right hon. Gentleman did mention the environment. Our reforms will help to deliver the homes and development that our country needs, but we have been very clear that these must not come at the expense of the natural environment or rural communities. We are clear that policies and decisions should recognise the intrinsic character of the countryside, and we are maintaining the strong protections for the best and most versatile agricultural land. We have preserved protections for high-quality green-belt land, and for land safeguarded for environmental reasons, such as national landscapes. As I have said, we are ensuring that major new developments in the green belt deliver more accessible green space and support nature recovery.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman once again for sharing his concerns on this matter with the House. While I appreciate that there is a principled and strongly felt difference of opinion between him and me on these matters, I trust that I have clearly laid out the Government’s position. As ever, I would be more than happy to speak to him outside the Chamber, and to discuss any issues of local concern.

Question put and agreed to.

Wickford Town Centre Regeneration

Mark Francois Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I am grateful to have been given this opportunity to raise a number of important issues that are of considerable concern to my constituents in the town of Wickford, and in particular the future of the old Co-op supermarket site in the centre of the town. I am personally grateful to the Minister for being here on a Friday afternoon to respond to the debate when no doubt he also has constituency demands on his diary, so I thank him.

Perhaps I could begin on a sombre note by paying tribute to the late Councillor David Harrison, who passed away only recently. David Harrison had represented Wickford on Basildon borough council for many years and had given decades of his life to public service in the town of Wickford, which he clearly loved. He also served very successfully as the mayor of Basildon borough. He will be much missed by people of all parties, and I pay tribute in the House to his service and offer my condolences as the town’s MP to his widow, Linda, and her wider family at this extremely difficult time.

For context, I point out to the Minister that Wickford has been through a rather challenging time in recent years, especially since the covid pandemic. We have seen a number of banks and several other retail outlets close on the high street, which has contributed to a decrease in footfall. I recently visited the Nationwide branch in Wickford to congratulate it on remaining open, and on its wider corporate commitment not to close any high street branch across the country until 2028 at the earliest. I understand that will roll on, year by year. Incidentally, I also visited the Nationwide branch in Rayleigh a little over a week ago for much the same reason and to celebrate it reopening once again on a Thursday to revert to a five-day-a-week service, so well done Nationwide.

Nevertheless, we also lost our police station in Wickford several years ago, and that has been boarded up ever since. Basildon borough council originally intended to replace it with flats, but it now has an alternative proposal to redevelop it as a community safety hub. We look forward to further details, including what the opening hours will be. To add to that, Greater Anglia, which operates the train line from Southend through Wickford into Liverpool Street, demolished a large part of Wickford station several years ago to extend the platforms to accommodate the new class 720 trains. I am pleased to report that the 720s have proved considerably more reliable than their rather elderly predecessors.

Nevertheless, it has taken Greater Anglia several years to confirm plans to rebuild the station. I personally lobbied Ministers at the Department for Transport, under the previous Conservative Government, to come up with the multimillion-pound funding necessary to rebuild the station and, in a bipartisan spirit, I am pleased to report this afternoon that Greater Anglia has recently signed a contract with Walker Construction. The rebuild of the station will now commence this summer and should be completed by the end of 2026 at the latest, and hopefully a little earlier, weather depending.

In addition to the rebuild, which I believe will be very popular with my constituents, there is further good news: McDonald’s has recently acquired the old unoccupied Prezzo restaurant in Wickford High Street and is now refurbishing it to provide a brand new McDonald’s, due to open this summer. I suspect that will also prove popular with my constituents. Crucially, that should increase footfall on the high street and will be welcomed by local traders, even if that provides competition to other restaurants in the town.

Moreover, local businesses in the town centre recently voted to form a new business improvement district in order to pool their efforts, in collaboration with the borough and town councils, to help revive economic activity in the town. As the local MP, I attended some of the preliminary meetings in this process, and I wish the newly created BID all the best for the future.

My main purpose in this debate is to talk about the economic regeneration of Wickford, but given that Labour-led Basildon borough council released its regulation 18 draft local plan a few months ago, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to point out to the Minister that I am strongly opposed to the council’s proposals to try to cram 27,000 new dwellings into the borough by 2043, including some 4,200 in and around Wickford itself. The local infrastructure in the borough simply cannot accommodate mass house building on this scale.

I appreciate that we do need some new houses in the borough—young people cannot be expected to live at home with their parents forever. None the less, we simply do not have the infrastructure, particularly the road infrastructure and medical facilities, to accommodate mass concreting over the green belt on this scale. In particular, there are no firm proposals whatsoever to expand Basildon district general hospital, which is at the heart of the Basildon borough. According to the NHS’s own standard metrics, it works on the basis of 2.4 prospective additional patients per household, which would mean pro rata almost 65,000 potential patients at the hospital, which is massively oversubscribed as it is. According to the hospital trust’s management, even before so-called winter pressures kick in, the hospital is normally running a bed occupancy rate of between 98% and 99%.

The borough council’s response has been completely unconvincing, frankly. It simply palmed off all responsibility for plans to expand the hospital on to the integrated commissioning board, which itself is now in the course of a major reorganisation. Having checked personally with the leadership of the current Mid and South Essex ICB, I can report that it has never been consulted by the council on any plans to expand Basildon hospital. Indeed, when the council published a supplementary document to the local plan, specifically regarding healthcare infrastructure, even then there were no clear proposals whatsoever to expand the hospital. I believe that the plan should be found unsound on that one key point alone, so I hope the Minister will understand why I wish to get my concerns firmly on the record.

Having done that, I will now turn to an area of great concern for my Wickford constituents: the fate of the old Co-op supermarket site in the centre of the town, just behind the high street. There is a long-running and complicated saga, of which I have given the Minister at least some notice, so rather than try his patience by attempting to go through every detail, I will try to summarise the background. Several years ago, the Co-op closed its supermarket at this site. In addition, some two years ago, Aldi, which operates the other main supermarket in the town, demolished its store in order to build a larger, modernised one. The net effect was that for much of 2023 there was a perfect storm in terms of the lack of supermarket provision in Wickford, other than a small Iceland store on the high street. This meant that my constituents often had to travel some distance to do their weekly shop, a particular challenge for those who are elderly or do not have access to their own car, or both.

I am pleased to tell the Minister that I subsequently reopened the newly reconstructed and indeed enlarged Aldi supermarket in November 2023, and it now appears to be doing a brisk trade. Nevertheless, this leaves the outstanding question of what will happen to the old Co-op site, which is currently in a state of poor repair and is boarded up. Given other recent developments in Wickford, which have led to a diminution in car parking spaces across the town, the car park adjacent to the Co-op site now effectively acts as the main car park for the town itself, yet a considerable number of those places are currently unavailable because of the hoardings that surround the dilapidated Co-op site—I can see the Minister nodding, so he clearly follows my argument, for which I am grateful.

Several years ago, the Co-op site was acquired by a company called Heriot, a South African-based developer that sought to redevelop a supermarket on the site. Its first attempt was to agree an arrangement with Morrisons that would have led—eventually—to a brand-new supermarket, incorporating an underground car park and up to 137 flats above the store, some up to seven storeys high. I have to tell the Minister that I was never really convinced of the viability of those proposals, especially given the high cost of developing underground car parks post covid, and the plans were generally quite unpopular across the town, too. The plan fell through, partly I think because of some of the financial challenges that Morrisons has been experiencing as a supermarket chain, which are well documented in the press.

Heriot then entered into negotiations on an alternative scheme with Asda, which I shall refer to in more detail in a moment. For its part, Basildon borough council, understandably becoming impatient at the lack of a planning application from Heriot, threatened to issue a section 215 notice compelling Heriot to clean up the site and ultimately to demolish the old supermarket, as it was becoming a considerable eyesore—it still is. In response, and after a couple of years of preparation, Heriot finally submitted a formal planning application to Basildon borough council in February 2025, based on a revised scheme for a brand-new supermarket with no underground parking and a reduced number of flats, with three storeys of accommodation above the store as opposed to seven.

My understanding is that this planning application is extant and is due to be determined by the borough council’s planning committee, hopefully by the end of May—next month. I know that the Minister will be reluctant to comment on the merits of the planning application, not least because of his quasi-judicial position in the event of a potential appeal. I hope, however, that he will at least be prepared to acknowledge that, after a number of years with a blighted, derelict supermarket, it would certainly be to the advantage of the town if the borough council were minded to pass the application in a timely manner. In short, as he is the Minister for Local Growth, I would suggest to him that if the Government are so committed to growing business, this scheme should appeal to them.

That brings me on to the new proposal with Asda. As I am sure the Minister is aware, Asda has been through considerable financial difficulties of its own, following its sale by Walmart, and the company is now loaded with a considerable amount of debt. As a result, its former chief executive Allan Leighton, a man with a rightly strong reputation in the retail industry, has taken over as executive chairman and is attempting to turn the company around—although he is on record as saying that this might take some time.

Despite Asda’s reluctance to comment publicly on its negotiations with Heriot, I have to tell the Minister that it is, in effect, an open secret across the whole of Wickford that Asda and Heriot have been working on a new scheme, the design of which is already reflected in the planning application that I have just mentioned. Indeed, I can tell the Minister that, even when I was out canvassing in Wickford nearly a year ago at the general election, multiple constituents raised with me where the Asda scheme had got to. If it drags on much longer, there is a real risk that Asda will suffer serious reputational damage as a company that struggles to make a decision. Specifically, I understand that the proposed scheme has been deferred several times from consideration by the Asda board and indeed was meant to be discussed at an Asda board meeting last week, only to be deferred yet again. I find this extremely disappointing, because—given the background that I have outlined, which I hope the Minister can appreciate—my constituents are now thoroughly fed up with what one might call, to use a military term, the paralysis by analysis that Asda has shown over all of this.

I attended Wickford town council’s annual town meeting just last night, where this matter was a topic of considerable discussion among the 40 or so residents present. The general view of the audience was that Asda seemed completely incapable of making a decision either one way or another. As someone who was there said, I can say that it was not exactly Asda’s finest hour. For my own part as the local MP, I must confess that I have found Asda an extremely difficult company to deal with as it is generally very uncommunicative. I understand that one of Mr Leighton’s inherited challenges is poor industrial relations between Asda’s management and the staff in its stores; if it communicates with its staff in the way that it communicates with MPs, I am not surprised.

For the record, Asda already has a successful store in my constituency in Rayleigh, which is often very busy, especially at the weekends, and, prior to the 2010 boundary changes, when South Woodham Ferrers was part of my constituency, it also had a very successful store there. I am not against Asda as a company per se, but the way in which it has treated both me as a Member of Parliament and, far more importantly, my constituents leaves a very great deal to be desired.

As the Minister can probably tell, I am now completely exasperated by the total inability of Asda to make a decision either one way or another. Accordingly, yesterday I wrote to Allan Leighton, the executive chairman, and have asked for a personal meeting with him in order to try and explain to him some of the background that I have sought to lay out in this Adjournment debate, and then to try to elicit a final decision from him and his company either one way or another. We cannot go on with this endless prevarication by one of the nation’s largest supermarket groups. In truth, I suspect that Mr Leighton had never even heard of Wickford before yesterday; well, he has now.

To summarise, I am pleased that Greater Anglia has finally let the contract to rebuild Wickford station, which will commence this summer and conclude by the end of next year, and that McDonald’s is now converting the old Prezzo restaurant to open this summer, which I am sure will materially help to increase footfall on the high street. But we still have the major outstanding issue of what will happen to the old Co-op supermarket site. I very much hope that Labour-led Basildon borough council will agree to pass Heriot’s planning application—ideally next month—not least as Basildon council’s deputy leader, Councillor Adele Brown, told the town council annual meeting last night, while I was there, that it is now intending to support the application. That would represent a major multimillion-pound investment into Wickford and the borough.

Finally, given that it is an open secret across the whole of Wickford that Asda has been talking to the developer for over a year now, the time really has come for Asda to make its mind up either one way or another. I very much hope it will, which is why I have asked to meet personally with its executive chairman, Allan Leighton, to try to obtain formal confirmation of this. The time for hesitation has passed; I hope Asda will proceed and that my constituents can have a supermarket in Wickford that is fit for the 21st century.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I totally agree—one thing that I wrote down as the right hon. Gentleman was speaking was that I would not want to be Asda in this case. Asda does excellent work in Nottingham, but if it thinks that the right hon. Gentleman will go away quietly or be distracted by other things, it is very mistaken. He has a long career of showing that he will persist until eventually he gets what his constituents need, but—exactly as my hon. Friend says—that requires us to be in the room to have those conversations. I hope that Asda leans into that, because that will be very important indeed.

The conversation about town centres is one that we are having across the country. As a Government, we want to see growth in every corner of the UK—that is at the heart of our plan for change. We want that economic growth to raise living standards, and we want to support places to deliver the changes they need. That is an important message from this Dispatch Box, because we believe we have a really important role to play in the improvement of town centres, but equally profoundly, we have a responsibility to get the tools and resources out from this place into those communities. As much as I want to match the right hon. Gentleman’s energy and will seek to work with him in any way I can, I believe that those 40 people who came to the town council meeting last night are the experts. They ought to be given the tools and resources to make sure they can do the job, and that is very much my role as Minister, as well as doing what we can alongside that.

That is a pretty clear theme that runs through our devolution agenda. We are delivering the biggest ever transfer of power from this place to the regions. We have set out in the “English Devolution” White Paper how we think mayors can drive growth in their areas, equipped with integrated funding settlements and a range of new powers across planning, housing, transport and skills, all of which have been a part of this debate. Of course, Greater Essex is one of the six areas that were announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 5 February as members of the devolution priority programme, so this is something that is very much coming to Essex.

It is important that those powers and responsibilities exist at that level—that will lead to Greater Essex being part of the Council of the Nations and Regions, as well—but it is important that power is held locally, too. I was really pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about the establishment of the business improvement district; I am also the Minister for BIDs, and I am passionate about the impact they can have. If there is a useful moment for me to meet and speak with that BID, I would be very keen to do so. I take every opportunity to talk to business improvement districts, because their insights about challenges and opportunities—as one would expect and hope—very much inform the work that we are trying to do.

As I have said, we want to put tools into local communities’ hands. Building on the work of the previous Government, we are very pleased to have commenced high street rental auctions in this Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman talked about long-term vacant sites and the harm that individual vacant sites can do. We all have them in our own communities—they really bring down the place. The reality is that vacancy is rot for the vitality of high streets. It becomes a self-defeating cycle of further vacancy, increased crime and antisocial behaviour, a loss of identity, a loss of hope, and a loss of the belief that things can get better. Vacancy is rot, and it must be tackled.

There are good short-term measures that can be taken. I am really pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman’s council was willing to use section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, but high street rental auctions are a good addition to those measures, compelling owners not just to clean up sites but to use them usefully. These are new powers that enable local authorities to require landlords to rent out persistently vacant commercial units, which will help to bring business back to the high street and drive growth across the country. They give local leaders the power to auction the lease of commercial properties that have been vacant for more than a year, providing business and community groups with the right to rent and giving local people the ability to shape and improve their high streets.

All local authorities, including Basildon borough council, are able to use these powers, and some resources are available to support them in doing so. I encourage all local authorities to reach out to us, because we are working with early adopters, but we want everybody to have access to those powers. We have a lot of insight already, and we would be very keen to have that conversation with any local authority. We will build on that by introducing a community right to buy, as was set out in our manifesto. That will give communities the ability to acquire assets of community value and not have that sense of the inexorable loss of much valued institutions.

As I say, this is about the shift of power to local communities, but it is also about national Government doing their job. In particular, I would like to talk about banking hubs. The right hon. Gentleman has previously mentioned banking challenges in his community and I think it is a challenge that many right hon. and hon. Members have. I am really pleased to hear what he says about Nationwide. If I was going to be a bit cheeky, I might say that there is a value in the building society model; a certain ethos and community mindedness is clearly played out there. On top of that, we are working very closely with banks to roll out 350 banking hubs to ensure critical cash and banking services, and face-to-face support. I know that that is important in Wickford; it is also important in Nottingham and Kimberley in my community.

If and when I get the chance to meet the Wickford business improvement district, I know that it will talk about business rates. They are a significant overhead and a real challenge. Through our reform, we will create a fairer system that protects the high street and supports investment. The recently enacted Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2025 enables the introduction of permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure from April 2026. That is a permanent tax cut that will ensure those sectors can benefit and grow.

In addition, we know that having a really good licensing regime is very important, but it can also be a barrier. Earlier this month, the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister announced their licensing taskforce to see what we can do to remove some of the barriers to growth in the hospitality sector and the wider night-time economy. There will be more to say on that and other issues affecting businesses and high streets in our forthcoming small business strategy.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned planning and transport, so I want to pick up on both those threads before I close. Again, it is really important that they are locally shaped. For local transport plans in particular, local authorities and local communities are the experts, and they should have the power to set and shape. We want to give them greater tools and we want to give parkers greater tools. We will shortly announce our plans for a new code of practice on parking, as set out in the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. I am really pleased to hear about the success of the station. For many people who visit Wickford, it will be the very first thing they see, so it should be a quality offering that shows the quality of the town.

On local plans, the right hon. Gentleman tempts me a little bit. I am conscious that there is a consultation opening in the autumn. I know that he and his constituents will make their views very clear, as they should. The key thing for us as a Government is that, yes, we know we have set a significant target of 1.5 million houses in this Parliament. We know that that has to be locally delivered. We know that that involves a planning number, but the agency within that should still be a local one. That is why local plans are so important. It is why Basildon having one is so important and why the consultation later this year will be so very important as well.

[Mr Francois]

On one level, I am loath to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, because he is being so charming and I do not want to spoil the moment. Just to place it on the record, on devolution, I do not quite see it the way that he and the Government do. None the less, he has been very helpful. We have a very active town council in Wickford and we have a very active BID. I will pass on his very kind offer to visit the BID. Perhaps he could come after—hopefully—we have celebrated the news that Asda will go ahead. Is that a fair deal?

[Alex Norris]

That seems an excellent deal and one that I will absolutely take. On devolution—if only we could go for an hour on that—I have followed a little bit what the right hon. Gentleman has said previously. I think that perhaps there might be a distinction between the Government’s plans with regard to devolution and with regard to local government reorganisation, because they are similar things but not the same thing. I would hope that the shift of power and resource to Greater Essex is a welcome thing, but I appreciate that he will make his views strongly on local government reorganisation between now and the autumn, when decisions will be made.

To conclude, the right hon. Gentleman made a very strong case and it is clear that he is going to give that leadership to his community. We want to see his community have the powers and resources to shape the place themselves, so that they can do their bit. We will do our bit, too, all with the common goal of improving Wickford town centre and town centres across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the housing crisis is a challenge across the whole of England. The independent new towns taskforce is reviewing submissions to the call for evidence as it continues its work on recommending locations for new towns. The responses to the call for evidence will support the taskforce’s work of developing its recommendations, and the responses demonstrate significant enthusiasm across the country.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Our local paper, The Echo, revealed last week that Labour-led Southend council and Lib Dem-led Rochford council are planning to build a new town of up to 10,000 houses on the border between the two. I understand that if this is done under the new towns fund, those numbers would be in addition to Rochford’s housing target, rather than making up part of the target. We would be talking about building nearly 20,000 properties by 2043, which is totally unsustainable, given that our infrastructure is creaking as it is. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether those new-town houses on the Rochford side would go towards our meeting the target or be in addition to it?

[Angela Rayner]

We have not selected the positions for the new towns; the new towns taskforce is still working on those. We have been clear that what the new towns will deliver will be over and above the targets for housing produced through the standard methods, but this is not one of those new towns, because we have not chosen them yet.

English Devolution and Local Government

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

We value local community assets and are bringing forward plans for greater powers, including community right to buy. We will ask all councils to ensure that heritage assets are considered. He will know that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), who is not in his place today, has been doing vital work in this area. If my hon. Friend wants a meeting with him, I will make sure that he gets one.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Labour is cancelling the local elections for antidemocratic reasons—it is as simple as that. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not want to hear it, but it is as simple as that. If the Secretary of State really believes that there is widespread public support in Essex for this devolution process, let us have a referendum to prove it. And finally, if local government is as skint as she says, why is this Government going pay 18 billion quid to Mauritius to rent back a base that we already own? How does that help local government?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I want short, on-point questions.