Local Government Reorganisation: South-east

Peter Lamb Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Labour may not have broken the local government system in Surrey but there is now an obligation to ensure that people who live in Surrey are not faced with the bankruptcy of their new unitary authorities on day one of those authorities’ existence, especially given the vital services that they will be delivering.

In neighbouring Woking—where there was another Conservative-run council in those fateful years—the gravitational denialism was even wilder. During the same period, Woking borough council accumulated debts that now stand at approximately £2.1 billion. It is said that that debt is so large that it directly impacts the Government’s borrowing capacity in international markets. Versions of that story are repeated across much of west Surrey: it is a pattern of behaviour that has, frankly, never been properly investigated. Its impact has been compounded by systemic failures in the auditing of local government accounts.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman astounded, as I am, that the majority of that debt is with the public works loan board, which sits underneath the Treasury. Where was the Treasury when that debt was being allowed to accumulate?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to talk about a systemic failure, as I see it, in the power that section 151 officers of borough councils have in effectively signing off the ability of a council to repay debts when accumulated. That is a power that I think may be far in excess of the skills that they have. After all, there is no separate mechanism to determine—from the Treasury or from the PWLB, for example—the ability of a council to fulfil its obligations.

It is therefore entirely reasonable that residents ask a simple question: why should communities that played no role in accumulating that debt now be expected to inherit its consequences through a newly-created local authority? If reorganisation is intended to create a stable future for local government, it would be deeply concerning for any new authority to begin life already burdened with billions of pounds in inherited liabilities. I ask the Minister what assurances the Government can provide that any future West Surrey authority will begin life next year on a financially sustainable footing? It cannot be right that my residents face the realistic prospect of their new unitary authority being bankrupt or effectively bankrupt on day one of its existence, given the critical services that councils are expected to provide.

The scale of borrowing in Surrey also raises wider questions about financial oversight in local government—this is where I will answer the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb). Local authorities rely on statutory finance officers—section 151 officers—to ensure financial prudence, yet the scale of borrowing undertaken by some councils suggests that existing safeguards have not always been sufficient to prevent high-risk commercial strategies. This debate is often framed in terms of protecting section 151 officers from excessive political pressure, and that may well be necessary, but it is also true that section 151 officers hold significant authority within council structures and must themselves be subject to proper scrutiny and accountability—something that is often lacking.

Councillors very often perceive that they are not allowed to overly scrutinise 151 officers because of members’ codes of conduct. Will the Government therefore consider whether additional safeguards or oversight mechanisms are needed to prevent similar situations arising again in the future, particularly as councils become larger, their finances become more complex and the risks become even greater.

There are also important questions about the size and structure of the authorities now being proposed. Under current proposals, the new West Surrey council would serve approximately 657,000 residents. By comparison, the average non-metropolitan unitary authority in England serves around 265,000 residents, with most serving fewer than 300,000. Authorities of the scale we are talking about today risk weakening democratic accountability, diluting local knowledge and making decision-making feel more distant from the communities they are meant to serve.

Ministers have suggested that having larger authorities will deliver financial efficiencies. In support of that argument, the Government have relied on modelling produced by the County Councils Network, which happens to be chaired by the very same leader of Surrey county council who locked Surrey into this fast-track pathway in the first place. Despite several Parliamentary questions seeking clarification, it remains unclear what independent modelling the Government have undertaken to substantiate those claimed savings. I ask the Minister again: have the Government undertaken their own economic modelling of the projected financial benefits of local government reorganisation in Surrey? If so, will that modelling now be published publicly?

Finally, we should recognise that all of this is unfolding while councils continue to deliver vital services under considerable strain. In my constituency, the concerns most frequently raised with me relate to special educational needs and disabilities provision. Hundreds of families contact me about problems with education, health and care plans—incorrect names, incorrect details, long delays and support packages—that simply do not meet the needs of the children concerned.

For the past three years, Surrey has recorded the highest number of SEND tribunal appeals nationally. At the same time, residents regularly contact me about deteriorating road surfaces, potholes causing vehicle damage and wider infrastructural pressures. These are not abstract policy debates; they are real challenges affecting families who rely on local government services every single day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.

Local government is an area of great interest to me. I did my master’s dissertation on models for English devolution; I have worked at the UK’s leading think-tank on devolution; for 17 years I worked as an adviser to local authorities, and I have served in local government in a county council and a district council, including almost a decade as a council leader. From 2015 onwards, I have also been involved in various devolution proposals for Sussex in one way or another.

I say all that because, despite that background, I still cannot get my head around what the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is trying to achieve with all this. That is despite talking to the director at No. 10, special advisers and Ministers on this policy area. In fact, the more I delve into it, the more opaque it becomes.

My understanding is that this reform all kicked off with Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves—two people without any background in local government—making a deal: more money now, in return for local government reform. The only reason they thought it would deliver any results was that the County Councils Network had, for many years, been putting forward a document that seemed to set out a case that there would be financial savings if county councils were merged at the unitary level.

Those figures relied on population sizes of roughly half a million people—that figure is critical; I re-read all the statements made by local government Ministers on this before this debate, and it is a figure that has been repeatedly stated and was consistently pushed for the better part of a year. The reason was that, when we look at the County Councils Network figures, the £2 billion savings it talked about delivering, which it presented as if it were an annual statement—it is not, it is over five years—are achievable only when dealing with population sizes of 500,000 or greater.

The problem, when we come down to it, is this: for the Labour party, that is completely unelectable. We have pockets of support within the south east, but we do not have larger footprints. With the politics unravelling around this question, we have started to talk about smaller sizes for unitary authorities, but here we run into a problem: unitary authorities do not save money. Merging existing councils saves money. We could merge districts together—that would save money. We could merge counties together—what an idea!—and that would save money. We could merge existing unitaries together—that would save money. However, when we start creating unitaries, we are merging two different tiers together; if that is a smaller footprint than existing upper-tier authorities, it will always end up costing more money than the alternative.

We now have a proposal that will not deliver politically or financially. I will return to the finances in due course, because the situation is much worse than people think it is. This proposal is somehow still on the table long beyond the original document that set this all out. If there are other figures on this then, like the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), I would be delighted to see them. I have asked for them repeatedly. However, when Governments do not release data, we come to the conclusion that they do not have data that backs up their case. The evidence base here is very hard to find.

The other argument that comes up very frequently is that two-tier areas are too complicated and people do not know who runs what. I have lived in two-tier areas essentially my entire life, apart from when I was at university, and that is not something I have come across, despite being in roles where I might expect to come across it very regularly. If we say tiers are a problem, adding mayors across the country and encouraging people to set up third-tier authorities increases the total number of tiers at the local government level. It adds to the complexity rather than decreasing it.

We hear bizarre arguments about issues such as waste collection and waste disposal authorities, as if the idea that someone collects the bins and someone gets rid of them is complicated. What particularly grates my gears about that argument is that there are many unitary authorities that are not waste disposal authorities. Take the Thames valley waste authority as an example—take Greater London—take Greater Manchester: in all those areas, waste is collected that is then disposed of on a larger footprint. There are many such areas where the powers do not perfectly align, and people manage to get through them without any great deal of controversy.

The argument for much of this change, particularly with the mayoralties, was that we were would get wider public sector reform, which would deliver astounding savings. The problem with that argument is that the footprints that the change was supposed to create would align the mayoralties, the police authorities and the integrated care boards, so that we would get all the services in one area and they could deliver efficiencies. However, we are now talking about creating police authorities on a larger footprint than the existing mayoral footprint, so the two would no longer correspond. There will be a much more complicated structure now, with deputy mayors sitting on different boards in relation to it. Similarly, the ICBs have had to expand, so they no longer go along with the devolution footprint.

The only form of public sector reform that we can now carry out around this process is reform of local government on its own, and that will not deliver the projected savings. Most of the areas that a district council deals with and most of the areas that a county council deals with do not interface in any meaningful way when it comes to savings. If they did, the County Councils Network report, which it paid PwC to produce in order to create the strongest possible case for reform, would have put that forward. Instead, the report solely states that savings can be made by reducing senior officer numbers. As anyone who has been involved in the sector knows, many of those posts no longer exist in the numbers that they did at the time that the PwC report was formed. At this point, such figures simply do not exist.

The only people I can find who have any difficulty with the idea of two-tier areas are civil servants and politicians from unitary authority areas. One might imagine what other people might feel if we went to their areas and tried to impose our culture upon them. There has also been the claim that these reformed authorities will be engines for economic growth and housing delivery, but let us think about it in this way: I was the leader of a local authority that delivered over four times our Government-assessed numbers for housing, whereas—unfortunately—Mid Sussex district council, which was previously under Conservative control, often did not even have a core strategy for that entire period, never mind delivering any actual housing numbers.

We are about to create unitaries where the areas that deliver large volumes of housing, and that need such housing at an affordable rate, will be swamped by rural communities. What do we think will be the dominant factor in these new authorities, where the politics is controlled by rural communities? Will it be a focus on economic development? Will it be a focus on housing delivery? Or will it be stamping down on those two things, as we have seen time and time again? This plan does not deliver on the Government’s missions; it kills them off, as many Members have tried to point out in recent times. The reality is that demography is destiny, and rural communities will have control over those authorities.

Returning to the issue of finance, in my area the actual cost of the merger is estimated as three times greater than the estimate put forward so far. In fact, even on the most optimistic assumptions, on these footprints no savings would be delivered until the end of the next Parliament—but it is more likely that there would not be any saving at all. In fact, the situation gets even worse than that. Who knows when most of the country’s leisure centres were built? I will give Members a clue—it was in the early ’70s. What happened in the early ’70s? We merged all the district councils, and they looked at their accounts and said, “I am not handling this over to the next council”, and they got busy spending.

We can see that in the country currently. The reality is that, until the protections come in with the new authority, people will be getting money out the door. Debt is going up, budgetary decisions are being postponed and savings are being put off in order to invest in local communities while there is one last chance to do that. Over the next 12 months, section 114 notices are far more likely than in any preceding period.

I will move on to the issue of democracy. Resident satisfaction surveys of local authorities have consistently shown a positive correlation between the perception of a local authority and the size of that authority. It is not the other way around, as though suddenly authorities delivered much more effectively when they got to a much greater footprint—why would that be the case? More remote Government is not necessarily going to make people any happier.

Currently, the average size of authorities in the UK is seven times larger than not the European average, but the authorities in the European country with the next largest—and this programme will make our authorities 14 times larger than those. Why are we such an outlier? Why are councils in Europe, which have far greater powers and far greater money than we do, apparently perfectly capable of running their local areas, while in our areas we have to bring things up to a central Government level? Again, I think that the civil service has far more to do with this programme than any actual rational thought does.

The changes will also prevent people from having any meaningful relationship with councillors. In the UK, we are far less likely than in any other part of Europe to have independent councillors. The reason is that with footprints of this size we cannot build a meaningful relationship with a councillor. The distance cuts people off from their democracy and any sense of control, and increases their scepticism. Conversations about area committees are frankly meaningless; anyone who has actually worked with those structures knows they do not replace meaningful representation.

The fundamental problem we will run into is geography. When we strive to get population sizes in rural areas, we come up with enormous geographies; for my patch, we are most likely talking about an area in excess of 50 miles wide. Greater London is just over 30 miles wide. What common interests can exist in that footprint? What common services? What common identity? We will end up with competition between the different communities in those areas, and policy will be driven by those communities whose voices are heard loudest in whatever administration is in control. That will, again, mean that the rural beats out the urban. Urban communities such as mine, which includes some of the most deprived parts of the country—certainly in the south-east, at least—will lose out as a direct result of the restructure.

There are 71 Labour constituencies that trusted us at the last election, but that will see their quality of life decline as a direct result of the policy as well. When we look at the numbers, it might well be that if the Labour party, sacrificed those 71 constituencies, it would never be in office again. I am sure that Opposition Members would be delighted; it is why I thought they would be pushing the policy, not the Members on the Labour Benches. Talk to any Labour party organiser and they will say that the policy undermines our organising model. They are up in arms.

Most Labour Governments in the last century would not have happened had there been a reform such as this. We are arguing for a policy that no longer reflects the principles on which it was first brought together. It no longer reflects the same goals: it will not save us money, it will be more remote and it will undermine the deprived communities that this Government are allegedly in place to serve. It is clear that the advice given to Ministers in MHCLG is poor; we have seen that in just one month, with fair funding miscalculations that took place, and we have seen that with the elections, with the conclusions that we now all have to deal with.

Having been through the detail of the policy over and over again, I cannot see any way that it is not another example of that poor advice.

[Alison Bennett]

I am very much appreciating and enjoying the hon. Member’s contribution to the debate. Can I suggest that, when it comes to getting local government in England on a sound financial footing, the real elephant in the room is putting social care on a financial basis so that councils can deliver decent social care to our communities?

[Peter Lamb]

There are three areas, and social care is one of them. The finances of upper-tier authorities have been totally compromised, initially by the costs of social care, where we have still not taken decisions all these years after the Dilnot review. We all know that social care is slowly bankrupting councils. Go to any single council presentation on local government finance—whether a unitary or upper-tier authority—and that is the thing that will be mentioned.

Then there is SEND, which again has absolutely crippled local authorities’ funding to the extent that we allowed them to keep it off their books because the cost would have bankrupted them. That has now been taken away from them to be covered centrally, so that is one less problem to deal with.

Lastly, there are the costs of temporary housing, which housing authorities, like the districts, are mandated to provide. They have no control over it, and are often dealing with the consequences of central Government decisions that move more people into the area and create that level of housing need. However, those costs ultimately stem from a failure of housing policy in this country.

Those are the three areas bankrupting local government. Despite the fact that local government started out as the most efficient part of the public sector and has become still more efficient since, taking sensible decisions to maintain its survival, it cannot deal with pressures that are not being dealt with centrally. If we deal with those three problems, local government finance problems will go away—but they are central Government’s problems to resolve, and we have not yet quite resolved them.

I accept that all that is in motion, but when I talk to people in local government, very few of them want this policy. The reality is the boundaries are most likely going to end up lasting for another half a century—just look at the pain we are going through now; we are not going to want to go through it all again. We should not be embarking on something that will last 50 years when we cannot publish the evidence base because it is so weak. A pause is now needed to reflect on these proposals. I will continue to argue more and more loudly for that, adding more and more things to the debate about the best outcome here. I say to Ministers, “You’ve inherited a mess from other people; it wasn’t of your making and I really wouldn’t jeopardise your careers seeing this through.”

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we do not refer to other Members by name, but by their constituency?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on my roles as an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of both the Local Government Association and London Councils.

I congratulate to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing the debate. He, the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) set the tone of a debate that has engaged, with a high degree of seriousness, not only with the issues that stem from the specifics of what is happening in Surrey but with what they say about the wider local government reorganisation debate.

It was interesting as a parliamentarian to be present, a short time ago, at a Delegated Legislation Committee in which Committee members agreed the abolition of the historic county of Surrey and its replacement with two unitary authorities. That was the conclusion of a long period of debate in which, as the hon. Member for Crawley outlined, the leaders of county councils in particular argued strongly that local government reorganisation on the footprint of the existing county structure would be a way to save money. Many district councils argued strongly against that idea, and it was called into question by many experienced unitary leaders.

We all recognise that there is a need to look again at our local government settlement. This country is already very under-represented in democratic terms at the local level, with the fewest elected politicians per capita of any developed democracy. It is also intensely centralised by comparison with most other countries, with decisions that would as a matter of routine be local decisions in most other democracies taken by Parliament or central Government.

I have a huge amount of sympathy for the Minister, because while she is from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, council services touch on the work of the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Department for Transport, the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. The observations that other Members have made about the impact of special educational needs and disabilities demonstrate that complexity, where an issue that sits outside the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is one of the single biggest factors in the viability of local authorities.

The last time we faced each other across the Dispatch Box, I asked the Minister, with particular respect to Surrey, whether there was an update on negotiations. Surrey had set out very clearly that its deficit on SEND spending sits at around £350 million, and the Government had been clear—in fairness, it was Department for Education Ministers—that they would pay off 90% of that deficit. The offer to Surrey was £100 million, which was significantly less than the 90% that we were promised at the Dispatch Box. This is not simply a matter of what happens in a single Government Ministry; it brings together services, activities and decisions across Government.

Reflecting on the long history of local government reorganisation, it probably predates the existence of our country as a unitary state. Certainly the role of some ancient Saxon kingdoms is quite akin to the behaviour of some local government leaders today. The particular challenges that come from the difficult relationship between central and local government are manifest here today.

With regard to recent developments, I spent 12 years in local government under the previous Labour Government and a further 12 years there under the Conservative Government who left office in 2024, and many of the decisions that were made then by central Government—statutory requirements placed on local authorities such as SEND arrangements, social care, the fair access criteria that were introduced, housing—were never fully funded. Since the early 2000s, there has been steady growth in the share of local government spending that is consumed by social care and housing. We have seen an erosion of the ability of our elected local leaders to deploy locally raised resources against local priorities, to the extent that social care now consumes around 70% to 80% of the budget of a typical social care authority. That is not sustainable.

Other Members have spoken passionately and with a degree of criticism about the impact that investment decisions at the council level have had. We all recognise that councils led by all of the parties represented here have made both good and bad decisions when it comes to investment, but we should be wary of criticising local leaders for having made decisions in good faith that did not end well. At a time when the public works loan board interest rate was 0.25%, the decision—even by a council—to take a loan and put it in the bank would have generated additional finance that could have supported local government services. Those decisions were not always innately wrong, but the impact of covid on local authorities’ investments in commercial property was absolutely devastating. Spelthorne, which has been mentioned today, is one example of that: what would have looked like an extremely sound commercial investment turned into a very bad one because of the impact of covid.

         We find ourselves today in a situation where Surrey is unusual. It is the only authority announced for the devolution priority programme that has got to the point of creating new successor unitary authorities. At the outset of this process, the Government were very clear that they were going to cancel the elections in all the devolution priority programme councils, which we voted against at the Delegated Legislation Committee that considered that matter. They did so on the basis that elections for the new unitaries and mayors would take place across the country. There were supposed to be elections this May for new mayors in Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Hampshire and many other places. Political parties and local leaders had been working on that basis, only to find after a 24-hour U-turn last December that the elections that were promised to go ahead were suddenly being cancelled.

All this delay and dithering is imposing costs. I met yesterday with a finance company that told me that the procurement of new finance systems across the local authority sector has simply ground to a halt in the absence of any clarity from Government about what is happening. The commissioning of new services in social care to address homelessness has collapsed, which I know concerns the Minister, as has the delivery of housing—both the pipeline of new applications and the completions of new properties. Two thirds of London boroughs report no new net additional homes. That is an absolute indictment of the state in which many of our councils find themselves because of the delay imposed by this process.

As the hon. Member for Crawley outlined, both the Government and the wider argument for this reorganisation rely on a now rather old report that was prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers at the instigation of the County Councils Network to support the case for county-based reorganisation. It is clear from the evidence he presented that the hon. Member, who left us in no doubt about what he thinks of this process, knows of what he speaks. The start of the process was simple. Half a million people was the minimum footprint in order to secure savings. That was the level that the Treasury expected to see delivered. However, that is significantly larger than the existing footprint of most unitary authorities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire described, it risked losing the sense of place and identity. Ministers quite wisely backed off. They looked at the bids from the local authority areas that were instructed to submit them and settled on a smaller footprint.

That fundamentally undermines the case that this will result in significant revenue savings to the Government in the medium to long term, for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Crawley. A concern that the Opposition have raised a number of times on the Floor of the House is that the Government have no independent modelling or independent financial analysis to back up their direction of travel on these reorganisation decisions.

As all Members who spoke passionately about their enthusiasm for getting local Government right recognised, when we compare ourselves, sometimes unfavourably, to other European countries and ask why they seem to be able to build railways and public transport infrastructure faster than the United Kingdom, the answer is largely that those decisions are made at local and regional level; they are not made by central Government. Delivery of rail networks or citywide transport, for example, which I know is of concern to a huge number of Members where lots of good projects are on the stocks, is much faster and cheaper in many other countries. We need to look at what we can learn from their experience.

We need to reflect on the role of the Treasury. I have heard former Chancellors say that when the demand for additional day-to-day spending becomes unbearable, the temptation is to simply slow down the exit of capital from the door on major projects. One of the benefits of localisation is that it removes that temptation from Chancellors and ensures that things that are committed to, become deliverable at a local level.

There are many urgent pressures. One of the key concerns I hear from councils all the time is that the Government do not have a huge amount of time to think, not just in the sense of the parliamentary timetable but when we look across our country. Unemployment has been relentlessly rising every single month since the Government took office, homelessness has surged up 27% in London alone since the Government took office, debt is rising rapidly, planning decisions are grinding to a halt and housing delivery is grinding to a halt. We need to give local communities hope that there is a prospect of solving some of those matters. I share a concern with the hon. Member for Crawley, which affects us very directly. The decisions that the Government have made in the Home Office, speeding up decision making on asylum seekers, pushing those people out the door and up the road to the town hall which then has responsibility for housing them, is putting acute pressure on my local authority, his local authority and many others across the country who are doing their best in difficult circumstances.

It is very clear that a whole range of issues are brought to our attention by what is happening in Surrey. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have set out their particular concerns. I hope that, as a result of the observations made in the debate, we may see the Government come back with a revised set of policies that reflect a clear sense of place and the opportunity for all our constituents to know that they will have elected representatives who can make the decisions that they want to see made at a local level.

[Peter Lamb]

On a point of order, Mr Vickers. Regarding my earlier breach, I just want to apologise to you and to the Chamber for referring to my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) by their names rather than by their constituencies, and without forewarning. I was unaware of the process. I will make sure it does not happen again.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Your apology is noted.

Local Government Reorganisation

Peter Lamb Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman on his latter point. I also reassure him that concerns have been raised across the political spectrum, including by council leaders from his own party, about the capacity to complete local government reorganisation. That is why we have announced additional capacity funding to support those councils to be able to complete this important reform. The consultations are still under way on the exact form of the reorganisation that will take place, and it would be wrong for me to comment on that today.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

I have great respect for the Secretary of State; I believe that he is one of the finest Ministers on this Government’s Front Bench, and I have great sympathy for him. The reality is that at times, we have all been presented with advice that has proven to be poor. Frankly, the reality that a lot of us are aware of is that he inherited a mess when he moved away from the very fine job he was doing in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to his current Department.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will not publish figures to indicate the savings that this work will allegedly generate. The only figures we have available are those produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which have been quoted by Ministers previously. When we look through the figures at the geographical sites that we are talking about, we see that there are no savings through local government reorganisation, particularly when the wider public sector reform agenda is being taken apart by larger police areas and changes to the size of integrated care boards. On that basis, we are undertaking a situation in which there will be significant financial costs to the local authorities but none of the savings that are currently projected. If the Government have contrary figures, I welcome the publication of them and of the advice. The sizes that we are talking about are 14 times larger than the next largest authorities in Europe, with a greater diameter than Greater London and without any community of interest, so given that this will leave Labour communities at the mercy of right-wing councils—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be putting his question now.

[Peter Lamb]

Immediately, yes. Given that poor advice has previously been given by the Department to the Secretary of State, is it not time to pause and reconsider the evidence base for local government reform?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and of course recognise that he is one of the finest constituency MPs in the House—it was a delight to campaign for him, and it is a pleasure to see him in his seat now. We have had this conversation before, and it is quite right that we continue to have it, but I do not agree with his analysis; there are savings that will derive from local government reorganisation, and it will also make the system simpler for local people to understand. However, I know that the debate will continue.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Peter Lamb Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

This package of measures will transform the lives of thousands of my constituents. On fleecehold, residents in Forge Wood are paying thousands of pounds for services that other constituents receive for free. Can the Minister confirm that he will act as quickly as possible following the end of the consultation?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We want to act as quickly as possible, particularly to bring in the new consumer protections provided for by the 2024 Act.

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026

Peter Lamb Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 General Committees

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am here replacing another Member. When they told me the subject, I said, “Great! It is the first time I have ever actually known something about the subject.” They said, “For goodness’ sake, don’t let the Whips hear you say that”—such is the time in which we live. At the risk of incurring the wrath of Members who would clearly like to get out of this room as quickly as possible, I hope I might be of service to the Government on this issue.

For almost a decade I ran a local authority that collected one of the highest levels of business rates in the country. We are seeing the second highest increase as a result of changes being instituted now—such is the consequence of having a major airport in our patch. However, I am aware that we are likely to hold a vote on this topic, so I would like to frame in people’s minds exactly what is being debated before we get to a vote.

The current system of discounts for the hospitality industry is running out; no additional money has been put forward to fund it—it was not in the Budget. Currently, these things are not done through legislation or statutory instrument, but operate through guidance, with local authorities essentially given discretionary relief and paid back by the Government. If we do not put another arrangement in place, that collapses.

The proposed system delivers a lower rate than the previous system. If Members do not vote in favour of it, a system will come into effect that has a higher level of rates for the hospitality industry—with its level of interest in this—and for businesses that are struggling at the moment than is currently the case. This is the only proposal on the table at the moment.

[Mr Snowden]

If that is the case, would it not have been better if the Government had had the foresight to put a new system in place to deal with the discounts that existed before, and made some choices about where the pounds are spent—rather than on higher welfare, maybe on supporting businesses?

[Peter Lamb]

I would be delighted to have a different system in place. In fact, I spent many years as a local authority leader, lobbying the last Government to try to do anything on that front to resolve a system that, frankly, is still Elizabethan in design and in no way reflects the changing nature of local economies. It requires a fundamental review, and I understand from the Minister that we are looking at various changes at the moment, and further measures are being put in place to support people. However, I say to Members in this room today that if this proposal goes to a vote and they vote it down, they will in practice be voting for higher rates on these struggling businesses.

A second thing will happen. During covid, I was leader of my local authority, and businesses were suddenly unable to pay business rates. The liability around business rates is such that, regardless of what we have coming in as a local authority, we have to pay that money to the Government or they will take legal action; that is technically the requirement. My largest donor was Gatwick airport—[Interruption.] Rather, my largest contributor was Gatwick airport; it has not donated any money to me at all. It suddenly found that because aviation was hit so hard, it could not afford to pay its business rates at all. We faced a situation where local authorities in the area could not make payroll under the existing system. When Members vote today, they must therefore be very clear that they are voting to bankrupt not only the hospitality industry, the retail industry and other struggling sectors, but their own local authorities. That is all I will say on that.

If Opposition Members would like to propose something else in the House, we would be more than happy to debate it. However, if this proposal goes to a vote and they vote against it, they will have voted to put a higher rate of taxation on the hospitality industry.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Peter Lamb Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 83, which stands in my name. I thank colleagues for their support for the new clause. I also sincerely thank the Minister and her team for their consistent engagement with me on this landmark piece of legislation—a Bill that will be game-changing for my constituents.

Before I speak to my new clause, which would forge a fairer, safer and better regulated private hire vehicle sector, I want to express my full support for the steps that the Government are taking by introducing national minimum standards. We need to rebuild confidence in a system that so many view as broken. This is about giving local leaders power to decide which drivers operate in their areas, and, most crucially, it is about the safety and wellbeing of passengers and drivers.

Let me deal first with the problem we face. Many Members will have heard from constituents who have raised legitimate concerns that the taxis or private hire vehicles that they see operating in their local areas are actually licensed hundreds of miles away. That is because since 2015 operators have been permitted to contract bookings to another vehicle that could be licensed in a different area. It has coincided with the meteoric rise of national operators such as Uber and Bolt, which are permitted to be licensed in multiple areas. The stark absence of any regulation has led to certain local authorities becoming, as the GMB union has put it,

“a licence factory…creaking at the seams”.

No example underscores that more vividly than the activities of City of Wolverhampton Council. In the first five months of last year alone, the council granted more than 8,500 new taxi licences, which is 30 times more than any other licensing authority in the midlands. This has a real and tangible impact across the whole country. Indeed, in Greater Manchester nearly half of all private hire vehicles are now licensed by local authorities outside its 10 councils, and the city region’s “out of area” figure of more than 12,000 has risen sharply from just under 7,000 in 2023. In my own borough of Rochdale, about 40% of private hire vehicles and taxis are licensed out of area.

This is not just an issue of public perception; it is also about safety and enforcement. For as long as the status quo persists and scores of vehicles are operating out of area, far from the authority that licensed them in the first instance, there will remain a deficit in terms of accountability when incidents take place.

Let me add a caveat by saying, unequivocally, that the vast majority of drivers are law-abiding people. They are integral to our economy and to our society as a whole, and I have been delighted to engage with a great number of them since being elected to this place. However, situations arise in which enforcement becomes necessary, and at present licensing authorities such as my own are unable to take action because of the proliferation of out-of-area operation.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that while it is good news that the Government have now proposed national minimum standards, her new clause represents the other part of the Casey review’s recommendations, without which the House would have failed to act on the licensing requirements specified in the review?

[Mrs Blundell]

I truly support and welcome the Government’s commitment to national minimum standards, but I believe that they must be complemented by a restriction on out-of-area operations so that they can be enforced locally where necessary.

At a recent meeting of the Transport Committee, which is currently holding an inquiry on the private hire vehicle sector, we heard from a licensing officer from Blackpool council. When I asked whether his authority was able to keep track of the drivers operating within it, he stated:

“We are now at a stage where provisions on where an operator can operate vehicles do not seem to matter. We are not even in a position where an operator has to have a licence everywhere it operates; it does not.”

He went on to say:

“I know the limitations of my operational enforcement resource…chasing vehicles all over the country is not something we could deal or cope with.”

I know from conversations with Rochdale borough council’s licensing department that those sentiments are shared there, too. Standards are one thing, but without proper means of enforcement, they will not have the maximum impact on public safety.

I will now move to the substance of my new clause 83. Under the new clause, strategic authorities would have the power to require that journeys that start and end there are fulfilled by locally licensed operators. It would give local leaders power and the choice to adopt that as a solution. Considered together, new clause 83 and the Government amendments would encourage drivers to license locally and would ensure that if things go wrong, both drivers and passengers have the confidence that enforcement measures will be swift, considered and legitimate in the eyes of local authorities and local people. If reinforced by implementing national minimum standards, these two changes could revitalise the sector, and give both drivers and passengers the confidence and certainty they deserve.

I believe that there are no Members present today, no corner of society and, indeed, no drivers out there in the sector who believe the system as it stands is working well. It is oversaturated, with a lack of local accountability and an erosion of the ties between drivers and the communities they serve. The private hire and taxi sector is critical to our economy and for filling gaps in the local transport network, but for too long the safety of passengers and the ability of licensing authorities to do their job have been undermined for the sake of a model that is unfit for purpose. We must bring an end to out-of-area licensing and offer the sector the change for which it has been calling out for decades.

The Bill is about granting power to local people to make their own decisions that will change their communities for the better. This is one such a decision—one that we can no longer afford to avoid.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to argue the case for Wessex. [Laughter.] No, I don’t.

I originally came in to support new clauses 67 and 68, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), on the licensing of cabs and others. Unfortunately, he had problems printing out his speech and arrived late, so he is unable to speak directly to them, but I am sure he will intervene on the subject.

Things have moved on since we first drafted new clauses 67 and 68, and I am really grateful. The Government have brought forward a series of amendments—new clauses 49 to 54, I believe—that deal with national licensing. That is a huge step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) eloquently put the arguments for why those provisions are needed, and moved the argument on as well, because out-of-borough licensing is the big issue that is hitting us at the moment.

I declare an interest as a member of Unite—it is in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The genesis of our involvement is that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and I convened a meeting of cab drivers who were all members of Unite. The GMB has taken an important role in this as well. It is the first time I had seen a united front of cab drivers, with black cab drivers and other drivers representing all areas of this sector of the economy united in this one demand on proper national licensing and out-of-area provision.

[Peter Lamb]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts to move these provisions forward. I will relay the key points of our agreement on this issue. The key challenge is that since the Deregulation Act 2015, we have a system in which councils no longer know who is operating in their area, on what basis they are operating, and what standards they are operating on. I am directly familiar with how the system has shifted as I was a member of the licensing committee from 2010 onwards. Most significantly, councils have no power to enforce or investigate when things go wrong. City of Wolverhampton council really needs to go and investigate the entire country because of the way in which the systems are operating.

If we are not going to have a national system, the only way we can get back to a system where someone has the confidence that if their daughter gets into an Uber tonight, the council will know who she is, can intervene if she is in danger and will investigate if something goes wrong, is by returning to national standards, and by having a situation where local licensing authorities can once again control who is starting or ending in their patch—not having people coasting in from out of area.

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend got a good part of his speech in anyway. That is exactly what came out of the meeting with the cab drivers themselves. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North, they put an emphasis on the Casey report and raised their concerns.

My understanding of the Government’s intention is that, having inserted national licensing into the Bill, there will be a rapid consultation on how it will work—that will be excellent—and, with regard to the out-of-location measures, there will be further discussions about the whole licensing regime for cabs. As the Minister said, the legislation is that old that it goes back to the horse-drawn Hackney carriage in the 19th century.

The one point I want to make is that this is a matter of urgency. Everyone I have spoken to feels that it is a matter of urgency because of the vulnerability of passengers. As has been said, the vast majority of people who work in the sector want to provide a good service, which is why they are lobbying so hard for national standards, but there are some rogue operators and they are putting people at risk. We are only as good as the last serious case of abuse in the system. That is why I emphasise to the Government that this is a matter of urgency. If it requires a separate piece of legislation, as I am advised it probably will, we need to ensure that we have spoken to the Leader of the House. I think that, on a cross-party basis, we would give that legislation time and priority, as the dangers are so hefty.

New clause 13, which some of my hon. Friends will talk about, reflects what is happening outside this House: a movement in local communities to have more control of their local community, particularly through local environmental controls. For the life of me, I do not understand why the Government are resisting new clause 13, but maybe the spirit of it will go into the other place. All it is asking for is a review of how the Localism Act 2011 has worked.

I supported the 2011 Act—it was about empowering local communities. The movement that is building for people to assert control over their local areas is significant, and the Government need to take that into account. Perhaps, as the debate moves forward, the Government will look more appreciatively on an amendment like new clause 13 in the other place.

Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill

Peter Lamb Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on bringing forward the Bill. Devolution has been an interest of mine for a very long time. It was the topic of my master’s dissertation and my first job outside politics, so I am thrilled to be back dealing with it all again as a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

The Bill reminds me that one of the main arguments in favour of introducing devolution was to free up parliamentary time. It was considered bizarre that there we were, in the late 20th century, when devolution was being debated, with feudalism still in Scotland because no Government could possibly find the parliamentary time in the UK Parliament to try to resolve those issues and other issues of concern to residents in Scotland. That highlighted the importance of producing bodies that could grant that time to consider those issues, and many other issues, on a local basis of what could be the best for residents in those areas.

The fact that these measures are coming via a private Member’s Bill continues to highlight the importance of trying to secure better parliamentary time for different parts of the UK for the issues that matter to them, and the importance of devolution to ensuring that matters of relevance for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and hopefully for England in due course—are addressed. I note that the amendment continues with that approach, empowering devolved Governments’ ability to implement changes in their own way. It highlights how it remains entirely possible for the nations to have the right powers to deliver for their citizens in the right way without having to engage with all the problems that would come with any approach to independence, so long may that approach continue.

I am glad to see the consultation that has taken place with devolved Administrations, as I believe consent is an incredibly important part of the process of ensuring that our devolution settlement operates well. I believe that that is critical. Technically, as a unitary system we have parliamentary sovereignty in this place and the UK Parliament can still legislate unilaterally in these areas, but if the devolved settlement is to survive, every part of the United Kingdom must be prepared to play their role in that partnership.

I cannot claim to be a fan of the Elections Act 2022, which brought many of the provisions into place. During my time in local government, I was the chair of the working group that the Local Government Association set up to go through the provisions in the Bill, which was assisted by representatives of returning officers and representatives of electoral services administrators. It would be fair to say that their views of most of the provisions were wholly negative in the context of what the Bill sought to do, and many of the arguments did not seem to make a huge amount of sense at the time. None the less, we did produce a number of cross-party conclusions. Regrettably, they were not adopted by the LGA until far too late in the process to have had any viable impact.

The aspects in the Bill are, I believe, positive. They should help to enable greater access to absent voting for residents in Scotland and Wales, and hopefully avoid some of the confusion that arises.

As a country, we have an increasingly confusing set of election arrangements. Many different types of electoral systems are employed, there are different age arrangements in different places and there are different rules around this, that and the other. When people think that one set of rules is in play and in fact, given a particular context, there is another, that creates growing problems with confidence in our electoral system. Although it is a challenge, it is important to our democracy that, as far as possible, the general public understand how the systems operate, how they select their governors and how they express their voice. That is a critical part of the UK retaining genuine democratic accountability.

The more that can be done to harmonise arrangements across the entire United Kingdom, and to ensure that there is a much simpler approach to people expressing their views to us, the greater the level of confidence in the system. Having two different sets of arrangements around casting votes cannot do much to encourage people to engage in the process. The very low levels of turnout at the last general election, which was a year ago today, suggest that there are issues that need to be addressed in how we try to engage people in the process and encourage them to participate.

One big problem is that if we do not have a viable system to enable people to cast their votes, taking into account people’s differing capacities to attend polling stations, we risk having a bias in the system in favour of one set of groups and against another. Younger able-bodied people and those who are less busy will be in a better position to participate and submit their votes, meaning the electoral system will gradually move in favour of only part of the population. That will deliver outcomes in those elections that may result in the system no longer acting as a voice for the whole of society, only a part of that society.

We are all aware of some areas where that already happens, where there is higher turnout by some groups relative to other groups, resulting in them having preferential status in our electioneering. The more that can be done to make it as easy as possible for people to cast their vote, the greater the likelihood that we will have a more representative sample of electors participating in the system, and that all our different institutions will genuinely represent the views of constituents within the country, and consequentially within policy.

I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith on introducing the Bill. It is an important step towards addressing many of the issues, and I hope further steps will be forthcoming to increase greater accountability and democratic participation in our democracy.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for introducing this important piece of legislation. For hon. Members who do not know Edinburgh North and Leith, the word “and” is very important in the name of that constituency: Leith is quite separate from Edinburgh—it is a separate city and a wonderful city too. I have many fond memories of being in my hon. Friend’s constituency, because I studied in Edinburgh and I was involved in the Children’s Holiday Venture charity, which is still going strong. Students would take children who had been referred by social workers out swimming, ice skating or away to the countryside for the weekend. I loved my time with that charity, known as “The Students” in Pilton, in my hon. Friend’s seat.

The Bill tackles the important issue of trust in politics. In a way, it is mechanistic, in that it looks at mechanisms for voting, but trust in politics is damaged if people feel that they cannot exercise their right to vote because they have been excluded by being disabled, on holiday or for other reasons. People’s trust in politics is damaged if they feel that they are prevented from voting for reasons that they, quite properly, view as being archaic and anachronistic.

These issues were raised with me during the last general election campaign, as it took place during the Scottish school holidays. We have different school holiday dates in Scotland. They start earlier because our harvests are earlier—not very important in Glasgow East, where there are no farms whatsoever. People felt excluded from voting because they had gone on holiday, and the arrangements did not run as well as they ought to have done.

The Bill gives the Scottish and Welsh Governments concurrent powers to introduce regulations to enable applications for postal and proxy votes for the devolved Administrations to be made online using the Government Digital Service. That will make it easier for my constituents in Carmyle, a wonderful mining village, to vote. The Bill also aligns postal voting renewal cycles. This is confusing for me, but postal voting cycles in Scotland are not aligned, and postal votes are very important for many people. That will help, for example, a postal voter in Mount Vernon who cannot get to Mount Vernon primary school to exercise their right to vote. That is important for confidence in democracy.

Other examples of divergence are set out well in the explanatory notes, which were pulled together by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and the relevant Department. It is important to minimise divergence in this area and harmonise the rules, because people will question our democracy if those in, for example, Wishaw and Tollcross—I spoke about it earlier, with its wonderful park—are subject to different rules from, say, relatives in Northumberland, Newcastle, Corby or London.

That has been the subject of comment in reports by the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, which does much important work in scrutinising election rules. I understand that PACAC also took an interest in it. It is important that these rules operate effectively so that, for example, constituents of mine in Calton and Bridgeton—voting, perhaps, at Bridgeton library, Sacred Heart primary school or Dalmarnock primary school—can cast their votes. It is important that those bodies keep this under control.

The Bill results from close working with the UK Government and the Scottish Government. The Secretary of State for Scotland has put a lot of work into ensuring that the Governments work together where possible for the good of people in Scotland.

[Peter Lamb]

My hon. Friend has highlighted PACAC’s work scrutinising elections. As Parliament’s Select Committee that is overseeing this part of the process, we produced recommendations on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole. Given that the Bill will devolve to Scottish Government representatives more delegated legislation powers around implementation, does he think it is important that we have a close link between our own Select Committees and those in Scotland and Wales, to ensure that the right lessons are learned and implemented across the whole United Kingdom, rather than just in any one of its constituent parts?

[John Grady]

That is a very good point, and I suggest that the Chair of PACAC picks it up with the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee. There are learnings from what happens in Scotland that we can apply in the rest of our family of nations, and vice versa—although I would say that there are no learnings that we can draw from the SNP Government on running a health service, which is in a catastrophic state in Scotland. Speaking of the health service, which is suffering in Scotland, it is important—

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Thou doth protest too much—I think we will just keep it to the fact that the hon. Gentleman is the most sartorially elegant member of the Labour parliamentary party, and I would be grateful, after this debate, if he could tell me where he gets his ties.

By the way, I also want to say happy anniversary to those of us who survived the last election, too—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), who is sitting on the Front Bench next to me.

I welcome the Minister being in her place. The Conservatives completely agree with her remarks on the amendment that was tabled. It is perfectly straightforward, and we support it. In a rare moment of cross-party unity, we completely echo what the Minister has said, and therefore we do not need to say much more on that.

I will just pay tribute to the four Back-Bench contributors for their remarks. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has said he is making a habit of beating Conservatives, but let us just see what happens in four years’ time—I will not predict what will happen at the next election. As I said earlier, he is a genuine friend, and I genuinely like his engaging contributions to many debates in this House; they are always backed up by the principled aims he has in any area of policy in this House—long may that continue.

The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) gave a great speech. She set out the full scope of the Bill clearly and how it will make a tangible change to many people who live in Scotland. I congratulate her on that.

Even though the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is from a rival city down the Solent from me, I thought she made an excellent contribution. She made important points on the changes to the legislation to ensure that veterans cards can be used as official ID for voting. I represent many veterans in my community, particularly naval veterans—as I know the hon. Lady does, with the home of the Royal Navy in Portsmouth North—and I know that that is a vital change that is being made. It was a commitment of the previous Government; I think it is fair to say that parliamentary time ran out, so we were unable to do that, so I am pleased that that the new Government took that forward.

The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) was right to share his expertise on devolution, and gave fascinating historical context for this Bill. I remember being in the Stag’s Head pub on the University of Southampton’s campus in 2006, when he was chairman of the university’s Labour Society and I was chairman of its Conservative Association. For transparency, I will declare that it was a lot smaller than the Labour Society. I am not sure whether he ever imagined that we would share a Chamber today. As we saw from his speech, he is a fierce defender of democracy, a fierce supporter of devolution, and a passionate defender of his beliefs and principles. I wish him well going forward.

[Peter Lamb]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his kind remarks. Given that we are talking about democratic engagement and encouraging greater participation, does he agree that there are few better ways of encouraging people to engage with the system than getting them into student politics at university?

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) just said that he could not think of anything worse, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I saw something very special in him when we battled together. He was in the year above me, though hon. Members might not think so from looking at him. I absolutely agree that universities can be at the forefront and heart of early democratic engagement, and can shape people’s views and political compass. I am perfectly willing to say in this House that my politics 15, 16 or 17 years ago were very different from my politics today. That is down to the genuinely open nature of debates in this Chamber and, most importantly, on university campuses.

I am feeling a bit left out, because the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) regularly intervened on others but has not intervened on me. He gave a staunch defence of the Bill in some particularly pertinent areas, and talked about other areas that are maybe not so pertinent. I will watch him over the next four years. I wonder how many schools in his constituency he has mentioned in his first 12 months in this House.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Peter Lamb Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

Despite the many fine contributions made by Members so far and no doubt many yet to come, planning is quite a dreary subject for many. Indeed, I heard some senior Members of this House privately describe it as such. I can well remember as a young Labour member sitting through constituency party meetings wondering why we were talking about planning for such a long time. Surely, I thought, we should want to focus on education, health and inequality. I am afraid that it took me a long time to realise—until I was one of those dreary people sitting at meetings saying these things—that planning is central not only to each of those issues, but to just about every aspect of Government policy and, indeed, to our daily lives.

Unfortunately, far too often the system and those we task with running it come under attack, including by those who should know better. Planning is attacked for delays, excessive red tape and perceptions of nimbyism. For every 10 planning applications submitted, nine are approved. That is hardly the sign of a system opposed to development. Where the system struggles is with capacity. The time it takes for a decision to be reached has increased significantly over the years, not just for the application but all the subsequent decisions required for development to commence.

[Chris Curtis]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why we need significantly more planning officers in our local authorities to ensure that we can unlock a lot of that development?

[Peter Lamb]

My hon. Friend must be reading ahead. The impact on escalating costs and viability as a result of the delays is hard to overstate. The capacity issues do not stem from laziness or as a covert form of development suppression; they stem from one issue and one issue only: the absence of sufficient numbers of planners in the public sector. The rates of pay at local authorities are massively out of kilter with the private sector. The consequence is that an increasingly small number of extremely hard-working people are left trying to keep the system afloat principally out of their public spiritedness. Yet, instead of receiving the thanks they deserve, all too often they have to deal with public rhetoric that regularly denigrates them and the work they do. I hope that I am not the first or the last in this Chamber to thank those public servants for their efforts on behalf of our communities and country.

Much needs to be done to reverse the decline in public sector planner numbers. While the Bill sets out many positive steps forward, I remain of the belief that few areas in the public sector would be better suited to, or would generate better economic returns from, the introduction of AI than planning. It could use decades’ worth of computerised training data to deal with simple applications automatically, freeing up expert human planners to deal with the cases that would genuinely benefit from a human eye.

As a former council leader, I am defensive of the record of local government in planning. However, despite my initial scepticism, I found much that is good in the new national planning policy framework and in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, showing that this Government genuinely listen to voices across the sector.

[Rebecca Smith]

Given the hon. Member’s expertise as a former council leader, would he agree that the provision in the Bill that enables councils to set fees for planning could go further, particularly around the fees that could be charged for enforcement cases? He will know the amount of hours that planning officers spend tied up in their inboxes dealing with the enforcement of rogue individuals who seem to play cat and mouse with officials. Would he agree that a look at fees might be a sensible option?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Lamb]

I have learned over the years not to look a gift house in the mouth. This is a positive step forward. No doubt other steps could be taken in future, but this is significant in enabling the system to be far more sustainable than it has been of late.

There must always be a role for local expertise and knowledge in planning decisions and democratic oversight, but that does not mean that the way we have always done things in the past needs to be the way we do it in the future. Indeed, it does not mean a better or fairer outcome, and a longer process is not always a better one. I am sure that we all have experience of planning decisions, both nationally and locally, that have taken a long time to produce the decision we all knew would be the final decision from day one, and that in no way meet the needs of residents or our community. Planners tell me that planning is a matter of balance, and in this Bill, the Government balance all the relevant considerations well.

Another example of delivering balance is in dealing with nature. Crawley has the second worst housing crisis in the country, and during my time as leader of the council, I delivered over four times the number of units as our centrally assessed Government housing target. I point out that targets are a floor not a ceiling—they in no way restrict future development.

That came to an end when Natural England unilaterally imposed water neutrality restrictions on all development in north Sussex—an area that, according to the figures, has a larger economy than most of our core cities—on the basis that it had concerns about the wellbeing of the little whirlpool ramshorn snail. As a result, since that time, housing delivery in my area has ground to a halt and economic development has been hampered, and Members would not believe the level of debate taking place on Facebook about whether Taco Bell will ever open. All the while, we are waiting for our local water company to build the water infrastructure that has been desperately needed for some time.

I have nothing against little snails, but the consequence of that decision is that, until Natural England feels that its needs have been satisfied, almost 2% of my community is trapped in temporary housing at huge cost to the public sector—not to mention the enormous human cost to those families. The ability to improve our natural environment alongside development is a vital part of being able to avoid forcing a conflict between human and environmental need. The offsetting process that the Bill delivers is exactly the change that we require.

I am also pleased to see in the Bill the development of spatial development strategies, which are a vital part of ensuring that housing needs are addressed beyond the limitations of any single authority. Anyone who has dealt with the current duty to co-operate system will recognise that it is largely a paper exercise that in no way actually delivers the housing required across sub-regions. Spatial development strategies overcome that in a coherent and planned-out way, and at a level far closer and more democratically accountable to residents than the old regional spatial strategies—a significant improvement.

This Government are finally giving the planning system the modernisation that it needs, and I very much hope that they do not stop now. With that in mind, I will end on a topic of great concern to me: affordable housing. The NPPF is right not to set out strict affordability requirements for local plans, given the differences in local viability, in addition to setting out a 15% additional requirement for greenfield land. New towns will no doubt have a significant role to play in delivering new affordable housing, as will the relatively small amount of funding allocated so far, but I believe that much more needs to be done to deliver the number of affordable homes that are needed. Although I could bore the Minister with many suggestions, I will focus on sub-regional planning through the new spatial development strategies.

Housing is not merely a numbers game. Other factors matter, not least the size and cost of housing. Although there are mechanisms for delivering overall housing numbers, in areas such as my own, where the duty to co-operate is facilitated, meeting those numbers very often delivers housing that is neither affordable nor the right type and for which there are no allocation rights. I very hope that the Government will correct those issues in their work.

Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement

Peter Lamb Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for his work in bringing forward the settlement to secure a fair deal for the sector, but, as many hon. Members have alluded to, the elephant in the room is temporary housing. That is in large part due to decisions taken by the last Conservative Government to freeze the housing benefit subsidy at 2011 levels and cap the local housing allowance at a far lower level than local housing tends to cost, with the end result being that local government is subsidising central Government’s welfare bill to an astounding extent, with two thirds of the council tax in my local area going towards paying that bill. As an advocate for the sector, will the Minister meet with counterparts in the relevant Departments to try to lift that cap, so that people are housed at a rate that is cheaper both financially and socially?

[Jim McMahon]

We come back again to the broken housing market. The need to build 1.5 million new homes is there, but—let us be clear—they have to be the right homes in the right places for the need in the local area. That means not only more social homes but council provision. We continue to see a cycle—we have all seen today’s inflation figures, which are driven by private rent—in which the taxpayer pays more and more for accommodation that is often substandard and does not even meet the decent homes standard, with no benefit to the taxpayer. We have got to rebuild council housing and social housing and make it fit for purpose and affordable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Lamb Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said, the best way to shape development in any given area is to have an up-to-date local plan in place. Where such plans are not in place, local authorities leave themselves open to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and to development via appeal, so I encourage the hon. Gentleman to ensure that his local authority has an up-to-date plan in place. That is the best way for residents to have control. We want more resident engagement upstream in those local plans.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

In five years, the cost of West Sussex county council’s Oracle upgrade has risen from £2.6 million to £28 million. Is that the kind of contract mismanagement that the Office for Local Government can look into?

[Jim McMahon]

We are currently in the process of reviewing oversight, accountability, and checks and balances to make sure that they are in place and fit for purpose, and that the early warning system works. More detail on that will follow in the English devolution White Paper before Christmas.

Building Safety and Resilience

Peter Lamb Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

I am grateful to be given the opportunity to speak on such an important topic. Much like everyone else, I have enjoyed the various maiden speeches given today. They have certainly given me a detailed lesson in local history and geography. I was startled to discover just how many constituencies apparently think they are the best. We will see if that survives the next few minutes.

I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Henry Smith. Henry and I had many areas of profound disagreement over the many years we sparred together, but one surprising area of overlap was that we are both vegetarians. Animal rights was clearly an incredibly important topic to him, and his parliamentary record shows that he served that cause diligently throughout his many years in Westminster, pursuing it at every possible level. In my time here, I hope to pursue my policy priorities just as diligently.

I also pay tribute to my Labour predecessor, Laura Moffatt. I have known Laura for many years. In fact, the first time I ever entered the Chamber was when I was a 15-year-old student at Holy Trinity, on work experience; I sat in that far corner, which I understand was not correct procedure. The support Laura has given me over the years has been incredibly significant; it contributed greatly to my being here today.

After many years of hard work, this year we had an amazing win for the reds in Crawley—I am of course speaking about Crawley Town’s league two play-off win. It was a fantastic result. For me, as one of the town’s foremost cheerleaders, it was great that for one day, we were absolutely everywhere. If people typed “Crawley” into Google, fireworks popped up in their browser.

Crawley is my home. It is where I was born and where I went to school. It is where I have fought on behalf of my community for the last 14 years as a councillor, council leader and now as an MP. I honestly believe that Crawley is not only the best constituency in the UK, but the best town outright. Our economy is a powerhouse, delivering one of the greatest concentrations of employment in the country. We are one of the UK’s most visited constituencies, even though, frustratingly, every time we are asked where we are from, we still have to add, “It’s where Gatwick airport is.”

Crawley was home to Mark Lemon, who during his tenure as editor of Punch magazine inspired fear on both sides of the House. We were home to pioneering electrical engineer Dame Caroline Haslett. More recently, Crawley has given Britain one of our leading journalists in Dan Walker, one of our most influential bands in The Cure, and the nation’s favourite—or at least most ubiquitous—comedian in Romesh Ranganathan. It has given us Gareth Southgate, England’s greatest football manager since Alf Ramsey, and victorious Paralympians Jodie Grinham and Katie-George Dunlevy.

Thanks to the long history of municipal socialism in the town—our early fathers and mothers include Alf Pegler, Bert Crane and Brenda Smith—we are blessed with fantastic facilities, such as K2, the Hawth and Tilgate Park, home to many of my happiest memories, including marrying the love of my life. I feel privileged to live in a town that has so much to offer. However, before Members pack in their constituencies and move down to mine, let me say that Crawley is not without its challenges.

Despite so many accomplished Crawleyites, social mobility in the town is the lowest in the south-east. I often have to get into real arguments with northern MPs to demonstrate that Crawley has some of the lowest social mobility in the country, far lower than most of the north. Over recent years, rising deprivation has meant that exceptionally high levels of employment have done little to assuage poverty in the constituency, and over a third of Crawley’s children are now growing up in poverty. Earlier this year, Crawley borough council became the first council in the country to declare a housing emergency. I love my town, and I am here to fight for it and solve those and other issues facing the constituency.

If there is one issue that I intend to prioritise above all others during my time in this House, it is housing, which is not only essential to solving Crawley’s immediate challenges but part of the history of the town. I fear that this part of my speech may echo many of the sentiments expressed earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis). Crawley is mentioned in Domesday Book and we are home to an Anglo-Saxon church, but the town as it is known today began in 1946 with the passage of the New Towns Act, an amazing achievement that I believe rivals Labour’s creation of the NHS. It had been intended that Crawley would be the first of the post-war new towns, but unfortunately, Stevenage pipped us to that title following a last-minute legal challenge to the development—some things never change.

In creating the town, planners drew inspiration from the garden city movement, designing each neighbourhood to be its own self-contained village incorporating a neighbourhood centre with its own school, GP, community centre and shopping parade, and fostering a strong sense of neighbourhood identity. At the centre of the town was a modern town centre, and to the north was one of the country’s largest industrial estates, located away from residential areas where pollution might affect people and providing skilled employment in light industry. Across the town, those planners built comprehensive infrastructure, green urban space and high-quality council housing, ensuring that residents from every walk of life could move to Crawley. If you talk to that first generation of new towners, they talk about being able to walk down the street and pick out which of the houses they wanted. Imagine if that were the case today! They could do that because the new town development corporations were granted the power to buy land cheaply at agricultural prices, and the ability to grant themselves planning permission to deliver at pace.

I believe that the model that worked almost 80 years ago remains the most effective means through which new housing can be delivered, in terms of quantity, quality and affordability. Indeed, the only period over the past century in which the growth in housing supply exceeded the growth in demand was when the UK was building the new towns. The lesson of history—certainly recent history—is clear: no matter how easy it is to get planning permission, builders will not build housing if that will result in a drop in house prices. Direct delivery can overcome that obstacle.

I was proud to campaign in the election on a Labour platform championing the development of new towns as an alternative to the high-cost, low-quality urban extensions and infilling that we have all too often seen. I am pleased that the Government have already announced their first site, and I hope that many more will now follow, using the same mechanisms developed and deployed by Nye Bevan to bring an end to the appalling housing conditions that the country faced in 1946. Is that not what today’s debate is about? In 1946, the country faced not only a shortage of housing but cities filled with slum housing in the most appalling conditions. A failure to learn the lessons of history has resulted in far too many homes today posing a danger to those living in them, from the horror of Grenfell Tower to the mould that eats away daily at people’s health.

The steps needed to address those risks to life are urgent and necessary. We must put residents’ safety back at the heart of housing, but we cannot forget that—now as in 1946—for too many, the choice remains between dangerous housing and no housing at all. With an intense programme of housing construction based on the new town model of the 1940s, we have the chance to bring an end to the housing shortages that affect so many of our constituencies, mine included. In the process, we can once again ensure that everyone has the dignity of a safe place that they can call home.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Tracy Gilbert to make her maiden speech.