Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this important debate.

Let me start by expressing my agreement with colleagues from outer London. Local authorities are in a perilous position, and have been for some time, due to Governments of all stripes. As a former council deputy leader and cabinet member for children’s services, I really do understand. I also believe that Members from inner London will benefit from an enhanced appreciation of the specific struggles those of us in outer London face.

I want especially to raise the devastating impact of unfair funding on my borough of Bromley. Bromley has the third lowest settlement funding per head among London boroughs. As a result of the Government’s provisional settlement, Bromley will see funding reductions of £6.5 million in 2026-27, rising to £22.2 million per annum by 2028-29. That equates to over £30 million per year in real-terms funding reductions by 2028-29. If the Government’s funding were fair, Bromley would instead be receiving a funding increase. Indeed, if Bromley received the average London core grant funding in 2026-27, it would gain about £112 million extra—an enormous figure.

Any cuts to our funding are felt more keenly than by other councils, too. Bromley maintains the lowest net expenditure per head in London while delivering efficient services for its residents, limiting our ability to realise significant savings compared with other, high-cost authorities. Effectively, the Government are punishing Bromley for being an efficient, well-run council, while Government after Government bail out failing councils. Bromley deserves better.

Bromley is no stranger to being targeted. The mayor’s precept currently stands at just over £490 for a band D property—a more than 77% increase since Sadiq Khan became Mayor of London. Before anybody highlights inflation, a rise in line with inflation would have brought the precept to just over £380, an increase of 39% rather than the 77% that has been inflicted on us.

What do people in the inner-London boroughs get? A regular and extensive bus service and a tube network to their doorstep. What do the people of Bromley get? Poor transport infrastructure and a mayor who keeps coming back to siphon more and more money from our borough, close our 24-hour police desk and fleece motorists with increased congestion charges and an expanded ultra low emission zone charge. Outer London is subsidising inner London’s transport network, while Bromley is served by only two direct bus routes into central London, both of which only run after midnight.

If we are going to have to continue to pay into the mayor’s coffers, will he or she at least ensure that the Superloop is extended a mere 2 miles to run from Bromley North via Plaistow Green, and can we please keep our 24-hour police desk? The situation in which Bromley and the rest of outer London is simply ignored by the Government and this mayor cannot continue. We deserve fairer funding. Bromley council wants to work with the Government, but the Government need to listen so that we see a truly fair and sustainable settlement that does not punish boroughs like Bromley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I will make some progress. Yesterday’s announcement keeps our promise of a multi-year settlement, because local communities in London and elsewhere deserved better than the out-of-date funding allocations not aligned with need, which meant poorer public services and slower growth, particularly for those dealing with the consequences of poverty.

We are making changes to how councils are funded. Many of these are changes that the public, local government partners and Parliament have long called for. We consulted four times on these changes, and we are grateful for the engagement from all corners, including from hon. Members in this debate. The engagement has informed our approach at every stage. The settlement confirms multi-year funding, our pledge to realign funding with need, and our commitment to end wasteful competitive bidding and to simplify funding.

The Government have an important role as an equaliser for local government income, and we are directing funding towards the places that are less able to meet their needs through locally raised income, which will enable all local authorities to provide similar levels of services to their residents. However, that is true notwithstanding the major differences in spiking demands around the country.

Following the provisional settlement consultation, the Government have announced an additional £740 million in grant funding as part of the final settlement, including a £440 million uplift to the recovery grant, bringing total investment over the multi-year settlement to £2.6 billion. Of that £2.6 billion, £400 million is supporting places in London that suffered the most from historical funding cuts, and there is an additional £272 million to bring the total investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years to £3.5 billion—including over £800 million in London as part of our national plan to end homelessness.

That is a significant investment in the capital’s homelessness services, which is much needed, as has been mentioned by Members from across the House. It takes the total new grant funding delivered through the annual settlements for 2026-27 to 2028-29 to over £4 billion. Since coming to power, we have pledged a 24.2% increase in core spending power by 2028-29 when compared with 2024-25, worth over £16.6 billion. It is a significant uplift in the spending power of councils.

According to analysis by the Department, as a result of our reforms, nine in 10 councils will receive funding that broadly matches their assessed need by the end of the multi-year settlement, up from around one third before our reforms. In 2028-29, the most deprived places will receive 45% more funding per head than the least deprived.

[Peter Fortune]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I agree, and my hon. Friend makes that case very well. I imagine that his local authority could have made other choices than that one.

[Peter Fortune]

I thank the Minister for the objective way that she is tackling this debate, but the reality for the London borough of Bromley is a £22 million cut over the next three-year period. Thinking about the deprivation and the challenges that we have, including the second-highest number of education, health and care plans in London, the cut will have a significant impact on our residents, despite pushing council tax as high as we can.

[Alison McGovern]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Our challenge is to understand how we can best use our resources to support all our children. We could try to increase funding again and again, without any changes to the system, but we would not necessarily get better outcomes, and costs would keep going up, not least because councils have issues with how they are able to provide some of the support that children need. We need to get to a more stable financial position and take responsibility in this place to change the policy failures that caused the cost spikes that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Compared with 2024-25, by 2028-29 London will see an increase in core spending power of more than £3 billion. The vast majority of councils in London will see a real-terms increase between 2024-25 and 2028-29 and a fairer system that addresses issues that matter in London—and across England—including recognising the additional strain that commuters and tourists can place on service provision, taking into account need in specific high-demand service areas such as temporary accommodation and crucially, using the most up-to-date data, including the 2025 indices of multiple deprivation. That has been the subject of some feedback to the Department. It is a statement of the obvious that we would use the most up-to-date data, and it so happens that that data can better account for the impact of housing costs on poverty. That was always the intention, and we would always have done that, whatever noise I have picked up on this topic.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

How will new schedule 2 be amendable—will it require primary legislation? Will there be any safeguards put in place? If the pilot were to last into a future Government, what powers would a future Government or Minister—or a future Mayor of London—have to amend it? We need to be legislating for the institutions, not the individuals. I am sure that the Minister is very on top of this, but it is not that long ago that she was in another job; even within one Government’s term we can have a change of Minister. We need to legislate for the long term, not the short term. I hope the Minister can answer those questions in her summing up.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

I will speak today in support of new clauses 64, 65 and 66, all tabled in my name.

As I said on Second Reading, my concern is that the Bill does precious little to strengthen accountability of existing devolved bodies, especially the Greater London Authority. It establishes simple majority voting in combined authorities as the default decision-making process, but does nothing to bring other authorities in line with this new standard. The London Assembly will retain its two-thirds majority requirement. A two-thirds majority has proved impossible to achieve in the London Assembly, which is why no budget or strategy has been amended in 25 years.

New clause 64 would abolish the two-thirds majority requirement to amend budgets and strategies. By allowing a simple majority, it would give Assembly members the opportunity to debate changes realistically, bringing mayors back to the table and ensuring proper accountability. Unlike other combined authorities, the Assembly cannot call in mayoral decisions, and London’s 32 boroughs are excluded from decision making; as a result, the mayor does not need to seek consensus, negotiate or even listen to opposing views. In a city the size of London, that effectively alienates and disenfranchises millions of people, leading to disengagement and distrust of London-wide government.

[Florence Eshalomi]

We should declare an interest, as the hon. Gentleman and I both served as London Assembly members for south London—the best boroughs. He speaks about there not being accountability of the mayor. Would he recognise that even after the voting changes, our current mayor won an overall majority and was re-elected for the third time?

[Peter Fortune]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I have tried hard to ensure that my new clauses are objective and would apply to anybody serving as mayor. If I could be cheeky, I can completely understand why she might not want to limit mayoral powers, being mindful of future ambitions that she might have.

New clause 65 would rectify the democratic deficit in London by giving the Assembly the power to direct that the mayor not take proposed decisions while they are under the Assembly’s review and scrutiny. It would also give the Assembly the power to recommend that the mayor reconsider a proposed decision. These powers should be standard for any devolved authority, and would ensure that the views of all Londoners are heard loud and clear by the mayor. The leaders of the 32 London boroughs have made a united cross-party call for a seat at the table as part of the devolution settlement for the capital, and I fully agree with them.

New clause 66 would start the process in delivering that new settlement, requiring the Secretary of State to consult on proposed reforms to the London Assembly, including proposals for greater involvement of London borough representatives in GLA decisions. I am firmly of the view that any new model must give the 32 boroughs a voice and a vote in London, so that not only my borough of Bromley but all London boroughs are able to contribute to and challenge decisions that impact them directly.

It is right that power is returned to our cities, regions and communities, but this must come with effective scrutiny and accountability of those who hold devolved power. There is a glaring democratic and accountability deficit in London, and anyone who is serious about the success of devolution in London will see that my new clauses are sensible first steps to rectifying that deficit. This is not political in nature. At this point, I note the excellent new clause 32, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), which also seeks to equalise that democratic deficit. As I said to the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), this is not political—indeed, the very make-up of the GLA means that these new clauses would return power to Assembly members of all parties, as well as empowering London boroughs and local councillors to do the job they were elected to do.

I urge the Government to embrace these new clauses, listen to London’s council leaders—the majority of whom are from the Labour party—and ensure that we have a properly accountable mayor in London and in all combined authorities up and down the country. It is difficult to see how anybody could seriously argue for less accountability.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

I really welcome devolution and look forward to a time when every local area really wants a mayor. I have tabled a number of amendments and new clauses, which I will go through in turn.

First, on the question of commissioners, I have to say that I disagree completely with the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) in her amendment 85 to clause 9. I really welcome commissioners being brought in; I think that if we want our mayors to do a good job, we need to give them tools that enable them to do that. I think of the commissioners coming in as the Magnificent Seven.

However, I have tabled amendments 161 and 162 on this matter, because my concern is how we got to the number seven. I have a gut feeling that we just went down the list and counted all the responsibilities that there were and came up with the number seven. As it stands, an individual commissioner can work in only one specific area, which I think gets rid of any sense of bringing in people with cross-cutting responsibilities. The Government talk a lot about governing in missions—what if mayors want to do the same kind of thing? We could get rid of the cap of seven or that list of responsibilities in order to enable people to look at different things. Of the responsibilities that mayors have at the moment, transport and infrastructure tend to be where they have the most. If we wanted to stick with the number seven, and a mayor wanted to look at somebody who was doing more of transport—an active travel commissioner, or anything like that—we should let the mayor decide.

New clause 60 is on the question of deputy mayors. This is, I think, a bit of an oddity. At the moment, the pool of people from which a mayor can choose their deputy is really limited, as it is made up of the people in their cabinet from each of the constituent authorities. That means that we could have a situation—as we already do in one part of the country—where a democratically elected mayor who stands on a political ticket is forced into choosing a deputy mayor who is not of their own political party. My new clause would open this process up so that they could choose a councillor who is also democratically elected, but from any of the different authorities that they represent. This would not solve the problem entirely—it would not help if an independent were elected, for example—but for the vast majority of people, whether the mayor is from the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, Labour or the Greens, or Reform, probably, it would solve that problem.

New clause 61, which brings in the concept of mayoral special advisers, is not going to be particularly popular, but I do think it would be useful. I just think this process needs to be more transparent; it happens at the moment, but it happens with a wink and a nod. I would like to bring out into the open the people who are providing political advice to democratically elected mayors.

On a more general level, it continues to concern me to some extent that all this devolution is based on the Greater Manchester model, and I think we need to look more widely than that. The Greater Manchester model is very different from other parts of the country, not least because it has a lot of councils that are all of the same political persuasion, and so the mayor ends up with a cabinet of people of the same political persuasion. That is not going to be the case as we roll out devolution further, and I think we need to think about that carefully. Also, as local government reorganisation goes forward, we will have fewer councils from which cabinet members can be drawn, so it will be much easier for one individual to block something. Mayors need to be able to get on with decisive and responsive governance.

I turn to transport and clause 27. I often bore Transport Ministers because I really do think that bus stops, bus lanes and buses should all be looked after by the same individual. They are not at the moment, and that is down to the long-standing issue of a split between transport and highways. My area has a unitary authority, so those responsibilities are together, but they would be split up as soon as we got a mayor, as I hope we will, eventually. I very much welcome the power of direction on key route networks and—looking at that split—we could take that further.

I have some sympathy with amendment 23, tabled by the Conservatives, on micro-mobility. It seeks to ensure that there is enough parking for e-scooters. That, again, is a reason for looking at the highways and transport split. I welcome the Bill. It presents a real opportunity, and it could well be the most consequential Bill of this Parliament. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we get devolution right by considering a few tweaks.

--- Later in debate ---

I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) that licensing powers should be exercised in partnership with local authorities. I want to reassure her that local authorities will remain the key licensing authorities—licensing fees, for example, will remain within the remit of local authorities and will flow to them. We understand that there are issues with the setting of fee rates. This has been fed into the work of the licensing reform taskforce, and we will reflect on it. I reiterate that the specifics of pavement licensing are not currently within the scope of the Bill. Any further changes to pavement licensing will be made in the context of the national licensing taskforce, and will go through that process. To answer my hon. Friend’s final question, we are allowing for five-year pilots to review and revoke the provisions in this Bill; if the Government do not revoke these provisions, they will be retained. They will be tested in London, but the way we are approaching devolution is that there is a clear right to request, so in time, as we learn the lessons from London, other mayors will have that right to request.

[Peter Fortune]

Again, the Minister is giving an example of an area in which the Mayor of London’s powers are expanding. The point I tried to make earlier—in an objective, non-political way—was that as the powers of the mayor expand, the power of the scrutiny body needs to expand to match that. Can the Minister reassure me that she heard what I suggested earlier and will take it forward?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I heard both the point that the hon. Member has just made and the point he made during the debate. The model we have in London has been a successful one for 25 years. We will continue to work with the mayor and the constituent councils to build that partnership, and to look at ways in which we can strengthen not only the powers and responsibilities of the mayor, but their accountability.

Moving beyond London, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Mike Reader), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip for highlighting the opportunities of devolution. It was great to hear that from Government Members—what we heard from Opposition Members on this topic was pretty disappointing—because we recognise the need to create strong institutions within a functional geography. We understand the opportunities in the south midlands and Staffordshire, and we want to see devolution across the country, whether through foundation strategic authorities or through mayors.

Let me directly address the point that was made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), who has been a consistent and powerful champion for town and parish councils. We are very clear in the Bill that the objective is to take power out of Whitehall and Westminster and push it to the appropriate level, and there is absolutely a role for town and parish councils in that—I said that in Committee, and I will say it again. We are clear that certain powers must sit at the functional geography layer, where the mayor of the strategic authority is the right level. There are also powers that absolutely must sit with our local authorities, and there are powers that will sit with our neighbourhoods.

Members have mentioned that neighbourhood governance provision is unspecified in the Bill. That is deliberate, because we think that neighbourhood governance should be driven locally. We will set a series of principles in statutory guidance, but ultimately we want places to come up with the neighbourhood governance structure that works for them. In some places, that will mean building on the strength of town and parish councils; in other places, it will mean building on neighbourhood committees and neighbourhood forums. It is right that we allow that process to be led locally.

I will now turn to new clause 33, which the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire spoke to, and the subject of joint planning committees. We do not think that the new clause is necessary, because provisions already exist to ensure joint working across authorities, including the creation of joint committees for the purpose of planning.

Finally, I will pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) about the importance of skills. Skills have a critical role in driving economic development, and our strategic authorities and our mayors should grip that. We want to ensure that they are planning adult education provision. They are already working with employers and others to develop skills improvement plans, and we will look to build on that. I come back to the fact that we are creating provision for a right to request. I already know from conversations with our mayors that they are clear that they want more purchase and agency over adult skills. I anticipate that we will build on this area.

Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 General Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a fair question and the hon. Gentleman pre-empts the next point that I was going to make, specifically about local accountability. This is important. The NSIP consenting process provides substantial opportunity for interested parties, including local communities and local authorities, to have their say on proposals going through that process.

Under the Planning Act 2008, local authorities are invited to submit a local impact report giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development on their area, which the Secretary of State must have regard to when deciding the application. The examination process, which all NSIP applicants need to go through, provides the opportunity for local communities, interested parties and statutory bodies to make representations and for them to be considered by the examining authority in examination of the application and in the subsequent report that will be made to the Secretary of State for a decision on whether to grant development consent.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

This is a little parochial to London, but can we ensure that local authorities in London are consulted, along with the Mayor of London, so that their power to decide is not usurped by the mayor?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I said, the NSIP regime provides for local communities, local authorities, other statutory consultees and stakeholders to input into that process. In a similar way to how a local planning authority undertakes a period of consultation to enable views on a planning application to be expressed, the examination process under the NSIP regime—which all NSIP applications must go through—provides the opportunity for local communities and interested parties to make representations to be taken into account by the examining authority in examination of the application and by the Secretary of State when they come to decide whether to grant development consent.

In the time I have, I should respond to a couple of other issues that were raised. Power usage was a point made by the hon. Members for Orpington and for Taunton and Wellington. Energy and carbon footprint are a key issue for data centres. The sector operates under a climate change agreement to encourage greater uptake of energy efficiency measures among operators. The UK has committed to decarbonising the electricity system by 2030, subject to security of supply, and data centres will increasingly be powered by renewable energy resources.

Newer, purpose-built and modern data centres can provide compute at a higher efficiency than older, converted data centres, in terms of the amount of power they draw on, but data centres will play a major part in powering the high-tech solutions to environmental challenges, whether that is new technology that increases the energy efficiency of energy use across our towns and cities, or development and application of innovative new tech that takes carbon out of the atmosphere. We are, however, very conscious that data centres draw on quite a significant amount of firm power, and the Government will take that into account in making decisions as to whether individual applications go through.

Lastly, I should address heat, which the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly mentioned. He is absolutely right to say that data centres produce a significant amount of heat. The technology exists to capture that heat and to use it in district heating networks, or to meet significant demand. There is potential, therefore, for the heat to be captured and used to further benefit than happens currently, but there have already been successful examples—which are worth highlighting—of using data centre heat for hospitals, homes and other uses. One such example is the use of a data centre to heat a local swimming pool in Devon. We will take that into account, as I am sure DSIT did in the drafting of its national policy statement and in its conversations with other Departments. However, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments are brought to the attention of the relevant Minister.

House Building: London

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

Of course I will, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for securing this debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his excellent speech, much of which I agreed with, especially about using the TfL space.

The TfL chairman is Sadiq Khan and, as Mayor of London, he is responsible not only for TfL but for house building in London. If we look at some of his promises in 2016, he said his first priority would be tackling the housing crisis. His first manifesto promised a step change in new housing supply, and that 50% of new homes would be affordable. Here we are nearly a decade later, and he certainly has not delivered that step change. House building has in fact ground to a halt—it is down 73% in London over the past year. The Government have had to step in to water down City Hall’s anti-growth affordability targets, because there is no way of avoiding it: despite Sadiq Khan’s boasts, he has comprehensively failed to build. After nine years at the helm, Sadiq Khan has nothing to show for it. Four fifths of homes built last year, as previously mentioned, were approved under Boris Johnson’s mayoralty. The average home in London cost £483,000 in 2016. Today, it is about £560,000. The average rent cost £1,292 per month in 2016. Today, it is £2,252.

As has been discussed, it is not a question of money: Sadiq Khan has been given nearly £9 billion to deliver on housing in London. It is not a question of powers; he has strategic planning powers in London. Instead, it has been about bad policy. His London plan is onerous and expensive to adhere to, and his affordability targets have acted as a tax on house building. The Government know this. Instead of addressing the problem, they are dancing around the issue. They scrapped a mandated review of the London plan after independent experts found it to “frustrate rather than facilitate” building on the brownfield sites that my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup discussed.

The Government have cut the community infrastructure levy but kept the more expensive mayoral levy. Instead of taking powers away from the failing mayor they are rewarding him, giving him power to call in developments of 50 homes on green-belt sites. Instead of removing the obstacles to building on brownfield sites they are weakening green-belt protections.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend speaks passionately about this, but does he not agree that this absolutely shows the problem with centralising not just targets but powers in the hands of one person—the mayor or a combined authority? We need much more involvement of local communities, and we need councils to have a greater say on planning matters.

[Peter Fortune]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is worth re-emphasising that the mayor has had responsibility for delivering housing in London for nine years and has fundamentally failed to deliver on his promises.

On weakening green-belt protections, which matters so much to those of us representing outer London boroughs, it is a bizarre decision to effectively block building on vacant former industrial sites in inner London near tube stations, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, and instead force thousands of homes on to poorly served farmers’ fields in Bromley. If the Government want to meet their housing targets, they need to realise that Sadiq Khan is not a builder—he is a blocker, and the record proves it.

Supporting High Streets

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Picture this: Downing Street, a hub of activity, alive with purpose, people moving with intent, heated debate and entrepreneurship at every turn. You look confused, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not talking about the Downing Street here in SW1, but Downing Street in Farnham, where the high street starts and where the most heated debate is over whether the Farnham infrastructure project will ever end and the concerns about the local Lib Dems whacking up car parking charges at the same time.

The other big debate is about how high streets will survive the headwinds of tax rises that this Government have thrown against them time and again. From hospitality to leisure and retail, the high streets of Farnham, Haslemere, Liphook and the new town centre in Bordon are hives of business activity. Some 98% of the businesses across my constituency are small or medium-sized enterprises, providing the backbone of our local economy and the foundation of community life.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

My wonderful constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill is also home to many SMEs, and they tell me that they are being punished because of the irresponsible decisions taken by this Labour Government. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Gregory Stafford]

I entirely agree. The truth is that Labour does not have the backing of small and medium-sized businesses because it is stifling growth with its costly net zero commitments, layers of red tape, changes to the living wage, cuts to business rate relief, the Employment Rights Bill and higher national insurance contributions. That is a toxic cocktail designed to choke off enterprise and ambition.

The Conservatives have a very good record on supporting local businesses. Just think back to the pandemic, when we delivered 100% business rates relief for many businesses. Indeed, when we left office last year, business rates relief was at 75%. Yet what did Labour do? As soon as it came in, it slashed that relief to just 40%, which is absolutely crippling for small businesses in my constituency. That is why I am proud and pleased that we have announced the abolition of business rates altogether, meaning that nearly a quarter of a million businesses will benefit. Financed by the golden rule, that is responsible, sustainable and, most importantly, pro-growth.

An hon. Member on the Government Benches argued that removing the rates will let landlords raise rents, but that assumes a balanced market. The reality is oversupply, with retail space outstripping demand. Abolishing business rates will therefore not drive up rents, but will make high streets more sustainable. The Brightwells development in Farnham, in my constituency, proves the point.

When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition visited my constituency last week, we met Steve at Hamilton’s, Mario at Serina, and Julian at The Castle pub. All three said the same thing: business rates are crippling, HMRC’s red tape is growing and energy bills are too high. That is why I am delighted that we have a plan to scrap business rates and cut energy bills for those small businesses.

In Bordon, in my constituency, we are working intensely to ensure that the new high street and town centre can thrive. We are making progress, but that progress will be undermined by this Government’s attack on business. These are not just businesses; they are the heartbeat of our community. They train young people, they create jobs and they invest in the place they call home. I am also afraid that the disconnect that Labour shows nationally is echoed by the Liberal Democrats in my area. They simply do not understand the struggles that our high streets face under this Government and therefore have no empathy for our local businesses.

High streets are not just the commercial zones; they are social, and the social and economic soul of our towns. Supporting them requires a Government willing to protect essential services, invest in rural areas and cut through the bureaucracy that holds small businesses back. Conservatives understand that if we back ambition, we build prosperity. If we bury it in bureaucracy, we destroy it. Our high streets and the communities that they serve deserve better than that.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Peter Fortune Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

This Bill is supposed to be the Government’s flagship piece of legislation to empower England’s cities, regions and communities, but there is disappointingly little in it about strengthening accountability in existing devolved bodies, especially the Greater London Authority.

It is right that power is returned to cities, regions and communities, but those who hold devolved power must also be held accountable for their decisions, actions and delivery. Nowhere in England enjoys more devolved powers than London. That is in part why it is the only area with a directly elected Assembly, devoted to scrutiny. However, as the Mayor of London’s responsibilities, powers and budget have grown, the Assembly has become weaker and weaker in comparison. A notable issue is the two-thirds majority required to amend the mayor’s budget and strategies, but that is impossible to achieve in the London Assembly, which is why no budget or strategy has been amended in 25 years.

Unlike other combined authorities, the Assembly cannot call in mayoral decisions and London’s 32 boroughs are excluded from decision making. That means the mayor does not have to seek consensus, negotiate or even listen to opposing views. In a city the size of London, it effectively alienates and disenfranchises millions of people. That political fracture was made clear when Mayor Khan imposed the ultra low emission zone expansion on outer London, despite overwhelming opposition.

There is a glaring democratic and accountability deficit in London, which is why so many of my constituents—and, I know, the constituents of other Members—are now questioning the place of the London borough of Bromley in the Greater London Authority. They have never paid more to City Hall, yet people feel that they are ignored on every issue. Mayor Khan has increased council tax by 77% in nine years, meaning that Londoners pay nearly £500 a year on average to fund his policies. Let us not forget the huge sums that Londoners now pay City Hall thanks to his road charges. In the first three months of this year, motorists forked out nearly £220 million thanks to his ULEZ charge, the Blackwall tunnel toll and his hiked congestion charge. What do they receive in return for all that money? ULEZ cameras, too few police officers and green-belt protections being ripped up.

Anyone who wants to see devolution in London succeed must support measures to make the Mayor of London more accountable. First, this Bill introduces simple majority voting in combined authorities as the default decision-making process, but it stops short of doing that in the London Assembly. That is a mistake. It should abolish the two-thirds majority requirement to amend budgets and strategies, allowing a simple majority of Assembly members to force changes. That alone would transform London’s politics and force mayors to the table. Secondly, this Government should consult on a new model to give the 32 boroughs a voice and a vote in London, so that Bromley can no longer be ignored. Finally, this Bill should give the London Assembly the power to call in mayoral decisions.

My constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill have had enough of being ignored by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. If the Government want to maintain the support of Londoners for devolution, the London Mayor must be made accountable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The Grenfell fire was a national tragedy, and we must never forget the 72 lives that were lost. It was a honour to pay my respects on the eighth anniversary at the weekend. We remain fully committed to introducing the Hillsborough law, including a legal duty of candour for public services and criminal sanctions for those who refuse to comply. I know my hon. Friend speaks with passion and authority on the matter and, having spoken to the Grenfell community, I know that they really want to see this happen as quickly as possible. We are exploring reforms to ensure that we can get to the truth more quickly and deliver the meaningful change that these victims deserve.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

Bishop Challoner school has been helping to educate Bromley pupils for nearly 75 years, but it will close its doors in July due to Labour’s decision to impose VAT on independent schools. Given the Deputy Prime Minister’s well-publicised views on independent schools, does she welcome this closure or would she like to apologise to the parents, pupils and staff?

Havering Borough and Essex Devolution

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right: any type of devolution has to have the consent of the people. I have to say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not believe that the current Greater London devolution arrangement really has the consent of people in Havering. I think that if there were to be a referendum tomorrow, they would overwhelmingly vote to leave Greater London and be a unitary authority, but maybe there are other options. That is why this debate about Havering borough and Essex devolution is so pertinent today, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to my arguments.

To return to what I was saying about the police, all but one of our police stations have been closed, and my constituents are deeply unhappy with the lack of police cover we receive, despite the huge amount we contribute financially to the Greater London Authority. This is no fault of the dedicated officers who form the day-to-day, rank-and-file backbone of our local police operation. The local force is dedicated and determined to respond to and prevent instances of criminality that blight the locality, but they are undermined by a lack of the resources that we in Havering pay for, but simply do not receive. Indeed, if you speak to my constituents, they will tell you that they believe Havering residents are in effect subsidising inner London areas and, through the Greater London Authority, funding what I believe has become a London-wide bureaucracy in City Hall and associated London-wide quangos. It is hard to see how the people of Havering benefit from that, and more often than not, it has no relevance to local people in my borough whatsoever.

The reason for my Adjournment debate is to ask the Minister to please allow us to look at alternatives. Now is the time to consider Havering’s future. With devolution for what is termed Greater Essex now being implemented, this must surely be the right moment to examine a change that would give the people of Romford, Hornchurch, Upminster and Rainham hope that we could be part of something that better suits our local needs and goes with the grain of our historical identity. If the Government truly believe in genuine devolution, I hope the Minister will agree that local people should determine what is best for them, and a borough such as Havering must surely have the freedom to consider all options for our future. I request that the Government open up a meaningful conversation with the people of Havering about devolution for Essex that could include Havering, so that we can look sensibly and in detail at ideas for change.

Let me make one thing crystal clear. The freedom travel pass for pensioners is often cited as one of the benefits of being part of Greater London, as if the Mayor of London provides it to us for free, which is not the case. My borough pays millions to buy in to this scheme. It has always done so and will always continue to do so. We pay millions of pounds for the privilege, but I will always defend and support the freedom pass as our older folk deserve the benefits it gives them.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend on an excellent speech. Does he agree that boroughs such as mine—Bromley—face many of the frustrations that his constituents in Havering face, and that we are also contributing huge amounts of money to the Mayor of London?

[Andrew Rosindell]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is completely right. The people of Romford feel the same as the people of Bromley, Ruislip and other parts of outer Greater London who are disenchanted with the current settlement.

On the freedom pass, I have long argued that the scheme should be extended to all council areas where Transport for London operates. Indeed, the Elizabeth line runs to Shenfield and the Central line runs to Epping. Other TfL services operate in local authority areas that go way beyond the supremely outdated boundaries of Greater London, to the west side of London in particular, so any travel schemes like the freedom pass must surely be offered equally to all the local authorities that TfL serves. The freedom pass for older people and others should not be used as a reason never to change the structure of local government in what I call the capital region of the UK, which now stretches far beyond the Greater London boundaries of the 1960s.

May I also make it clear that I do not agree with the creation of super-unitary authorities? I believe they will prove to be very remote from towns, villages and neighbourhoods and from real people who want local democracy to be truly local, with councillors who genuinely know their wards and understand the areas they represent. If the Government are, however, set on going down this path, as they are now doing in Essex, I believe it is inevitable that boroughs in Greater London will go in the same direction at some stage, with amalgamations of councils taking place. Already, there is much discussion about this prospect, with varying proposals being put forward and openly spoken of by think-tanks, among local government officials and in London elite circles, of course.

Let me say here and now that if Havering is destined for eventual merger with east London boroughs in some new super-council configuration, that is not something my constituents or I would support. We in Havering are a town and country borough, with an Essex heritage and a special character that local people cherish and will fight to retain.

So, based on the principle the Government are already pursuing with the creation of expanded unitary authorities, I ask the Minister to please consider Havering for collaboration with, for example, our neighbouring Essex local authorities such as Brentwood or Epping Forest, both of which are also served by Transport for London and have much in common with Romford and Havering.

It has been evident for a long time that Havering is at a crossroads, and it is now becoming abundantly clear to anyone who dares to look that either we continue on a path of future London integration or we take a new path in line with our heritage, which fully realises our Essex roots, culturally, economically, and politically. I, alongside the people of Havering, strongly argue that this second path is the one we should, and indeed must, walk.

It could just be, much to the surprise of many of my constituents, that the new Labour Government’s plan for devolution and local government reorganisation provides the opportunity we need to finally take control of our own affairs and have our future restored to becoming part of Essex local government structures once again. It would be a great plus for the people of Romford if it was a Labour Government that actually delivered what they have been asking for for so long.

This is what I have been fighting for over the course of my entire political life—not as a personal preoccupation, but because it is what everyone in my constituency believes, from local families and business owners to pensioners and market traders, and indeed young people. They all tell me that is what they want: they want their identity restored to being part of Essex and having our local control away from central London and City Hall. It is high time that their voices were listened to and this opportunity was seized to shape Havering and Essex for the better.

I believe that today we have a once-in-almost-a-century chance to look afresh at the old boundaries of Greater London that were constructed six decades ago. The entire region around our great United Kingdom capital of London has changed dramatically since those days, and we should therefore seize this moment to be bold and look at options for change that local people would be happy to see, thus giving my constituents in Romford, Hornchurch and across the Borough of Havering hope for a much better structure of local government, rightly determined and supported by the people it is established to serve.

Local Government Finances: London

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.

Before serving the people of Bromley and Biggin Hill as their Member of Parliament, I served them as a councillor in the borough for 12 years. I was also privileged to be deputy leader of that great borough. I have, therefore, long been familiar with the financial challenges that face local government. As much as the Labour party would like to pin the blame solely on decisions taken in 2010, the story is far longer than that.

For Bromley, the story of underfunding started in 1997, under the previous Labour Government. Bromley council’s net budget has reduced by more than a quarter in real terms and nearly two fifths per person. It is true that the previous Conservative Government asked councils to make significant savings to tackle the country’s deficit but, ultimately, without those difficult decisions our nation would not have been able to weather the financial storm caused by the coronavirus.

I regret that the previous Conservative Government did not deliver a long-promised fair funding review, but I recognise that that was hard to achieve in the aftermath of the pandemic, the energy crisis and high inflation. It is a problem that successive Governments of all stripes have failed to grasp. The new Labour Government’s actions have made it even more challenging for councils. It is the same old Labour story in London: more money is spent on Labour areas and less on the Conservative suburbs.

Bromley council was awarded the second-lowest funding settlement amount per person. If Bromley received the average settlement grant of funding per person for London, the borough would receive an additional £80 million a year. In addition to inadequate settlements, Bromley did not benefit from the recovery grant. With inflation rising fast again under the Labour Government, the funding pressures will worsen, further eroding councils’ financial standing. Nor have councils received adequate funding to cover the cost of Labour’s decision to increase employer’s national insurance contributions. This jobs tax will further push up costs, especially in social care.

Bromley is a well-managed borough, and I commend its Conservative leader, Councillor Colin Smith, and his excellent team, but like all London councils Bromley faces enormous pressures that are simply unaffordable. We retain the fourth-lowest level of council tax in outer London because we are a low-cost borough. Bromley council has saved more than £150 million since 2011, but being a low-tax, low-cost borough means there are few remaining savings.

It is becoming increasingly impossible for councils to balance the books. Bromley can this year, but only thanks to the authority’s reserves, carefully built and protected over many years of sensible and responsible stewardship, despite opposition calls to reduce them. That is not sustainable in the long term. It is why a quarter of London boroughs have already effectively declared bankruptcy and requested exceptional financial support.

Future local government settlements must adequately fund councils to deliver, especially considering the rising national insurance costs. They should reflect the higher costs that all London boroughs face, fixing the area cost adjustments that wrongly say that Bromley is one of the most affordable places in London. There should also be a mechanism to reward low-cost and efficient authorities, instead of asking them to make savings while spendthrift authorities are given more.

Finally, the Government should allow councils to change statutory charges to match costs, and reduce ringfencing to allow councils to be more flexible and more concerned with their own priorities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The Secretary of State is leading the charge in building 1.5 million homes to tackle the supply challenge that we face as a country, because of the housing crisis we inherited. We also announced £500 million for the affordable homes programme in the Budget and funding for homelessness services has gone up by £233 million, bringing the total to a billion pounds. I am pleased to say that Luton will receive more than £6.3 million. Furthermore, we are investing £210,000 in the emergency accommodation reduction pilot.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

T4. Following the Grenfell tragedy, the residents of Northpoint in my constituency have had to pay charges of nearly £700,000 for a waking watch, fire wardens and alarms. Given the Government’s manifesto commitment to better protect leaseholders from costs, what steps can the Minister take to help my constituents with the reimbursement of those charges?

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

Sadly, I hear these stories across the country as well. The reality is that the best step that can be taken is for the developer to enter into the cladding safety scheme, to get the building remediated and to get the costs removed. In the meantime, we have made money available through the waking watch replacement fund, so that that particularly expensive way of keeping a building safe can be replaced. There are ways of tackling the pain in the short term, but the reality is that the only solution is the remediation of buildings, and that is why we are pushing on so hard through our remediation acceleration plan.